Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Datun · 10/10/2017 21:29

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

Why would it? At the moment, generally, a woman is at home five days a week earning nothing and a man is it work five days a week earning a salary. Split it.

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:29

Because it will only be for a short amount of time. As soon as the children go to school, workarounds can be had.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:30

Yeah Sylvia's right, we're assuming there are two parents involved in the same house, and there often isn't.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:31

'Why would it? At the moment, generally, a woman is at home five days a week earning nothing and a man is it work five days a week earning a salary. Split it.'

Why? Why is a mother living with a banker worth more than a mother living with a post officer worker?

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:32

I'm not exactly sure why it makes a difference if the parents have split up? It's always going to be a choice. If the woman wants to be the primary carer, then she should be able to be. Likewise the man.

But in a situation where you can split it, I don't see how living apart would make a difference. As long as that's a choice.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:33

Why would it? At the moment, generally, a woman is at home five days a week earning nothing and a man is it work five days a week earning a salary. Split it.

That salary is already split presumably? It's a household run on one income? If the earner is only working four or three days a week rather than six, then they have to be compensated for the days they are no longer earning. Or am I being dumb and not getting you?

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:33

Why? Why is a mother living with a banker worth more than a mother living with a post officer worker?

They're not. But generally, women look after the children while the man works. Whether he's a postal worker, or a banker.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:34

Because you're still starting out with the assumption that a man and woman got together and decided to raise a child together, which is not what many women are going for.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 10/10/2017 21:34

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

I don't. That is for individuals and individual families to sort out. I am absolutely not willing to pay tax to pay for someone else's domestic arrangements.

I don't accept this notion that at home parents are doing unpaid work. Presumably the parent who does not work outside the home benefits from the other's income?

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:35

It may be me who is not getting it. At the moment, what generally happens is there is one income, based on a five day week. Instead of a dual income based on a six day week, with each parent working four days. Which means instead of a five day a week income, the household income would be an eight day week income.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:35

If one is not worth more than the other, then the solution of 'split it' does not give the two women the same money.

The mother living with the banker gets more. Her income effectively depends on the man she is with not her task of raising children.

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:35

Sylvia

I agree. In that scenario it wouldn't work.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:36

Could you not say that the banker's wife is not in effect being paid? I mean, assuming they have a joint account or some way she can readily access the money he earns?

This is a bit of a problem - because how could you justify paying more money to a woman who potentially already has access to millions?

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:37

The mother living with the banker gets more. Her income effectively depends on the man she is with not her task of raising children.

That is assuming that the man will always earn more than the woman.

Instead of starting from a level playing field.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:38

'This is a bit of a problem - because how could you justify paying more money to a woman who potentially already has access to millions?'

We currently pay all sorts of people who already have access to millions.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:38

Oh I see what you mean - so both parents would have to work.

Gentlemanjohn · 10/10/2017 21:38

We currently pay all sorts of people who already have access to millions.

We do indeed.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:38

'That is assuming that the man will always earn more than the woman.'

Because you started this whole example on the basis of women who do not work!!

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:40

So two postal workers will have the four day a week each income of a postal worker. Two bankers will have the same.

Or, if one is a postal worker, and one is a banker, they would have to take a drop in income to accommodate the fact that one earns more than the other. If you split it 50-50.

Which is what I meant by sacrifices would be made. But the flip side of the coin is that suddenly childcare is valued more. Women's status, or the status of the child rarer, is raised.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:44

I have lost any sense of what your examples mean, Datun.

But I currently work a four day week without any pre teen kids to look after. There's no way I'm working a four day week and then looking after young kids full time for the other three days. I would be absolutely knackered. I don't want to work any harder.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 10/10/2017 21:44

The mother living with the banker gets more. Her income effectively depends on the man she is with not her task of raising children

But it is frequently said on FWR that high earning men need wives to deal with childcare/ home etc freeing them up to work.

I'm really not sure what you are suggesting- where do you think her income should come from in this scenario?

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:48

Two different scenarios Lass - the current one and the socialist version being discussed here.

In the current version, SAHMs living with a partner aren't entitled to anything more than basic needs met prior to divorce, as far as I understand it.

In a socialist version, I assume there would be an income for being a SAHP provided by the state (think this is offered in one of the Scandinavian countries), rather than on the wealth of the partner.

SylviaPoe · 10/10/2017 21:49

I mean basic needs met by the partner, if wealthy, in the current version. Obviously women with non wealthy partners currently get CB and CTC.

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:50

SylviaPoe

So the answer to your scenario is to outsource the childcare, should you have them. I understand. At the moment, generally, women work full time for free at home. And have two days at the weekend where, hopefully they share the childcare. My scenario is they work four days in a job, one day at home, one day outsourcing childcare, and one day at the weekend where they share it. It's basically giving them four days out of the house, but adding on one extra day where they do the childcare. As women generally do this anyway, although it's a sacrifice, is it a big one?

And, of course, it wouldn't work for everyone. But the situation you often have at the moment is that women do work full time and still do all the child rearing/housework, because men don't tend to pick up the slack. This way men will be completely primed and involved in all of it.

Datun · 10/10/2017 21:51

Because, given that we live in a capitalist society, I can't see welfare being diverted to stay at home mothers.