The solution proposed by Professor Huang Guangyu is polygamy. Although this proposal sounds interesting, it doesn't seem feasible from the moral level or the practical level. China is a country with a feudal history of over 5,000 years. During the feudal society, China was in a patriarchal society, so polygamy did exist, and it didn't end until 100 years ago when the Qing Dynasty perished.
In our minds, polygamy is an obvious symbol of feudal society. The reason why polygamy was abandoned after the founding of the Republic of China was mainly because the system was unreasonable. Because women are not men's accessories, why can men marry many wives, while women can only marry one in their lifetime? And for women, there are so many other women around her husband, which is also a great test for their psychology. Similarly, it is unfair for men to adopt polyandry. Everyone is possessive, and no one can accept using his lover with others. Many years ago, women in feudal society could not accept it, and now men in civilized society can not accept it.
From a practical point of view, if polygamy is adopted, if every woman wants to have two more husbands, won't it eventually lead to a shortage of men? Moreover, if polygamy is practiced, what is the difference between modern society and feudal society? Just a gender exchange, but the essence of this matter is the same. After talking about equality between men and women for so many years, why does it seem that all of a sudden the so-called equality has begun to tilt towards women? If it is feudalism that men prefer boys to girls when they marry more wives, what is it that women marry more husbands?
However, the so-called solution proposed by Professor Huang Guangyu is more interesting than academic. And no matter from which level, the solution proposed by Professor Huang Guangyu is definitely impossible to implement in the end, because it not only violates ethics and morality, but also does not conform to the laws of nature, so it will definitely not be accepted by the state and the masses. However, even if Professor Huang Guangyu's plan is unreasonable, just listen to it, and there is no need to rise to individual scholars. After all, such a thorny social problem always needs to constantly explore solutions. If Professor Huang Guangyu's proposal doesn't meet everyone's ideas, it will be attacked by the public. Who will dare to study this issue again? What do you think of Professor Huang Guangyu's proposal? Welcome to express your opinion in the comments section.