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.

Women have to compete more and more for less and less suitable men
no you've got it wrong, men are remaining un partnered because women are increasingly waking up and seeing that they have very little reason to partner up with a man, they can have better lives if they stay single.
Once you let a man lock you down into a relationship the man becomes a burden that you want to escape from.

Woman are not competing for men they are avoiding forming partnerships with them.

In every other mammal species the Male competes for the female
and?
how is that relevant?
You're not going to make some sort of evolutionary psychology case are you
or are you saying you'd prefer the life of...I dont know, a wolf, a hamster, some other mammal?

So true. It can be lonely but the available men are awful (47 have done OLD)

No but he's talking about those who supposedly control power structures at the top of society and a whole load of Marxist social, historical and economic theory.

This is why the revolution was necessary, to overthrow those who controlled the means of production so as to produce a fair society...and why George orwell's critique in animal farm was so devastatingly cutting.

Look like I said, I disagree with the solution but as far as das kapital goes it's a pretty good description of capitalism and there is a certain resonance with the failures that modern society has. He's just pointing out that feminism is part of the capitalist system now and that capitalism uses everyone.

Sorry meant that to be a reply to:

Is it a zero sum game?

"You're not going to make some sort of evolutionary psychology case are you"

Ha, me? heaven.forfend its the evolutionary biologists that get trotted out by the pornographers and the plastic surgeons and the purveyors of lap dancing clubs and brothels etc to explain why men just have to need those things: men are evolutionary predisposed to take your pic: big boobs, tiny waist, sow their wild outs, young women, etc. all to make women feel constant state of insecurity but what is not part of the background noise is the most obvious thing which is the brightest plummage et al is always on the male bird/animal. not the female.

(eh obviously so as to attract a mate to him not the other way around as capitalism would have us pluck, peel, wax, shove, our lady bits around all to do!)

dearth of males ready to have children make us almost a low sex ratio community
wrong again, it's not that women continue to see being a wife and mother as something to aim for but cant find men who will make good fathers, more that women are increasingly seeing there are other better options

Women have to compete more and more for less and less suitable men
no you've got it wrong, men are remaining un partnered because women are increasingly waking up and seeing that they have very little reason to partner up with a man, they can have better lives if they stay single.

This is it - we don't have to partner up with a man - that situation was artificially created by stopping us from working and writing laws as though men were the real people and we were just property.

The laws are there now - we don't have to have men if we don't want them, so our standards can be higher. Men can either meet these standards, or not - up to them - it's not our problem to solve though, it's the men that need to raise their game.

Of course, yes, it could all go to some apocalypse level of shit, but for now, I'll assume that with a little wriggling back and forth, civilisation will stay much as they have for the last couple of hundred years, and, much as women fought their way out of the kitchen and into the workplace, men worth having will fight just as hard to get out of the workplace and into the kitchen.

What reason is your theoretical man homeless man homeless? No chuffing clue, he's a theoretical construct in your mind to allow you to engage in sophistry in an attempt to attack feminism, so I guess that's the reason he's homeless, as he wouldn't exist as a concept otherwise.

OK, why are people in general homeless. Why has homelessness gone up and up and up over the past three decades?

What has this got to do with feminism?
Women are also homeless. And they're in more danger when they are.

Woman are not competing for men they are avoiding forming partnerships with them.

I think this is absolutely true. The monogamous, loving relationship will die out eventually. Whether you think that's good or not entirely rests on your perspective. People no longer have one job, so why should they have one partner for life? Technological sex aids and virtual sex will further advance and offer consumers the sexual release they need - all without the bother of a person.

I don't think men will be needed by women at all in the future. Bio-technology will develop that will enable conception and reproduction to take place in secure laboratories. The only danger with that though is that designer babies will only be available to wealthy women. Then the 'erotic capital' of the sexual marketplace is joined by the genetic capital of the reproductive one.

capitalism uses everyone

True.

Indeed women are.

I want someone to tell me why a man might be homeless if he has all this privilege. Just give one possible reason. Anything.

Why could he be homeless?

Wrt the issue of women just not accepting lazy, selfish, sexist, unattractive men as partners anymore, obviously women's financial independence makes them less desperate to shack up with a fat lazy selfish man. I can understand why men who can only aspire to be mediocre if they work hard, lose a stone and get a raise HATE feminism. They can't get a bargain anymore.

Bio-technology will develop that will enable conception and reproduction to take place in secure laboratories

Birthrates are naturally falling anyhow. I would image that yes, children will be some sort of status symbol soon.

Contemporary feminism is not just a form of identity politics, capitalist or otherwise.

The identity type form of feminism is not even particularly dominant on this board.

Feminism is not overwhelmingly about giving some women a chance to get a leg up in a capitalist system. It's about women having basic rights.

One of those rights, and a very liberating one for many women, is the ability to set up a household and/or a family without the presence of a man.

I'm all for a marxist analysis, but remember that analysis considers women to be a reproductive class, and that liberating women from the control and oppression associated with that should be a major focus of any left wing movement.

Feminism is not some add on identity politics. The specific demands on the female body and the control of that body under capitalism is critical to a left wing analysis.

As ususal you are obfuscating by asking the wrong questions.

Just because something bad happens to a small percentage of men does not mean that men do not still enjoy male (white) privilege.

I can understand why you personally aren't doing so well. You don't understand this simple fact

fat lazy selfish man. I can understand why men who can only aspire to be mediocre if they work hard, lose a stone and get a raise HATE feminism. They can't get a bargain anymore.

Not good loquacipus. Surely a 'feminist' should be the last person shaming people for being fat?

Downright nasty.

The lazy, entitled stuff is fine - but not fat!

Just give one reason why the guy might be homeless!

There's loads of obvious ones.

Just because something bad happens to a small percentage of men does not mean that men do not still enjoy male (white) privilege.

Forget about me and why I'm not doing well - let's focus on homeless men. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of them.

So why are they there? Is is because, like me, that they are at fault for being where they are?

Because that's what you said isn't it? Despite all my privilege here I am, so this must mean my situation is primarily my own fault.

So does this logic apply similarly to the men who in spite of all their privilege are homeless while women who lack this privilege are running their own companies? Is their homelessness their fault?

Be honest. That is what you think, isn't it?

They can't get a bargain anymore

Yes, this is the biggest thing I think. So many more women are realising that they can get an education, a job, they don't need a mediocre (or worse) bloke to own them. Given the choice, why settle? Why, now that you can go out to work, would you want to become some bloke's skivvy, picking up his socks for his meagre contribution to the household finances. You have to actually want to be with a particular man to do it, you don't need to be with a man to survive.

I'm not shaming the FAT. I'm shaming the ENTITLEMENT

And I'm sorry guys, but I think deep down that's what quite a lot of you think isn't it?

I'm all for a marxist analysis, but remember that analysis considers women to be a reproductive class

I think Marxism is critical of women's assignment to reproductive class, that it is a function of capitalism.