Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 20:59

And what?

HandbagKrabby · 10/10/2017 20:59

Ffs are working class women not feminist now? When has being a feminist required one to work out of the home? I don't think you know what feminism is tbh.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:00

Well feminists want to close the pay gap do they not?

And will that or won't that involve getting women out of the home and into work?

Ereshkigal · 10/10/2017 21:01

What relevance? You made a patronising statement about feminists. It doesn't matter whether it was paraphrasing a woman. You know nothing about the backgrounds of people on this thread, as pp have repeatedly pointed out.

Ereshkigal · 10/10/2017 21:02

It's one feminist goal. Because it is patently unfair to pay men more.

There are other feminist goals.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:03

I apologise.

HandbagKrabby · 10/10/2017 21:04

You win. I cannot be arsed with this. I can't even be bothered to take the piss.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:05

Yeah, it it is one of the primary feminists goals at them moment - to get women out of the home and into the work. That works brilliantly for the ones who have got nice jobs to go into, but so well for the ones who haven't.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:05

*at the moment

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:08

Only because getting women into work gives them more independence. If raising children and doing housework is valued more and, guess what, paid, it wouldn't be necessary.

'Running the world' is valued and financially compensated. Arguably, the most important job, raising the next generation, is undervalued and not compensated.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:11

I'd agree there. A basic income for parents would be a great thing.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:15

'Well feminists want to close the pay gap do they not?

And will that or won't that involve getting women out of the home and into work?'

No, not necessarily.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:15

And actually, that segues in with my point about socialism.

Only a more socialistic system could deliver things like a parents income. But guess what, that would mean a lot of the rich men but also the rich women facing a hike in their tax bill.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:16

'Yeah, it it is one of the primary feminists goals at them moment - to get women out of the home and into the work. '

No, it isn't a primary feminist goal.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:16

Do you mean some sort of state income like Datun and I were talking about Sylvia?

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:18

OK, you want women to be paid for their domestic labour.

As I say, two choices: pressure then into shitty work, or socialism. They could only be paid in that way as a result of a re-distributive process. I'm all for that.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:18

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

Most women are not opting out. Most women in every country have children. Most children are raised and educated primarily by women.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:20

It requires both better financial support for those with caring responsibilities and better working rights for those with a caring responsibility history and those in part time work.

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:22

OR. Get men more involved in raising children. The value of child rearing would be raised.

Create a six-day week. Have both parents working four days each. One day a week where the childcare is outsourced. One day a week with the families together. Sacrifices are made. But a seven day week would include an eight day income.

There may not be enough jobs to go round. So everyone's expectations are lowered maybe?

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:24

Because, at the moment, women do an awful lot of work, for an awful long time for free.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:26

I agree, but really it would take more than that. It mean parents are essentially paid for looking after children, as though it were a job. I don't know what you get in terms of benefits now, but it would obviously have to exceed that.

How much do you get at the moment if you're below the income thresholdd, roughly? It's not much is it now? A family with two children can claim nearly £1500 a year I think, and the 15 quid a week for every further child.

A proper parent's wage would mean that every carer would receive a wage of say £150 a week direct from the state.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:27

My kids are grown up but there's no way I'd be prepared to work four days a week while my kids went off to the house of the other parent.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:27

Yep, or an enforced three day week. I'd go along with that. But again that would require big top-ups from the state.

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:27

Or split the two jobs, one, running the world, the other raising the children 50-50.

FirstShinyRobe · 10/10/2017 21:28

I'd like everyone to value domestic labour. Then perhaps more men would do it (after also doing the thinking about it). They would then be equally likely to re-prioritise after children come along. Perhaps, then, the decision about who stays at home, if that's an option, or how the school runs are managed and such like becomes a real choice. Not one that is defaulted to the woman, often because there is not equal quality of care on the table.