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.

I don't even know what TERF and SWERF mean.

Why are you using them to make a dismissive point about identity politics then? They are slurs about feminists. Do you really think that's appropriate?

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist
Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminist

www.terfisaslur.com

Go on, take a look

Because I don't like id politics very much, whether of the right or left. It's an intellectually dense attempt to codify a complex world of dynamic power relations. Furthermore, it is completely in line with the cultural logic of capitalism - the emphasis safely transferred from economics to categories of cultural identity. Because really it's just the algorithmic segmentation of humans into repositories of monetiseable data. Because it's divisive and crypto-reactionary, defining people by the colour of their skin or their gender rather than their shared underlying humanity.

Well doh, and yet, men got all the breaks. So enter stage left finally, feminism.

I agree with sparrow, it's been explained to you so well. You cannot acknowledge it because it means facing up to the fact that in a world where there is above average performance there must also be below average.

Easier to obfuscate, miss the point, answer questions with more questions and channel your energies in to arguing black is white on internet fora.

You cannot acknowledge it because it means facing up to the fact that in a world where there is above average performance there must also be below average.

Sorry what do you mean by that? genuine question.

Well that's a very convenient way for a man to frame it. "I don't see race".

Did you look at my link? Find an example where men are subject to the same violently sexual fantasies directed at them just for expressing an opinion and standing up for their rights. Go on. And yet you dismiss identity politics as a frivolous distraction? That's a luxury women don't have.

Why is a dismissal of id politics at odds with condemning misogyny?

I've just spelt it out for you.

John, it is simple. You cannot accept male privilege because that means your disappointments and your failures are your own, and not only that, they are despite your privileges.

It is tedious at this point.

John

It's all too easy for you to think that this is just a bunch of women clicky clicking on a forum.

A feminist forum. A forum that is dedicated to the rights of women. You want a forum that is dedicated to the rights of humanity.

As this forum is about women, that is what it promotes.

You have dismissed identity politics as tedious. But it cuts right to the heart of women's rights. In a way that hasn't happened in decades. It is pulling the rug out from women everywhere. And is very concerning. Women's rights, women's forums, literally have no voice if you cannot define the word woman.

What have women done about it?

Feminists have been talking about it for some time. The last two years the discourse has intensified due to the imminent law changes.

Numerous sites, blogs, vlogs, YouTube videos, Twitter accounts, and Facebook pages have been set up with the sole purpose of countering the ideology.

Women have connected quite spectacularly over social media. Pushing the same agenda. Sharing the same studies, articles, scientific resources.

They have steadily and painstakingly talked to other women, made them understand, recruited their support. They have written to MPs, schools, scientists, organisations, universities, journalists, broadcasters and mainstream media. They have used the freedom of information act to obtain statistics.

They have spent a quite staggering amount of time writing, talking, sharing, opining, supporting and informing eachother.

As each battle arose, they fought it tooth and nail. As soon as someone found the courage to speak out in public, they were inundated with messages of support, appreciation and heartfelt thanks from literally thousands of women who all contacted each other to spread the word and encourage more people.

In just the last few weeks, journalists, MPs and some noted people on Twitter have started to understand. They are questioning. They are listening. Finally.

Mainstream media have written more gender critical articles in the last two weeks than I have seen in the last two years. Or ever.

Because women have fought tirelessly to be shown the smallest respect for their wishes, as they have always done. It's exhausting. It's against all the odds. And scandalous that it has to be done.

But it is being done. It will be done.

So no, it's not pointless clicky clicking on a forum.

You're obviously not a stranger to social media. If something is important to you and you want to try and fix it, instead of marching onto a feminist forum and asking women to do it for you, why don't you sit down, draw a big breath and take a leaf?

And, I might add, they have done all this with constant and repeated threats of violence and rape. They have been villified and attacked online, and relentlessly doxxed. Their friends and family have been contacted and threatened. Their work has been contacted and urged to fire them or clients exhorted to boycott them. Petitions have been set up which silence, censor and no platform them. Numerous venues booked for discussion have been threatened and harassed so they pull out. Women only festivals are terminated due to safety, the most notable of which has been going for 40 years. They have been stalked and tracked online and in real life. Culminating a few weeks ago with a woman being punched in the face, in public, in front of dozens of witnesses, for daring to speak.

So maybe let feminists deal with the issue of females for now, and once that's sorted out, then perhaps they can tackle humanity for you.

