NY Times Propaganda Shames Chinese Women for Seeking Early Marriage
BEIJING – Divide and conquer, destroy the enemy’s soldiers, burn their fields, and take their women. This is more or less the time-proven formula of war and conquest, is it not? The Christian Bible puts it this way: “The Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and children.” (GE 34;13-29)
Western colonialism was a bit like that, too; although a lot less killing is involved if you’re going to set up puppet regimes, woo the elites, and take over the socio-historical narrative. In the 20th century, however, the Western powers suddenly decolonized the world. Why? Not because the powers were defeated or overthrown by the colonized… no! The powers decolonized the colonies because large-scale physical occupation was no longer required: There are plenty of other, more subtle ways to “destroy one’s enemy, burn their fields, and take their women.” It’s a metaphor now for warfare and conquest as an economic or intellectual activity; for example: in the way our former colonies –or semi-colonies in the case of China– are smeared in Western flagship media such as the New York Times; in particular in the way how we shame Chinese masculinity and tell the Chinese women that they are repressed.[i] This often happens in the most mean-spirited, confrontational manner, say, by quoting plain Chinese folks (they can’t be wrong, can they?) on how Beijing is so repressive that “I have feared that I could wind up like her one day: a victim of a sickening physical violation perpetrated by a Chinese government intent on enforcing its draconian one-child policy.” In fact, it’s gotten so bad in China now, according to a New York Times’s witness, that she shall “never have children so that sterilization surgery would never be inflicted upon me.”
The last citation is from an opinion piece entitled ‘Still No Dignity for Chinese Women,[ii] which is little dignity for Chinese women: The New York Times’s aim here is also the New York Times’s gain. We are liberating Chinese women, and we are having the exclusive interviews for you: “One woman told me that, because marriage in its current form basically benefits men, ‘the most rational choice is to stay single.’”[iii]
The New York Times with its US colonial master narrative and -tactics is brilliant at patronizing the women of foreign cultures and nations. Infamous are its spiteful campaigns against Muslims, for example this one from the NY Times Sunday Review: ‘The Sexual Misery of the Arab World’.[iv] Japan, Russia, and India, too, are constantly talked down to for their men’s alleged sexism and misogyny (women-hating).
The shaming of Chinese women in the New York Times in particularly rich, since it offers fanatical feminists to parasite their personal misandry (men-hating) into the paper’s political suspicion and hostility. The Chinese government is to blame: “Women, meanwhile, must be married by 27; after that they are branded sheng nu or ‘leftover women.’ (This derogatory term – whose prefix ‘sheng’ is the same word used in ‘leftover food’ – was listed as a new word in 2007 by the Chinese Ministry of Education.);” or: “With no welfare system in China, the young are expected to provide for the old: whom you marry matters for your entire family.”[v] The underlying principle: If only China had a Western government, or Western-style government, and Western feminists…, so that Chinese women would not be forced to marry at 27, would not have a Ministry of Education listing a derogatory term in the Chinese dictionary, and would have a proper US welfare system so that women were no longer expected to provide care for the family.
The American delusion that Chinese women are “forced” by an evil Communist regime to marry while they are still young and picky must raise the blood pressure for millions of fanatic US social justice warriors, white knights, and feminazis: How dare you, China! How dare you!
“The state media sends out a constant barrage of sexist messages, saying that educated, urban women past their late-20s are spoiled goods and will never be able to find a husband unless they stop focusing so much on their careers,” says feminist Leta Hong Fincher, the wife of a former New York Times China correspondent, Michael Forsythe, in her interview with the New York Times by Didi Kirsten Tatlow, a mutual friend.[vi]
The part biological drive and part social tendency of Chinese women to ideally wanting a successful and wealthy husband –besides wanting the best housings, the best jobs, and the best higher education for their kids – is completely un-American, is it not? So stop it, China! It’s unhealthy! Rather, we should “encourage women to enjoy the men they find handsome,” quotes Didi Kirsten Tatlow in another The New York Times piece: ‘Adding Sex to the Chinese Dream’.
