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.

Sorry, two days a week where childcare is outsourced.

I wouldn't want to 'outsource' my children. I personally don't think childcare is an adequate replacement for a loving relationship for young children.

I don't care if other women want to 'outsource' their children. I'll even happily pay for it from taxes for free childcare. But that doesn't mean I would be prepared to do that with my kids.

We already give welfare to many SAHMS, by the way.

sylvia

Totally. I completely agree. The solution to the problem is almost impossible.

How to raise your children with the best possible care, and how to derive an income and remain independent and still have the chance of career development.

That almost is no perfect solution.

For me, a fundamental part of this is to raise the value of childcare. To get men involved. To raise the status of raising children, and at the same time get men to invest in their families more than they do. And at the same time not penalising women for doing it for free.

Most women, at the moment, work a seven day week. Whether it's childrearing or in a job, or a combination of the two. My solution is just simply shift the focus.

For me, the key part of it is for the state to guarantee basic standards of healthcare, education and housing for everyone.

Much of the problem for women and children in poverty is access to those things.

SylviaPoe

I'm not denying that. And this is all about politics, in that case.

I can't help thinking that people are led by self interest, though.

There doesn't appear to be enough money to go around as it is. If stay at home parents could be given a basic income, I'll be all for it.

I just can't see it happening.

It's SAHMs who live with wealthier men who don't currently get an income.

If we didn't have huge shortages of social housing, those women wouldn't have to remain in those relationships unless the men were paying them to do so.

I agree. But that's starting from a premise that they don't want the relationship in the first place. Which might well be true. And, of course, you can't legislate for human nature, relationships and the whole conundrum that is involved with that.

So if you are coming at it from an angle that relationships are frequently doomed to failure and therefore safety net needs to be provided, then I understand what you're saying.

However, I can't help thinking that if men were invested, and involved in childcare from the beginning, relationships might survive the stress of child rearing more than they do at the moment.

Child rearing is an odd thing. john has said how he would give his right arm to swap his job for raising children. It's one of those on/off occupations. It has immense rewards, and yet exactly the same time you would give your eyes for five fucking minutes to yourself. Or two days, or a week. But only if you are utterly convinced that your children are being taken care of. Properly. To your standards.

Part of the problem with women doing this job on their own, is that when they give the job to the father, they are not confident in his ability.

Men who go to work, do an eight hour day thankless job, or run conglomerates, or countries. Then spectacularly fail to understand how to turn on the washing machine, give the child his favourite food, her crucial teddy or check the bog roll situation on the way to the supermarket. It's nonsense. Of course they can do it.

Let's rework the system so they get the chance.

At the moment, generally, women work full time for free at home

But they are not working for free. If that is how a family choose to organise their lives that is up to them. I really don't follow who you think should be paying them.

It's SAHMs who live with wealthier men who don't currently get an income

Again- who do you think should be paying them an income ? Other than an income from the pot coming into the household?

lass

I'm sort of halfway between you and others. I think that raising children is a job. It is. It's undervalued and therefore not paid. But let's face it, who's going to pay it?

We have welfare, of course. But it doesn't reflect the importance of the job. We would have to re-write history, throw away the rule book and start again. I suspect that's where the radical comes from in radical feminism!

In the meantime, there has to be a better solution.

i've asked a lot of people what do they think the solution is. Most of them come up with nothing. The only solution I have heard, that resonates in any way, for me, is the six-day week. Each parent working four days. Outsource the childcare for two of them. That's only 2 out of 7 days. Sacrifice a Saturday.

If there are enough jobs to go around, it means your income will be better than just one person working five days, unless the disparity between jobs is massive. It has the added benefit of involving men in child care. Thereby raising its status.

Affordable childcare, is the other option. But there are many people, mostly women, who don't want to do that. I know that's what you did. As did I. Although it was not full time. But I still found myself scrabbling around for workarounds.

"And poorer women are opting to be mothers because the alternative of full time slave labour in the workplace is often worse"

Im a childfree by choice social housing tenant. Ive never been drunk. Or done drugs.

Im a full time carer for my DH who is 67 (im 44) Its a state pension household.

When we were working i was the breadwinner.

I also had to spend some time on workfare (New Deal) between 1999 and end of 2000 and i STILL didnt want kids.

If a woman does not want children she absolutely wont have them.

'However, I can't help thinking that if men were invested, and involved in childcare from the beginning, relationships might survive the stress of child rearing more than they do at the moment.'