These economic issues are feminist issues. We fight the same daemons.

It is being widely reported, for instance, that levels of personal debt have increased dangerously. It may be that this is due to the aforementioned "blokes" gambling and drinking louts lager. But it may also be about poor mothers struggling to keep the heat on.

John. Google (perhaps start on those petition sites, I'm sure they have lots of ideas for armchair activism). There's lots of things you could be doing rather than coming onto the feminist board and telling us how women should fight for your dream socialist world.

An now I'm re-blocking you, because frankly, you derail every thread you'r on and I'm fed up of having the exact same conversations with you, and watching everyone else exasperatingly do the same.

John, it is simple. You cannot accept male privilege because that means your disappointments and your failures are your own, and not only that, they are despite your privileges.

In other words if someone is poor they are to blame for being so. That is the right-wing ideology of our time to a tee.

These economic issues are feminist issues. We fight the same daemons.

Sure, and lots and lots of feminists are on the political left, and do and say an awful lot of good. Feminism is a very broad church, extending from the left to the kind of views expressed by LoQuacious.

I think men are so used to have women as slaves to do things for them that there's sort of a collective expectation from men that they'll never have to do any real hard work - that they can have a baby but never get up in the night with it, that they can own a house but never do anything to contribute to its upkeep, that they can have political views but never actually do anything about them.

You know that feeling that no one wants to do anything for you John? Welcome to women's lives since the dawn of time. Sucks doesn't it?

In fact, to really replicate women's lives you'd not only have to argue that the poor people are to blame for being poor, you'd also have to prevent them from voting, deny them education, legalise raping them, prevent them from having careers, deny them custody of their children, turn a blind eye to their partners beating them up, etc etc etc.

My complaint is not just with identity feminism, but all this new cultural politics - the queer and trans politics. People need to be mindful of how progressive ideologies can be used to legitimate economic inequality. Left-wing identity politics rests on some very neoliberal assumptions, which is why it has grown in direct parallel with the rise of the new right and market deregulation. If the outcomes of economic inequality are transferred onto categories of identity, then that suits the ruling economic elite very well.

Thank you, thank you so much Loquacious for putting it so perfectly.

As Loquacious said, in spite of my privilege I still do not have much money - therefore I am deficient. If you see the whole world in terms of cultural politics then the logical conclusion is that the situation of the white, male, homeless guy is deserved. Think about it: he has all this privilege and yet he is still homeless. How come? What possible reason could there be other than that he is lazy or otherwise deficient as an individual? There is none is there? And then you realise these people are saying much the same thing as IDS.

So I think the undue emphasis on identity politics is actually impeding the fight against economic inequality.

Furthermore, I don't want to guess what the average income is in this forum, but it has not escaped my notice that many of the people these days bemoaning their lack of privilege are in economic terms some of the most privileged people in the world.

I think men are so used to have women as slaves to do things for them that there's sort of a collective expectation from men that they'll never have to do any real hard work

There you go again. I mean, obviously you have a point in terms of some guy lazing about the house drinking beer or some-such. But if you're extending this logic to guys on welfare and in homeless shelters and saying 'fuck them, they just don't have what it takes' then....well, you don't get to call yourself a socialist.

If that is the logic then this is a problem and it is quite legitimate to raise it in a context like this.

No, I'm talking about you, gentlemanjohn, complaining about feminism while doing absolutely fuck all yourself.

I'm not interested in talking about me. My point is expressed above: it is a pertinent one I think. Engage with it if you wish.

John, I haven't put my block up again, you misunderstand privilege I think.

It doesn't mean that all men are in a better place than all women. It means that if a woman was in the identical situation as you, you would have the advantage - a man's name on a CV is more likely to get estimated as more competent, and receive a higher starting salary. A man hasn't been told his whole life that it's dangerous for him to walk home alone, so is more likely to take that bar job that finishes at 1am, a man is less likely to have children to look after, a man, going to the doctor is more likely to come out with pain relief and a diagnosis etc.

Or, you know, you can continue assuming that we're just saying that we're better than you and you're shit and deserve everything you get. Up to you really. I'm putting that block up now, because by this point, I just don't care what you have to say. Perhaps it's all a bit self-fulfilling.

Spaghetti, so what possible reason might there be for the guy's homelessness other then personal deficiency?

Just answer this one question, if you would.