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.

On the contrary, I am excited by the possibility of a world run by women - but not if they're going to behave just the same as the men.

Great, that's fascinating. Now you have a word with all the men who are running it so selfishly now, why don't you?

john

Feminism is not the answer to your problems. It might alleviate some of the symptoms. But feminism is about women.

I suppose I'm talking less about feminist activism as women in power. If more women are going to be in power, what are they going to do with it?

I am asking what the fundamental purpose of feminism as a project of bringing women into positions of power and authority within our society is. Is it so they can have the opportunity to do all the bad things that men do and have done? To be ruthless business people, pimps, pornographers generals etc?....or is is to do something different?

And feminism isn't there to solve my problems, but if a feminist woman becomes PM, then she will be obliged to do something to help both and women who are very economically disadvantaged.

She could just do a reverse domination and prioritise the women as the men used to prioritise the men - but is that what you think she should do really?

I am increasingly irritated by your refusal to challenge any men on anything whatsoever on social media, while you apparently feel able to challenge feminists on social media and keep trying to derail and put words into our mouths. And you write off genuine male threats to us as feminist women as inconsequential idpol frivolities. You're not any kind of activist. What business is it of yours to tell women how to manage our liberation movement or what we should prioritise?

From where I'm standing this comes across as overbearing, obnoxious, presumptuous, arrogant and very MALE behaviour.

You say the men are running the world 'selfishly' - but is then the goal that women run the world selfishly instead?

I think you're just trolling now tbh. Or very very obtuse. That was in response to your own fucking point.

Capitalism still depends on women to raise children. It may not care whether it is women or men who actually raise children, but given that neither capitalism nor men are actually creating an alternative method other than women's free and underpaid labour to raise and educate children, women are not going to feel they can ethically stay away from doing those essential tasks.

I don't go on social media - only this and the guardian, and when I see someone being sexist I challenge them. I've said this so many times.

What do you want me to do? Open up a Facebook account and hang out with Red Pill crowd just so I can get some brownie points telling them they're sexist arseholes? I don't want anything to do with these people. I like forums like this and the Guardian where you can comment at length but I hate social media.

Ridiculous things you're saying.

We don't want anything to do with arrogant men who derail feminist discussions.

I want you to go away

Could have been an interesting thread

And you've ruined it

And to be fair if you went on some of the philosophy or politics threads you might have something to say

And you still havent replied to the gender bit someone mentioned earlier

Nope youve just blathered on about not being able to do anything and fictional homeless people in a half arsed attend to trap someone into saying something you can pounce on

but given that neither capitalism nor men are actually creating an alternative method other than women's free and underpaid labour to raise and educate children, women are not going to feel they can ethically stay away from doing those essential tasks

They are opting out. Birthrates are declining. Age of motherhood is increasing. Childless by choice movement.

And i dont trust 'men' that are primarily on the feminism board

No problem with posters having a preference

But you are pretty much just on here

Why dont you go on the politics threads? You might enjoy it

So the only logical answer is that they are homeless due to some deficiency on their part

No, this is your false dichotomy you made out of straw.

One of these?

"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."

nooo, its women got tired of seeing their kids go hungry because the dad would spend his wages on drink before he got home. she got fed up of waiting for him outside the factory gates to hand over the rent money before he went off and gambled it away. she decided to go out and work herself and provide for her kids. pre industrialisation women werent competing to go out onto the fields food was grown on the land and then they ate it. sold the surplus. when urbanisation and industrialisation came about and theres no land to grow food on and the only means of eating is by earning the money to eat then the working class woman needed to go out and work for survival. not like the middle class woman 100 years later going out to work because she was bored of being at home.

nowadays isnt much better. you think it means women have choice to turn away from crap men? low sex ratio actually means women hold onto substandard men more when there are hardly any suitable men around because they have low bargaining power in their relationships. and you also have to keep working because you dont know if that man will stick around through all the years of raising a child. and that homeless man or drunkard on the street if he was given help and support, a job, he could be a good mate for a woman to form a family with. by feminism just wanting women to go it alone and by focusing only on that it makes it more likely she would have to go it alone.

why are white working class boys the least likely to score well in school tests behind black boys and asian in the uk? black children are the statistically the most likely to grow up in lone parent households so this isnt a dig at single mothers. but its very much a point about capitalism.

They are opting out. Birthrates are declining. Age of motherhood is increasing. Childless by choice movement.

Yes, women are making their money first. And poorer women are opting to be mothers because the alternative of full time slave labour in the workplace is often worse.

The biggest problem feminists are going to have in closing the pay gap is persuading working-class women to give up motherhood for full time paid work. Because a lot of them don't want to, and I don't blame them.

There's this Guardian article, which I can't find, with all these people saying unemployment was better than their current employment. Work is so horrible for most people that they'd rather be out of it - motherhood is a way out of the spirit crushing slavery that is most modern low end jobs. And it is an identity. You are a 'mother'. Identity is now a form of capital, and people a re reluctant to give up what capital they have.

Indeed Rufus!

I admire your persistence posters. Debating with John is like pinning jelly to the wall.

"The biggest problem feminists are going to have in closing the pay gap is persuading working-class women to give up motherhood for full time paid work."

maybe its because those working class women will doubt their sincerity, is it for the upliftment of the female gender they tell them to 'liberate' themselves from motherhood for? or is it for the eradication of their class? or their race?

Good point. There are problems with the feminist valorisation of work as a source of empowerment.

Most work is not very empowering these days. It pays you just enough to live, and often not even that - it comes with few rights or union protections; it lacks meaning; it is in service of corporations and shareholders; it subjects employees to undue surveillance and monitoring systems....so why is liberation supposed to be found in this?

Liberation of sorts can be found in the sorts ofcareers which offer people upwards of 25K a year, but I think a lot of feminists fail to understand that many people don't have careers, they have jobs.

If given the choice between work in an Amazon warehouse or staying in my own home at least half of the time and looking after a child, I'd stay at home with the child.

john

You seem to be under the impression that feminism is to right the ills of everyone everywhere, especially men.

It isn't.

You wonder what will happen when women get in power. Let's just wait and see, eh?

They may act just like men, who knows? They may subjugate men in the way men have subjugated women. Or they might find a more equitable society, where equality is a given.

Meanwhile,

Let's try and legally define the bloody word woman. Let's stop two women a week being killed by their partners and 117 million female foetuses being aborted purely on the basis of their sex.

Let's tackle the oppression of women everywhere, and then see what they decide to do with the results.

I think a lot of feminists fail to understand that many people don't have careers, they have jobs.

How patronising.

I was paraphrasing Fay Weldon there actually.

And?