Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
makeourfuture · 09/10/2017 11:52

Competition may be a function of life. Animals compete.

I believe cooperation (and memory and pattern recognition) led to the rise of Sapien. We can work together, we can empathise and we can plan.

Competitiveness is part of the structure of life but only a facet. We all have tempers, but we work to control them.

reflexfaith · 09/10/2017 13:03

This↘️↘️↘️↘️↘️
'Women put up with being married to crap men because they had no choice. Unsurprisingly, as soon as they had a choice, they stopped marrying them. And now men are whining that women won't put up with them any more. Diddums. If they were decent partners plenty of lovely women would marry them. But they're not. And men's response is to imply that women have destroyed the family. Because suddenly women won't put up with being treated like shit any more'

reflexfaith · 09/10/2017 13:05

Competition for resources is what drives evolution by natural selection
You don't half come out with some gobshiite gentlemanJohn

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 13:22

To my mind, there is a problem with a revolution that seeks the power of the people it aims to overthrow. If a group of people are exploited or oppressed, then naturally they desire freedom from that system of oppression. This sounds simple, but in fact it demands many complex questions are answered. What sort of equality do they seek? What would a more equal world look like? Once they have won the power hitherto denied them, what will they do with it? Is there not a danger that they will become the new tyrants? This happens throughout history. There is a revolution, but before long totalitarian Tsarist Russia, for example, becomes totalitarian communist Russia. Revolutions can easily go very wrong. This is not to suggest that if women gained power over men they’d be raping and abusing them as in that recent rather silly but very enjoyable novel (‘The Power’ isn’t it?); but there is absolutely no reason to assume women in power will be any more noble that men in power – that they will have less of a tendency to abuse their power. Women are not inherently better people. After all, is not the idea of woman as the more caring, gentle sex a patriarchal construct designed to keep her in the home? So, one of the things gender revolutionaries could think about is what kind of new social system would be most conducive to their aims. But it seems that rather than propose such a new world, many feminists want the same system but with the power turned over to women. In the past the values of capitalism – aggressive self-interest, ambition, competition – were identified by many feminists as patriarchal; and those of socialistic co-operation were proposed in their place. But now you see more feminists aligning themselves with the individualist-capitalist values they were formerly concerned with critiquing.
What would in a sense be a more gender equal world is possible within the current system – a world in which women too can be ruthless CEO’s, exploitative businesswomen, pornographers, brutal generals, tyrannical leaders – but is the kind of equality you really want?

This is a legitimate question is it not?

As well as being capable of all sorts of wonderful things, human beings can be not very nice. And when they have power they are at risk of abusing it. They’ve evolved from primates and their spinal cords are still encrypted with some very base evolutionary impulses – fear, anger, selfishness. They like to dominate. They have a tendency to be clannish - to form groups and victimise others outside of the group, whether that be in an office or a war zone. Many of them are capable of enjoying violence, whether it be physical, sexual or more subtle forms of psychological cruelty. I don’t believe women are inherently any different, they have just lacked the opportunity to do many of the wonderful but also terrible things they, as human beings, are capable of as equals to men.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 13:23

Competition for resources is what drives evolution by natural selection

No it doesn't. Can you back that up? Darwin said no such thing.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 13:26

This makes absolutely no sense. Have you ever heard of the Romans? Or the Greeks? Or any of the many civilisations that existed and thrived on competition long long before the 16th century?

The ancient Greek polis was not run on market competition.

There was no such thing as capitalism then. Capitalism has only existed since around the 1500's.

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 13:33

Yes and before that we had feudalism. Which was fantastic, wasn't it?

Communism has only 'worked' (and I use that term very loosely) when the citizens of the communist state have been effectively imprisoned by their leaders.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 13:39

Yeah...I'm not saying feudalism or communism were better...just that capitalism is only system that has been around for a blip in human history and will probably be replaced by something else soon.

In fact we're going back to feudalism aren't we? What are Google, landlords and loan companies but feudal lords extracting rent from serfs?

It is a problem for the left. We can't go back to communism as it was because it was terrible, and feminists are right to critique the old social democracies as patriarchal - so what do we do? The feminist left seem to have moved to the right, deciding that the best hope for women is that ownership of the means of production be turned over to them. Then because they're women and all soft and lovely we'll have a new cuddly feminist capitalism. Not sure about that myself.

How about a world in which everyone shares resources and doesn't have to do this shitty, macho, compete in the jungle stuff? That would be more in line with the values of feminism and would benefit everyone.

