Ian Duncan-smith says unmarried men are a problem for society

[QuentinSummers]

m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59d3b8f9e4b04b9f92054af5
Seems to me there are undertones that women should be controlling men better.

Also quite a lot of blatant sexism such as men who aren't married develop "low value for women" which suggests to me that the value women hold is intrinsicly linked to their chastity/marriageability to ID'S

Interested to hear what others think because I'm being a bit inarticulate on this.

quentinsummers
No i disagree - you are not being inarticulate.
I scarcely know where to begin with this idiots pronouncements. Yes sexist definitely. Also assumptions that cohabiting is 'unstable' compared to marriage. How many marriages end in divorce these days 2 in 3 is it? ' Family breakdown ' to blame for societies ills - we've heard it all before. Poverty is at the root of many of the issues hes spouting off about.( universal credit anyone) As for his 'evidence ' the centre for social justice' is a right wing think tank. !

Anyway tbh hes a knob so why take any notice of what he says ...

IDS is out of his depths here. A familiar position.

Another way of looking at it is at these men are unmarried because their lack of respect for women makes them unattractive partners. Maybe.

Another way of looking at it is at these men are unmarried because their lack of respect for women makes them unattractive partners

Absolutely this.

Iain Duncan Smith is a problem for society.

There, fixed it.

Bleeuurgh.

Pretty much every line in that is so objectionable that its hard to know where to start. He seems to think that women exist as "anchors" for twatty men - here's a thought: If those men are incapable of acting like decent people without a woman to keep them on the straight and narrow, then perhaps a marriage to them would not be particularly enjoyable.
The golf club analogy is weird and creepy too: "People join golf clubs and they sign up for the most absurd things..." what does he mean by that?

As if being married prevents men from accessing porn on the internet or fathering multiple children (he should ask his married mate Boris about the latter. "One in five" of his children have no father figure at home).

“What has been going on all these years is the men that have been absent from these families in many of these low income groups are now a problem.
“They are out, no longer having to bring something in for their family, so they can be released to do all the things they wouldn’t normally do and shouldn’t do''

He's only blaming The Poor.
I'm only surprised he didnt advocate cold showers, National Service and arranged marriages.

Hmm

If you take out the odd diversion on golf clubs and the high-Tory bumbling, there are some messages there that I have often seen on Mumsnet.

• porn causing massive damage to the way men view women and the way that young women/girls view their sexual relationships
• absent fathers not taking responsibility for their children
• the sweet-shop approach that men, in particular, take to dating and resulting lack of commitment.

But I agree, it is not women's responsibility to sort this out in adult males.

It's like that thing in primary school where they make the sensible girl sit next to the troublesome boy in the hopes that she'll control him rather than the teacher having to.

Rather than actually deal with men being an issue, he's basically asking the nice sensible women to fix it for him.

“What has been going on all these years is the men that have been absent from these families in many of these low income groups are now a problem.
“They are out, no longer having to bring something in for their family, so they can be released to do all the things they wouldn’t normally do and shouldn’t do''

One solution might be to require men to look after their children whether they are in a relationship with the mother or not. Not paying maintenance? As much of an offence as if the resident parent doesn't properly care for their children. If he's saying that the issue is that these men don't have responsibilities and so are causing problems, that's simply not the case - these men do have responsibilities, they're just ignoring them.

Makeourfuture

Indeed!

It's a very badly written article - so much so it's unclear what IDS is actually saying. I'm all for educating boys / young men to be responsible adults, and the government could do a lot to make them live up to their responsibilities- visits from the police/ criminal convictions for not paying maintenance for example. It's also true that living seperately can be financially beneficial in the current system, but I think IDS might be confusing cause and effect here as thefallen points out - they're unmarried /single because of their problems, they don't have problems because they're unmarried. He can't really think this can he?

I think that it is more the case that unstable men end up unmarried than the other way around.

