To the Trolls: A Call for Rational Thinking
— Xie Zuoshi Oct 2015
Writing The The "30 Million Single Men" Scare Is Unfounded, my sole intention was to refute the so-called experts and scholars who, with their alarmist and unfounded fears, claim that “30 Million Single Men” will lead to serious social problems.
My reasoning was this: since prices balance supply and demand, if they can adjust flexibly, how would there possibly be shortages or surpluses? If wages were allowed to float freely, unemployment would not exist. If individuals were granted the freedom of choice, society would naturally develop its own remedies. Then the “30 Million Single Men” would no longer be a social problem.
Interestingly, however, the article sparked a deluge of abuse from people online. Some hurled insults online, others called directly to vent their anger, some sent abusive text messages, and a few even called my workplace. Their claim, surprisingly, was that I framed romantic relationships as transactional ones. My suggestion to allow polyandry to resolve the potential issue of 30 million single men was accused of undermining moral values and rendering me unfit to be a teacher.
What’s wrong with framing relationships between men and women as transactional relationships? All human relationships are, at their core, transactional. Transactions aren’t always about money. Marriage is a transaction. If you are poor, you have to have talent; if you lack both wealth and talent, you have to be young, handsome, or willing to invest emotionally. The relationship between parents and children is also transactional. Don’t take it for granted that the upbringing of children by parents is strictly altruistic; in reality, it is inconceivable for any action to occur without some form of reciprocal benefit. Setting aside the traditional concept of children as a form of old-age security, the joy children bring to parents is incomparable. In modern times, as incomes have risen, the benefits of raising children as a form of old-age security have diminished, and the willingness to have children has declined accordingly. This situation is currently unfolding in developed Western countries. Precisely because raising children is essentially an economic relationship, the Family Planning Policy is entirely unnecessary. Transaction is the noblest thing in the world. It is based on voluntariness; otherwise, it is theft, robbery, or plunder. The result of a transaction must be mutually beneficial for both parties. When two people are in love, both their faces are sure to be radiant with sweet, happy smiles. Every time I, Dāi Gē1), am always overjoyed after buying something new. I bet that salesgirl is happily counting her money too!
As for whether polyandry violates human ethics, it depends on whether there is a better alternative to fix the 30-million-single-men problem
It is an unchangeable reality for the 30 million single men. Faced with this reality, we have two choices: either we set aside our existing moral principles and allow several men to marry one woman; or we can brandish the moral stick and adhere to strict monogamy, effectively abandoning 30 million single men to a life devoid of companionship or hope, where they may develop a resentment—truely turning this into a serious social problem. Given these two options, which one would you choose?
Before accusing me of undermining traditional morality, can you come up with a solution that doesn’t undermine it? It’s not that I personally prefer polyandry—I don’t; in fact, I find it repulsive deep down. But I should not advocate depriving 30 million single men of their right to find a partner simply because I don’t like it. This is a last resort, a choice made out of sheer desperation!
Don’t lecture me on morality. If you deny 30 million single men the chance to have a partner, leaving them with no hope in life, they might resort to rape, murder, or bombings (to prevent being targeted by the moral high ground once more, let me stress that this is only a potential outcome—I am not claiming it is a certainty). Is that your idea of morality? The well-fed don’t understand the hungry. You’re blind to your own privilege in defending the doctrine—that is the greatest immorality in the world.
Some also accuse my solution of violating the law. But shouldn’t legal provisions evolve with the times? Under the planned economy, there was a crime of “speculation and profiteering”—should we still retain that today? Under the planned economy, dating two women simultaneously was punishable by law—should that still be a crime today? Faced with an issue of 30 million single men, should we rigidly cling to the letter of the law, or should we amend the law to solve the problem?
In fact, the suggestion of polyandry is not some fanciful notion I came up with out of boredom, nor am I seeking attention.
Someone online DMed me: “Professor Xie, I saw your proposal for solving the problem of single men. I agree with it despite many criticisms. In my hometown of Henan, before 1949, the practice of lā bāngtào was widespread in rural areas. A poor couple with several children would live together with a bachelor. All the neighbors knew that the bachelor was just a ‘second husband’—a free laborer who helped the couple support their family. Among the children born, some might even have been the bachelor’s. In another scenario, several brothers would pool their money to help a good-looking brother marry a wife, and they would all live together. With tens of millions of single men, this is no small matter; we can’t be pedantic2).”
Another DM said: “In the 1990s, a classmate from a remote northern village told me that in his hometown, poor young men would work away from home all year round. When they returned for the New Year, middle-aged men in the village would voluntarily let them spend the holiday with their wives. After the New Year, once the young man had spent all his money, he’d be kicked out to go back to labor work. Hearing this, I felt a deep sense of desolation.” It is clear that polyandry has existed for a long time. It exists abroad—for example, in India. It existed in China in the past, and it continues to exist today.
Insults cannot provoke me; otherwise, my nickname won’t be Dāi Gē! But I do feel a deep sense of sorrow for China’s education system. After all, people have gone through nine years of compulsory education, and many have even received higher education. Why can’t they engage rational discussion and debate, but instead instantly resort to profanity? Why are they so quick to wield the moral cudgel yet completely devoid of logical reasoning? Insulting me as you wish, but please read my article first. Do those who insult me even know what I actually said? Truth clarifies through debate; I welcome everyone to debate with me. I even look forward to a TV station organizing a debate to discuss this topic. But you must persuade with reason—skip the insults and moralizing; rely on rational analysis.
Wang Xiaobo once said: Even a male rabbit makes value judgments: female rabbits are good, big wolves are bad. Suppose there are 100 men but only 90 women—what do you suggest for this situation? Why not just undergo gender reassignment surgery to solve the surplus of single men?
A user named Tianjin You Suosi sent me a DM:
Professor Xie, I now understand the point of your article The "30 Million Single Men" Scare Is Unfounded. What this impetuous society lacks is a rational assessment of facts. Broadening the reach of economic literacy is a long, uphill battle. I hope you won’t be intimidated by unscrupulous mouthpieces and the ignorant masses, but will continue democratising economics. Your contribution is immeasurable.
A DM from a user named Lao Shi Heshang:
The merits of Dai Ge's article lies not only in spreading common sense but also in its ability to test one's IQ.
Then, I posted on Weibo:
Let’s play a little survey game: among those who oppose this article, how many are well-off? It is not that the wealthy support this article; rather, the intellect required to understand it is the very same intellect required to build wealth! After all, how can someone devoid of rational thinking ever expect to build wealth?
The more they attack, the more critical our work becomes.
— Translated by Project1985 on 2026/05/22 from 写给只会浮躁谩骂...的人们