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

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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:
scaryclown · 04/10/2017 20:32

But you can't get away from the fact that a lot of men who are using free porn as a substitute for love and relationships is because they neither have spare money or spare time to express or even develop any higher values or emotions. If you create a society where the only emotion, arousal and comfort a man can muster up is for a two minute wank to a woman who isn't even there before its back to work then what does he fucking expect?

What a prize tit.

scaryclown · 04/10/2017 20:36

mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/02/06/marriage-is-for-rich-people/?referer=

When you have money, you marry..

scaryclown · 04/10/2017 20:38

When a fucking US paper explains it better you really don't know what you are talking about.

Think tank? Thick tank methinks..

BandHag · 04/10/2017 20:47

The lead singer from the rubberbandits explained it better. (The socio-economic part, that leads to depression, marginalisation and suicide anyway, he didn't touch on low value women Hmm but he did say that the men he's spoken to don't want to be single but they feel/know they have nothing to offer a woman. (I suppose a high value woman. Sigh)

reflexfaith · 04/10/2017 20:54

That article is gobshite and stupid rhetoric😆

MadamMinacious · 04/10/2017 20:56

I don't think it means 'low value women' more that they don't value any women they meet - they hold women in low regard as a result of porn etc. At least that is how I read it.

Gentlemanjohn · 07/10/2017 13:13

IDS is obviously full of shit, but if anything has destroyed the family unit, it is his political party and other parties of the neoliberal right.

Should we return to the old patriarchal order? No. But what is to replace it? A world of permanent singletons and eternal bachelors? Pornography? Hook-ups? Female objectification. In destroying the family, the feminist-left unwittingly opened up sexual relations to the market and aligned female empowerment with careerism and money.

There's a great recent book called The True Life by the philosopher Alain Badiou. He examines the current predicament of the young - their choice between ‘the vortex of consumerism or reactive forms of traditionalism’ - in the context of the gender revolutions. A communist, Badiou at first advances a conservative-leftist defence of a lost established order. The disintegration of the old collectivist ideologies of the Soviet Union and the social democratic state has brought about a condition of total social fragmentation and moral collapse. The representative 21st century individual is an atomised, alienated, disorientated, morally disengaged nomad, attempting to navigate a world in which market forces have colonised every domain of human existence. Manhood was a fundamental pillar of the twentieth century, democratic state order, asserts Badiou. Throughout Europe, males were initiated into state citizenship by universal military conscription. A young male conscript was a participant in something greater than himself for which he might be required to give his life – defence of the liberal order against tyranny. Once his military service was completed he would enter lifelong employment, most likely in a state organisation, and marriage. Now, both professional and industrial state structures have been dismantled, the nuclear family has disintegrated, and nationalised armies have become privatised militias serving corporate interests. And with no clear path to adult statehood remaining, the male has been abandoned to a perpetual adolescence. He is frivolous, emotionally immature, directionless, irrational, criminal even. In the absence of the old initiatic organisations, he might be drawn into their malign replacements: the inner-city gangs, the Jihadist cults, the far-right subcultures.

However, the girl’s condition is the reverse. She is already an adult as a girl, encouraged to succeed in everything she does, to hasten to the position of dominant adult vacated by the male. She must embody the ‘tough, mature, serious, legal, and punitive version of competitive, consumerist individualism’ yet adapt to the fluidity of global markets. In this she is succeeding. Not only do women outnumber men in universities, but so-called ‘female skills’ of communication and social intelligence are in prized by the post-industrial, service sector economy. Since 1970 the number of men leaving the labour force has doubled, while the trend for women has been the reverse.

This new female domination is a false feminism, asserts Badiou - a projection of neoliberalism. ‘There is’, he writes, ‘a whole bourgeois, authoritarian brand of feminism. It is not calling for a different world to be created but for the world as it is to be turned over to woman in power.'

However, the Badiou is thrilled by the possibility of a genuine female emancipation beyond the logic of capitalism. “what do creative politics, poetry, music, cinema, mathematics, or love become’ he asks, ‘—what does philosophy become—once the word ‘woman’ resonates in them in tune with the power of symbol-creating equality?”

The book ends awaiting “the girl, as yet unknown but who is coming” proclaiming to “the sky empty of God” in the words of Paul Valery: “Beautiful heaven, true heaven, look how I change!”

In all, now the old moral and ideological certainties of the patriarchal-state militarist age have collapsed. While this could be a good thing, paving the way for a more enlightened gender culture, there is a danger that feminism will be wholly co-opted by consumerism and/or selfish careerism, and patriarchy will reassert itself in toxic new forms.

Maybe the messianic 'new girl' will emerge blinking in the light of a new dawn, but I am not optimistic.

BananaShit · 07/10/2017 20:07

IDS has a great many faults, some of them inherent here, but he's also not wrong about people being disincentivised from living together by the benefits system. There's another thread about this in AIBU.

TheSparrowhawk · 07/10/2017 21:33

Feminism did not destroy the family gentlemanjohn. If a man thinks he can engage in masturbatorial gum flapping about feminism he could at least try to give himself the shred of decency that having his basic facts right might afford him. Total and utter fucking nonsense. Jesus.

whoputthecatout · 07/10/2017 21:46

Well Sparrowhawk, clearly we're all the wrong sort of feminists don'tcha know - you have to be the sort men approve of Grin.

John: you need to scroll down to AIBU, along to more....then down to politics (5th from end of the second column).

Gentlemanjohn · 08/10/2017 00:02

I don't think feminism destroyed the family: capitalism did. But the aim of (some) feminists was to destroy it. They helped destroy it. I'm not saying this is a bad thing per se; only that it was a case of out of the frying pan into the fire.

Gentlemanjohn · 08/10/2017 00:03

The rudeness on here is staggering btw.

Gentlemanjohn · 08/10/2017 00:07

Either courteously engage with the points I am courteously making, or ignore them if you choose.

AssassinatedBeauty · 08/10/2017 00:08

Wrong kind of feminists, and rude too. How awful!

Gentlemanjohn · 08/10/2017 00:18
  1. I didn't accuse anyone on here of being 'the wrong kind of feminist': I don't know where you've got that from.
  2. It isn't good to be unnecessarily rude to people. This applies to everyone.
AssassinatedBeauty · 08/10/2017 00:19

"Unnecessarily" being the important part of that sentence.

Gentlemanjohn · 08/10/2017 00:21

What have I said that has justified rudeness?

NoLoveofMine · 08/10/2017 01:27

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Gentlemanjohn · 08/10/2017 01:30

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

NoLoveofMine · 08/10/2017 01:40

XXXX Love you

Gentlemanjohn · 08/10/2017 01:49

Thanks, but I don't want your love; I just want people not to call me a 'fucking prick' when I say something they don't agree with. A point by point critical rebuttal - or just the rebuttal of one point - would be most welcome however. That, or just ignore me. Just no abuse. Not good.

NoLoveofMine · 08/10/2017 01:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Gentlemanjohn · 08/10/2017 02:18

Why do you hate me? Hating someone you've never met is very strange, especially when you give no reason for doing so; and especially as I have said nothing to you to elicit such strong feelings.

Gentlemanjohn · 08/10/2017 02:20

Hand on heart, I have hated two people in my life: and they have both wronged me and traumatised to an incalculable degree. I have never hated anyone else, least if all a stranger on an internet forum.

PeterBlue · 08/10/2017 02:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.