“And the alternative on the internet, now so readily available, is about abusive sex and low value for women. That is where they will go

“That’s why, certainly at the bottom end of the income scale, there is such collapse of self-worth among young girls because they see themselves as objects because they are taught from the beginning that is the only way to get a man.”

If you remove the words certainly at the bottom end of the income scale he isn't saying anything that has not been said on here.

If you remove the words certainly at the bottom end of the income scale he isn't saying anything that has not been said on here.

I think that is true.

I'm not sure that marriage would cure this however, it isn't going to stop men leaving, it isn't going to make them any more responsible if they are inclined to be irresponsible. I'm not sure how that would change anything, it isn't as if women have some sort of hold over men in marriage that they have out of it. That's not a response to you btw Lass I agree with what you have said.

But he’s not just talking about men not in relationships he’s talking about men cohabiting.

Which is crazy.

And the porn and undervaluing women bit is ridiculous because it’s not just unmarried men who do that.

And the porn and undervaluing women bit is ridiculous because it’s not just unmarried men who do that.

Precisely.

As for it being about co-habiting men too I just think it's a load of BS. As someone up thread said a great deal of these issues are more to do with poverty. The porn aspect is about society and how it has become more of a porn culture. This isn't down to women; it is down to men like Hugh Heffner who was lauded in death by many as if his contribution to the mess we find ourselves in now wasn't a toxic stirring spoon. Seeing marriage as a cure to all modern society's ills is frankly ridiculous.

Thanks everyone, glad it's not just me.
He has correctly highlighted some of the issues men cause in society, just his solution is to cock

Many feminists may agree that porn and undervaluing women is a problem, but I don't know very many feminists who believe that the solution is a return to the days when everyone married and stayed married. Just because marriages lasted longer in the "good" old days, doesn't mean that they were happy marriages, nor that the men in them were respectful and faithful.

He's a dick. The reason single men are 'a problem' is because wages are so fucking low people can't afford accommodation as a couple let alone on their own, but if the can, they then can't afford to date. They are basically in prison.. Asleep, eat, work, sleep. So when the world of work will only give you just enough to stay alive to work, you start to really resent the world.

It's ids and Conservative failure to do anything but Victorianise the economy that is the fucking problem.

I saw a member of that think tank speak. The guy faked an award in his introduction to sound important, and went on to demonstrate he can't think properly when it comes to economics and education, and thought that name-dropping 'speaking to the board of arsenal' was more relevant than the simple football analogy that we were trying to get his head around.

Ho hum.

I wonder how many of those stressed out malnutritioned, scared, precarious, quasi homeless men would change is maybe they were given two million pound houses, a government salary over £150,000 a year, a massive expenses account and a car.?

Spot on scaryclown.

Have I misunderstood or isn't this religiously motivated advocacy? Because surely otherwise IDS would need just a moment's thought to see that this is sexist and blaming the wrong people for social problems? And that he is not taking any political responsibility or suggesting a workable policy solution?

squishy this article puts the Boris statistic up to 2 out of 6 of his (alleged) total of children www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/21/boris-johnson-fathered-child-affair

My god.

I just read the article. The man's a fucking imbecile.

He has completely misunderstood fucking everything!

Men aren't 'released'. men who can't afford family, who feel miserable all the time, and don't have enough to live properly on fucking hate themselves, and are extremely unhappy, which manifests in unhealthy diversion behaviour, but without economic status men become less 'marryable'..

My god.

It's like saying 'cold tea unboils kettles'

Maybe the answer is to put all the single idiot men into the army, like the nights watch.
Better than inflicting them on some poor woman.

Well, on the one hand, it's nice to see the finger pointed at men for a change! Normally it's single women who are painted as the social rejects.

But it's true that a lot (not all) single men are just so disrespectful to women that they're not desirable partners.

He sees it as either/or, if they don't get a wife they use low value women but of course the fact that they (and he!) sees it as either or. And a low value woman is the OBVIOUS substition for a high value woman, it's all a bit Madonna Whore and it's also saying that women are low value because men create the demand for ''low value women''. Gosh.

What.