nycfoodie

But how does your argument square with the fact that the overwhelming major of countries (including the USA) do not have a mandatory draft. The US, where you're from, stopped drafting men by the end of WWII. By your own argument, this means American men have gained rights since WWII, no?

@Jamesdaggett: "it's UNSAVED [my emphasis] for a man to walk on the street in Ukraine"

Apparently, walking the streets of Ukraine precludes men from salvation. You're (unintentionally) funny and it's a shame that you don't know it. Otherwise, you'd figure out that people are laughing at you.

Why is it that men who need to convince others they love women are usually the ones who hate women?

Citing Trump as moral & intellectual authority isn't exactly going to help your cause. But it's a predictable ( if not inevitable) move on your part.

Again, learn the difference between assertions and arguments. Prove your unsubstantiated claims.

That sounds more like it. I already knew the American public education system is a disaster, so I rated it correctly.

The fact that you're from South Korea suggests that I vastly overrated the S. Korean educational system. And no wonder S. Korea has the lowest birth rate in the world. What sane woman would want to mate with the likes of you?

Sigh. You have absolutely no clue what I'm trying to say. I'm making an analogy. Look it up.

Yes, children do not get drafted for war. Does this mean children have more rights than men? Because that's the logical conclusion of your argument. Next time, try reading and comprehending the posts to which you respond.

Wait, you said this to someone else besides me? I'm jealous!

No, you should. Just for fun. It's like taking candy from a (developmentally delayed) baby.

Men get drafted for war, but animals don't. By your attempt at an "argument," doesn't this mean animal rights overridethe rights of man?

By your logic (or lack thereof), children have more rights than adults because they get saved first during natural diasters. But then again, your entire argument is a natural disaster.

I am a guy.

I am a guy.

You're welcome! Out of curiosity
I would have looked it up sooner or later. My guess is that the dowry laws may not have been explicitly spelled out prior to the Song Dynasty, so status would have generally won out. In other words, the more rich and powerful the wife's family, the more likely she keeps her dowry (and more of it).

Your merciless massacre of the English language is the only circumstancial evidence that men have inferior (educational) rights to women. Because you have yet to provide a single shred of real evidence for your claim. Here's a hint: an assertion is not an argument. Learn the difference.

Go see any 1950s American family sitcom. That should easily disabuse you of any notion that women had equal (let alone more) rights than men post-WWII. But judging from the troll-like quality of your commentary, I won't be surprised if it doesn't.

I thought so, but I wasn't sure so I looked it up. Apparently, as of the Song Dynasty (mid-10th to late-13th centuries), a wife's dowry was officially her own personal property, so she got to keep it post-divorce from a legal standpoint. But I'm curious about the dowry laws during the Tang Dynasty (the setting for Flourished Peony), which came just prior to the Song period.

"Bootleg" websites (w/ pirated content) deserve to be shut down.