Datun, they might do, but it's not a feminist goal to make long term cohabiting heterosexual relationships a more appealing, attractive and successful option. It is a feminist goal for women to not be reliant on men for safety and security.

'i've asked a lot of people what do they think the solution is. Most of them come up with nothing. The only solution I have heard, that resonates in any way, for me, is the six-day week. Each parent working four days. Outsource the childcare for two of them. That's only 2 out of 7 days. Sacrifice a Saturday.'

We already have a solution - tax credits and child benefit. The problem with it is the housing crisis making people pay huge sums for substandard housing, taking their tax credits and adding to the housing benefit bill. But that would still be a problem under your six day week system.

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

The rich show no signs of caring much about the poor. It is estimated that in 2015, in the UK, false Tory Austerity directly caused 50,000 deaths.

No one is suggesting revolution, or that we do harm to the rich. Just that they contribute fairly to the society which has allowed them to prosper.

A basic income/Citizen's Wage is not welfare.

And we need good quality social and affordable housing. These "help to buy" plans are rank cronyism, driving up prices. Social housing too, putting much needed public money straight into the pockets of private owners. Another brutal privatisation.

These things hurt people. They make it harder for women with children to live these free and independent lives.

Yes, it will mean tax rises, but if you can afford an £80000 BMW and a beach house, you can afford to do a little more for society.

Need more women in STEM? I think we do. I think society needs it.

We waive tuition fees for women.

We can do all of these things. If we want to.

If there are enough jobs to go around,

There isnt at the moment

There would have to be a massive job creation push

Datun, they might do, but it's not a feminist goal to make long term cohabiting heterosexual relationships a more appealing, attractive and successful option. It is a feminist goal for women to not be reliant on men for safety and security.

I agree with that. And women should not be penalised for raising children.

But the two options are whether the state pays, or whether the woman works. Higher taxes will go into the state coffers. And I'm all for taxing the rich. But, again, people are self interested. At what point does higher tax create a disincentive? And although providing more for stay at home mothers will make them more independent, it also doesn't take into account women who want to develop a career, but struggle due to childcare.

Many women opt to be a stay at home mum when the time comes, because of the disparity between their salary and that of the father. But it just makes the gap widen as the years go on.

And I agree the housing crisis is scandalous.

There would have to be a massive job creation push

Quite. This is the other thing we need to consider - the causualization of work (zero hours, the gig economy) and automation. Work is disappearing. I know people were saying this would happen 150 years ago and it didn't, because industrialisation still needed lots of people to make things and operate machinery - but now there is a good chance it actually will. There's a very funny online essay called 'the phenomenon of bullshit jobs' about the rise of completely meaningless managerial and admin jobs that been created just to give people something to do.

So the problem of feminism is how are more equal family arrangements and partner relationships to be created in a society in which there is less and less of the thing upon which families depend: stable, well-paid work.

If someone has a zero-hours contract delivering pizzas for Deliveroo, they cannot support a family. In fact, even two people on such low wage contracts couldn't support a family. I personally make £7.20 an hour and have a contract of 16 hours a week. In order to survive, I have to work all the overtime I get. If I were raising a child on my own I would need benefits (which I would get) but I also would need lots of time so wouldn't be able to do all the overtime. It would be a survivable situation, but not ideal for my child or myself.

Therefore, some form of state income will be needed to give SAHM's the kind of economic independence feminism demands for them. I see no other way in this day and age. Anything less will solely benefit rich women.

In general, we're going to have to think about a UBI for everyone in fact. Maybe SAHP's would get something in addition to this?

We already give welfare to many SAHMS, by the way

I think we really need to move away from this idea that welfare is something we give to the poor. It's not charity.

Another great thing about a Citizen's Wage is that it will clearly not be a handout. It will be considered the same as using the roads, just something everyone does. No one says about the fire brigade, "Ohhh, I wonder if they deserve it...."

it also doesn't take into account women who want to develop a career

Just factor that in. It is doable.

Another great thing about a Citizen's Wage is that it will clearly not be a handout. It will be considered the same as using the roads, just something everyone does. No one says about the fire brigade, "Ohhh, I wonder if they deserve it..."

Whilst I think the idea of a citizen's wage is worth consideration, I'm not sure that it's actually the case that people accept eg the fire service as being 'deserving'. There is huge resentment in the UK towards public sector workers, fuelled by the media who like to stoke the fire by falsely implying that public sector workers are always off sick, have gold plated pensions etc. The entire country wants nurses, care workers, teachers etc but they want them free of charge, as demonstrated by who keeps getting voted into power.