Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

603 replies

QuentinSummers · 04/10/2017 08:01

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.

OP posts:
HandbagKrabby · 09/10/2017 15:07

I'm reading that women should not get on whilst there are poor or disadvantaged men. Women should always put themselves second to men and if they're not, it's not fair and they're uncaring bitches. It's not women running the world is it? Not one word about poor women and how they're currently disadvantaged is there?

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 15:09

No, no one should be callous.

No one.

It was wrong for men to be violent and callous then. It is wrong for men to be violent and callous now. It's wrong for women to be callous now.

It is not a good way for any HUMAN BEING to be.

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 15:11

Thanks for the guidance John, I'll take it under advisement. Again your male privilege is flapping about the place. It is absolutely laughable that you would think you have the right to tell me how to be. And yet men believe they have every right to lecture women.

I presume you do a lot of work to help homeless men?

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 15:12

No, no one should put themselves second to anyone. That is all I am saying.

Literally that.

If you take the delight in the misery of someone else, whether that's a East European prostitute in a brothel you're using as a fuckbag or a rough sleeper gloat at then you're not a nice person. You're a nasty person. Nice PEOPLE do not do things like that.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 15:12

Yes I've helped at the shelter in town and I volunteer at a food bank.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 15:14

Sorry, but if you say something really objectionable on a public forum then you can't complain when people object. You think you can say whatever you like and anyone who disagrees with anything you say is a 'mansplainer' or a 'hand-maiden' or some-such.

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 15:15

And women have to be nice, first and foremost, no matter how awful men are to them. Men rape thousands of women, but women are horrible for laughing. Jesus.

And do you do anything specifically to help women john?

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 15:18

Are you saying women should be exempt from ALL standards of conduct and behaviour? That's absurd.

You cannot justify stupid, nasty things you have said on the basis that you're a woman. If you're a member of an oppressed group that doesn't mean that you can say what you like without people calling you out.

makeourfuture · 09/10/2017 15:20

The problem is our system is using up resources too fast. Too we are interconnected. Any war runs the danger now of becoming global. And there are billions and billions who see our western ways on the internet and TV and want them. Our climate is changing. People are being displaced by the millions. Strong men are rising.

This is the reality. Whatever the faults of socialism, this is the curse of capitalism....probable extinction....or at least an unimaginable culling.

HandbagKrabby · 09/10/2017 15:21

Well you are because really what you're saying is that it's not fair if women are successful if there are men in the world that are not and those successful women should be doing something to help unsuccessful men in order to level the playing field for men. Nothing about what successful men should be doing (i.e. 95%+ of the people who are actually in power and hold the world's wealth) and nothing about the poor vulnerable women who are shit on by everyone that you don't give a monkeys about because it doesn't fit your narrative.

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 15:22

No, I'm saying that if women are held to standards of behaviour that are about a million miles higher than the standards held for men, then fuck that. If we're taking a count of stupid things said on this thread, you outstrip me by an absolutely enormous number (no markets before 16th Century?!!)

I'm still waiting to hear what things you do specifically to help women John.

makeourfuture · 09/10/2017 15:27

Deep down I think many men are absolutely shitless that if women get enough power they're going to treat men the way men treat women and they know that's not going to be good

I am unconcerned about this possible scenario.

But if, when you do take over, you continue down the path we are on, our species will expire.

Your challenge is far bigger than you realise.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 15:30

No, I'm saying that if women are held to standards of behaviour that are about a million miles higher than the standards held for men, then fuck that.

No - all people....ALL OF THEM...should be held to exactly the same standards. I completely agree with feminists on this, and I'll give an example. Suppose a guy is married, and he has sex with his secretary. He tells the lads at the office on the quiet and he gets a pat on the back. Now that man is an asshole. He is a liar; he is a cheat; he is a sexual predator. Now imagine a female boss does exactly the same think with a male junior colleague. It gets out and she is called a 'slag' and a 'whore'. Is this a sexist double standard? Too damn right it is? Is it wrong? Of course. But does it mean that the women is not too an asshole? Nooo.

It means they are both assholes who should be judged by EXACTLY the same moral standard.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 15:33

Well you are because really what you're saying is that it's not fair if women are successful if there are men in the world that are not and those successful women should be doing something to help unsuccessful men in order to level the playing field for men.

No I'm not. I don't want anyone to have success at anyone else's expense. I don't want lots of men in work and poor women. No.

I was saying that the new economy is more congenial to women in some ways as a point of fact.

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 15:34

What specifically do you to help women john?

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 15:37

Like what? I have helped some through my work at the food bank.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 15:38

Guess I could say I'm only going to help organise the boxes that go to women, but that would be a bit weird wouldn't it?

Jaxhog · 09/10/2017 15:39

Society works best IMHO when men and women respect each other and work together towards common goals. But are single men more of a problem to society than married men? I suspect they are, because married men are more likely to be making a strong commitment to a family.

“Only one out of three children born to cohabitating parents remains in a stable family through age 12, in contrast to nearly three out of four children born to married parents.”

So I don't believe that cohabiting men are as committed. (I'm sure many people will have examples of committed cohabittees, but the facts speak for themselves).

Does this mean that cohabiting and single men are less committed to society? I suspect it does.

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 15:51

I'm just wondering, seeing as you reckon I should be so concerned about men who are homeless, what it is you do specifically to help women? Or do you do nothing, really?

AssassinatedBeauty · 09/10/2017 15:54

Simply getting married is not sufficient for an unstable cohabiting relationship to turn into a stable married relationship. The getting married part is not causal, it is a consequence. The type of people who marry are different to the type of people who cohabit, generally. So one does not become the other just by dint of getting married.

SpaghettiAndMeatballs · 09/10/2017 16:10

I was saying that the new economy is more congenial to women in some ways as a point of fact.

in which ways John?

HandbagKrabby · 09/10/2017 16:14

And? How many men of working age were brought up to think their role in life is to primarily look after others?

I'm a woman and it's taken me my whole life to see some of this stuff and some of it I've had to live through to truly see it. It's infuriating that a bloke who's read a few Wikipedia articles about communism and socialism and feminism thinks they have the last word on what's it's like to be a woman in today's society.

Slimthistime · 09/10/2017 16:43

I know IDS is a bit mad but I really am lost where he is going with all of that.

Is it just part of a moral panic that people won't marry or something? Quite why he thinks certain things don't happen outside marriage - e.g. commodification of women - is beyond me.

LemonysSnicket · 09/10/2017 16:50

Has he thought that maybe some men remain unmarried BECAUSE of their delinquent/ criminal/ alcoholic/ behaviour and low image of women?

It’s not our job to keep them on the straight and narrow. Not all women are gagging to marry their SO. Perhaps, men should monitor their own behaviour and if they’re so naturally inclined to society-damaging behaviour then surely we should be looking at the root cause and not the supposed ‘bandage’ he says marriage applies.

Fuck Nut

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 16:50

All IDS is saying is that pesky women aren't doing their duty by being wanksocks/domestic appliances for hideous men any more and it's annoying because then the government has to deal with those hideous men.

Swipe left for the next trending thread