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 13:47

'The feminist left seem to have moved to the right, deciding that the best hope for women is that ownership of the means of production be turned over to them. Then because they're women and all soft and lovely we'll have a new cuddly feminist capitalism.'

I have been a feminist for a very long time and I've never seen anything remotely like this said by any feminist. Mainly because it is completely and utterly stupid.

'How about a world in which everyone shares resources and doesn't have to do this shitty, macho, compete in the jungle stuff? That would be more in line with the values of feminism and would benefit everyone.'

Can you explain how to get people to share resources? Because they don't. And forcing them to do so, as we see with communism, doesn't work.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 13:54

Can you explain how to get people to share resources? Because they don't. And forcing them to do so, as we see with communism, doesn't work.

Well, can there be total equality? No. Can redistribution meet basic levels of social justice? Yes. And that would require a strong state which regulates markets, legislates for working rights, provides cheap affordable housing for people, taxes the rich and corporations progressively, creates good health care, transport and social security - that is what I am talking about. And if that means people who make obscene amounts of money at the expense of others are no longer able to do that - then, tough shit. Fuck em.

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 13:56

BTW john, if you want an example of the effects of privilege, take a look at the man who has come on feminist board to tell women what feminism is and how it's going wrong. In spite of the fact that everything that man says about feminism is nonsense, he still persists in telling women about their own movement as though he knows more than they do. That's privilege out the wazoo that is. If a woman did the same thing on, say, a football forum, can you imagine the reaction she'd get (not that she ever would do it in the first place). Even experts like historian Mary Beard get rape threats when they try to speak with any authority on any thing, even the thing they've been studying at world-class level for their whole lives.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 13:58

What you're saying could actually be used to defend prostitution. 'But these pimps don't want to lose all their money, the state can't force them: that's communism'.

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 13:59

I'm sure it could. I don't give a fuck. No matter how men try to justify selling women's bodies I won't agree with it. Because I am feminist.

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 14:01

So your point of view is socialist? I would broadly agree with that. What I was disputing was your nonsense about feminism.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 14:01

I'm critiquing certain elements of feminism which I believe are damaging, because they are being used to legitimate a system which is socially unjust. Sorry if you don't like that.

You should have every right to pontificate on a football forum and anyone who makes a public rape threat should answer to the police as far as I'm concerned. Does this mean your views should be exempt from critical debate? No

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 14:04

But you are agreeing that in the case of prostitution it is right for the government to intervene in a market that is exploitative and damaging - yes?

So why does this logic not apply to other markets that are exploitative and damaging?

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 14:04

No you're not critiquing elements of feminism john, you're making up bullshit about feminism and then wanging on about it.

As for your second point, do you even understand what I said? I never said anything about my views being exempt from critical debate and you know it. But you chose to ignore my actual point which is that by coming on here and telling feminists utter nonsense about feminism as though it were fact is a function of the effects of your male privilege.

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 14:05

The logic does apply to other markets that are exploitative and damaging John. You are arguing against a version of feminism that you've made up in your own head. I am totally in favour of the regulation of markets.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 14:06

But you say the redistribution of wealth is wrong because the state shouldn't force people?

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 14:10

No, I didn't say that.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 14:11

Here's an example. Suppose a woman entrepreneur starts up a micro-finance operation, and loans money out to women somewhere in the third world to set up their own businesses. However (and this is what usually happens) all the money is just spent on necessities and these people are saddled with unsustainable debt. Meanwhile the woman rakes in the cash in the form of repayment charges. Should the state intervene in the grotty thing that is happening there?

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 14:13

You seem to have it in your head that feminists are rapid capitalists and all of your arguments have centred around that. Meanwhile I've been countering your nonsense such as the idea that markets didn't exist before the 16th century (!). Plus I've been totally confused about what actual point you're making which I think made what I was saying rather incoherent. But I am in favour of socialism. Just not patriarchal socialism built around the idea that we should return to the 'good old days' where women knew their place.

Gentlemanjohn · 09/10/2017 14:14

What about the above example then? You are presumably in favour of the micro-credit industry being heavily regulated?

TheSparrowhawk · 09/10/2017 14:20

Yes of course. It was you that said feminists are staunch capitalists. Not I.

HandbagKrabby · 09/10/2017 14:21

There does seem to be a reasonable proportion of men that want women to do everything for them whilst they sit there and moan about how hard life is for them, blaming it on 'the man' and women in general. It's nothing new. I can't see women lining up to marry/ support these men in any way if they can help it.