Ms. Tatlow is not a particle when it comes to quoting nonsensical bullshit, say when she promotes a feminist artist, Ms. He Changyao, who discovered a way… hold your breath… to work “with the naked female body as subject, not object,” which is fascinating as it completely obliterates the causal relation between artist and artwork, the latter which, as a matter of speech, could not yet be sold, nor be written about, as nobody seems career-suicidal enough to embarrassingly point to the correct grammatical object of such sentencing, lest the poor critic were to be labeled a straight (white?) male chauvinist pig and objectifier of women.
It is useless to discuss all the plain folks and strawmen planted in those New York Times articles, as the ideologues are cherry-picking whatever they feel will serve their conspiracy theory against masculinity: “By now though, I don’t care, as I think there’s a plot behind it. It’s an admonishment to women, it’s telling us what to do, where and when.”[vii]
And it doesn’t help if the New York Times invites Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize Laureate, to argue in an op-ed that it’s less the Chinese government, but “much more [the] reasoned family decisions in favor of a new norm of smaller families.”[viii] What would Mr. Sen know about female oppression; he’s a privileged male patriarch, isn’t he!
The stupidity and academic dishonesty in some of the feminist articles is mind-blowing, for example, when, in her ‘Enduring Prejudices of Gender Woven into Chinese Language’,[ix] Ms. Tatlow advocates the “theory” that the Chinese language is sexist toward women, and parades a jazz-musician, teacher, translator, linguist, philosopher, program director, and co-podcaster David Moser, as the academic expert on this. Moser just co-podcasted Didi’s New York Times’ friend, Leta Hong Fincher, and now gets rewarded with his own mentioning in the New York Times [they are busily cross-referencing each other, what have you been doing?!]. So here is what Moser says: “In everyday language, how many Chinese speakers are aware that, in every set phrase with male-female gender reference, the male always comes first?” The alleged proof to this feminist “theory”? Says Moser: A married couple is ‘fu-nu’, a husband and wife; parents is ‘fu-mu’, father and mother. Well researched, Sir. Not. How about ‘yin-yang’, that’s female-male! Of course the quack didn’t mention that! He would never have made it into the New York Times. Academic integrity is a waste of time for the New York Times that wants to shock and anger millions. See, the propaganda machines likes it hyperbally and click-baitzy, catchy and over-the-top: Everything is sexist; everything is misogynic in China –even their f@%*ng language! Wooaah!
Imagine if men behaved like crazy New York Times feminists: The Chinese character ‘hao’ as in: ‘Ni hao!’ (Good day) also means “yes” and “ok” or “like” and “love” and “being found of” and it consists of two radicals: ‘nu’ and ‘zi’ –a “woman and a man,” or a “daughter and a boy.” Ah! This must be clear “evidence” of major gender prejudices woven into the Chinese language: the female always precedes the male in all things yes and good!
It gets better: Ms. Tatlow’s dishonesty beggars belief… it truly does… when she starts her piece: “What if ‘womanwomanwoman’ were the English word for rape, defilement, adultery?” Well, it isn’t! And neither is the Chinese character ‘jian’ which means “wicked, evil, treacherous, or traitor” according to the Oxford Dictionary! Only if you do ‘qiang’ or “violence” to a ‘womanwomanwoman’, that’s written ‘qiangjian!’ and only if it’s ‘qiangjian’ does it translate into English “to rape.” So, ‘violence’ to ‘womanwomanwoman’ (qiangjian) means “to rape” – that’s kind of making linguistic sense, doesn’t it? But those lexical facts and linguistic details would completely debunk Ms. Tatlow’s feminist theory, so she simply omits them: “That is roughly how the Chinese character ‘jian’ translates, as it is made up of three characters for “woman,” ‘nu’.” What this journalist fraud also doesn’t tell you, of course, is that while female ‘womanwomanwoman’ [‘jian’] means “wicked” or “treacherous,” it’s male counterpart ‘manmanman’ “[‘zhuan’] means “weak” or “cowardly.” Oops, so three characters for “man,” ‘zi’, has negative connotations, too! How inconvenient for the New York Times! You know what, let’s omit these facts too!
The “evidences” cited by Ms. Didi Kirsten Tatlow and her David Moser “expert” are complete nonsensical and do not support the conclusion drawn (“prejudices of gender woven into Chinese language”). It is one thing to try to empower women; it is another to fabricate stupid “theories” to support your crazy ideology.
In journalism, such techniques are called selective reporting –or “shoehorning” in propaganda slang. It’s not illegal to exaggerate, twist, tort, and warp the “facts.” After all, the journalist didn’t say anything; the journalist just quoted somebody else saying it. Go complain, suckers! Only… They can’t! All comment sections in the New York Times are censored. [But that’s another story…]
Ms. Tatlow knows the other journalistic trickeries, too; like associating a few big names to feign legitimacy for her cause, names such as the “United Nation’s International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women,” or “Human Rights Day, signaling 16 days of global activism against gender violence […].”
So that’s “the sexist problem” in China propagated by our propaganda media. Unsurprisingly, then, the propaganda media also offer us “the solution.” The solution for China of course is American-style bourgeois liberal feminism. In the US propaganda universe, that means that everyone in China who calls herself a “feminist” is now protected by American media and, eventually, by US politicians. So, when a group of five radical feminists were arrested last year for indecent behavior in public, and later released, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the self-declared radical feminist and two-times presidential candidate front-runner, shamed the president of China at the United Nation: “Xi hosting a meeting on women’s right at the UN while persecuting feminists? Shameless.”[x] Shameless, of course, is our propaganda media: The New York Times had previously sponsored the said feminists –here,[xi] here,[xii] here,[xiii] and here.[xiv]
American propaganda press and its patronizing of foreign females will not stop. To put it another way: The “oppressed” women from Beijing to Shanghai to Guangdong seek education, a job, and early marriage…the Chinese way! As if westernization never was a thing! That must not be tolerated! Especially Chinese have no right to cultural opinion. Of course their ‘education’ ideally is American. Their ‘careers’ are best with Western patrons. And their ‘marriages’… ah, their attitude towards marriage is best left to Western feminists.
[i] The New York Times, Chinese Proverbs about Women, NYT archives 1875, New York
[ii] The New York Times, Still No Dignity for Chinese Women, Nov 10, 2015, New York
[iii] The New York Times, Q. and A.: Leta Hong Fincher on ‘Leftover Women’, May 14, 2016, New York
[iv] The New York Times, The Sexual Misery of the Arab World, Feb 12, 2016, New York
[v] The New York Times, Romance With Chinese Characteristics, Aug 12, 2012, New York
[vi] The New York Times, Q. and A.: Leta Hong Fincher on ‘Leftover Women’, May 14, 2016, New York
[vii] The New York Times, Rejecting the ‘Leftover Women’ Label, April 23, 2013, New York
[viii] The New York Times, Amartya Sen: Women’s Progress Outdid China’s One-Child-Policy, Nov 2, 2015, New York
[ix] The New York Times, Enduring Prejudices of Gender Woven Into Chinese Language, Dec 2, 2015, New York
[x] The New York Times, China Has Tart Response for Hillary Clinton Over Women’s Rights, Sept 28, 2015
[xi] The New York Times, Meet the 5 Women’s Rights Activists China Detained, Apr 6, 2015, New York
[xii] The New York Times, News Analysis: Despite Release, Feminists’ Case Shows China’s Hostility Toward Civic Action, Apr 14, 2015, New York
[xiii] The New York Times, China’s Feminist Awakening, May 13, 2015, New York
[xiv] The New York Times, Taking Feminist Battle to China’s Streets, and Landing in Jail, Apr 5, 2015, New York