Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

winkie

Unmarried men are a problem to society says IDS

Recommended Posts

Reading the start of that article ....

 

Quote

An air of desperation marks every stage of this singular event. The journey in a vintage car you will never be able to own. The patronising procedure of a woman being “given away” or, indeed, a man presented with his trophy. The cringey flashing of rings at family and loved ones, in an atavistic bid for approval, one last time.  The cold white plates barely stained by parsimonious portions of meat and two veg, exchanged for pre-determined “presents” to clutter the new, overpriced semi.

A waltz with the old man/dear that promises: we’ll be just like you, soonest.

Then, to cap it all, five minutes of drunken, bloated, inevitable intercourse to consummate nothing in particular, and prepare for a life of shared hangovers.  - the referred to article

... reminds me of "The Family & The Fishing Net" (Peter Gabriel iv), probably one of the more  sinister songs I've heard.

 

I don't think he was much of a fan of marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Divorce laws in UK have their own contribution to dropping marriage rates.

How many men want to get into a system where wife can divorce:

 

- If she is bored of husband

- Husband is cheating

- Wife is cheating

- Husband not doing well financially

- Wife doing well financially

 

In every case, they find a reason for divorce and then drag the husband to court and take away money and custody of children.

If a woman cheats on her husband, media calls husband as the loser as he didn't pleased her in marriage and comes to conclusion that its his fault.

If husband cheats on his wife, media calls him as loser because he cheated on wife.

In both cases, man is called loser.

 

Simple example: Women giving statements like "You know my father is very dumb, my mother is smartest"

Imagine if a man gives statement like "You know my mother is very dumb, my father is smartest"

Imagine reaction ?

 

We've our lovely media channels, newspapers amplifying women's achievements and simultaneously trying to attribute credit of man's achievements to his wife.

I haven't seen single article attributing credit of a female celebrity/politician/businesswoman's success to her husband but have seen many in reverse.

Doing their best to denigrate a man and his hard work for family, how many men want to sign up to this disaster ?

You reap what you sow.

Feminism is supposed to help real victims among women, not to undermine/rubbish law abiding men on a daily basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statements from female celebrities like "Its better to keep a dog than a man" are hailed as CONFIDENT/MODERN/INDEPENDENT.

Imagine if same statement comes from a MALE celebrity about women ? How dare he ? How can he insult women like this?

Same mistake by 2 genders, 2 different reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Desperate to get men back to the plantation. They've realised that MGTOW and other red pill men are now enjoying their lives, living frugally and spending money on stuff they want rather than on women/children/pointless garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Bossybabe said:

Problems caused by MEN - married or not. ???

Bit of a sweeping generalization don't you think? Might as well just condemn the entire planet!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really don't know what he means?.....is it because 'unattached' men are less productive in society? They have no reason to work hard, spend less because they have less responsibility for others, can afford to be irresponsible and reckless?..........One guy that works part-time out of choice said that a colleague at work said to them, "how come you can afford to drive a certain smart car and go on holiday so often?".....the guy said "because I am single without kids".;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Errol said:

Interesting site - http://www.realsexism.com/

......some interesting points mentioned there........so big changes in society the relationship between men and women, where men were once the main wage earner and provider, women were subservient cared for the children they had no power over the number they had and were looked down upon if unmarried or if their husband divorced them.....to women being educated, self sufficient, independent, earn as much, more in control of their lives, choose how many children they want, able to buy a house, able to drive a car etc......

Not that long ago in many jobs if a working woman got married they had to resign from the job to care for the house and their husband......no married women required.

Forget trade wars and age wars....what about sex wars?;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage has primarily been an ecomomic arrangement since the dawn of time. What IDS is describing is the break up of economic bonds that hold society together. It's a pity his natural reaction is to try and shame people into conforming to convention rather than address the underlying causes of this change in behaviour.

IDS simultaneously shows how serious the situation has become and also his total incapability to grasp and enact a solution. Like the useless idiot he is, he's blaming society for the consequences of policies his generation of politicians have enacted and maintained.

He should do us all a favour and retire to his golf club.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a quick skim read through that article I didn't see any bit from IDS saying why he thinks that (and why the same doesn't apply to unmarried women).

The biggest problem to society are those who add to population growth, married or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he really means is the state is picking up a massive bill for single mothers.The reason there are lots of single men is because Gordon Brown decided to be the father to the countries children through tax credits.Women dont need a man anymore for money,its the opposite.Marrying a man who might lose his job/be low paid in todays economy means less tax credits.So lower earning men are not attractive to lower earning/none earning women.

For men with more assets and/or higher wages then marriage is a terrible financial choice.Its like being a Roman and saying id like to go in with the lions instead of watch others be eaten.Where you can be left with nothing at 50 including kissing goodbye to whatever you parents,grandparents,great great grandparents etc etc passed down the generations because your wife decides to bonk the bloke in the next office.

If IDS wants a lower benefit bill,the answer is,well er cut benefits.Make being a single mother very difficult so it stops being a lifestyle choice funded by other low paid taxpayers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, durhamborn said:

What he really means is the state is picking up a massive bill for single mothers.The reason there are lots of single men is because Gordon Brown decided to be the father to the countries children through tax credits.Women dont need a man anymore for money,its the opposite.Marrying a man who might lose his job/be low paid in todays economy means less tax credits.So lower earning men are not attractive to lower earning/none earning women.

For men with more assets and/or higher wages then marriage is a terrible financial choice.Its like being a Roman and saying id like to go in with the lions instead of watch others be eaten.Where you can be left with nothing at 50 including kissing goodbye to whatever you parents,grandparents,great great grandparents etc etc passed down the generations because your wife decides to bonk the bloke in the next office.

If IDS wants a lower benefit bill,the answer is,well er cut benefits.Make being a single mother very difficult so it stops being a lifestyle choice funded by other low paid taxpayers.

 

Spot on. Cut the benefits, things will fall in line and people learn to survive together in tough times and have healthier families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, durhamborn said:

What he really means is the state is picking up a massive bill for single mothers.The reason there are lots of single men is because Gordon Brown decided to be the father to the countries children through tax credits.

So what he's complaining about is absent fathers, not unmarried men. So my reaction, being neither married nor a father, is "**** off".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is old dead people need to be replaced.....who is going to replace them, where do they come from and how rich do they have to be?.......agree families should be more responsible for their own families, the state should not be seen as the breadwinner.......but if single parents are picked on as the poor problem they will see that they become a poor couple.....the problems will still be there.....no child can pick their parents, no parent can pick their child..........some of these politicians live in their own protective bubble, always something or someone elses fault.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, winkie said:

Thing is old dead people need to be replaced.....who is going to replace them, where do they come from and how rich do they have to be?

Population isn't declining. Replacing dead people is not a problem. Even if it was declining as long as the rate wasn't too high that would be great news, not bad news. What is a problem are people whose idea of a "solution" to people living longer but not working longer is to have more young people - who eventually grow older themselves, so you need even more young people, i.e. those types who think a pyramid scheme is a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Errol said:

Desperate to get men back to the plantation. They've realised that MGTOW and other red pill men are now enjoying their lives, living frugally and spending money on stuff they want rather than on women/children/pointless garbage.

Enjoying?  Men only go MGTOW out of bitterness.  Meanwhile feminism = WGTOW and so no wonder one has fed the other and society just breaks down.

As for dissing children like this, that's almost as absurd as Moss writing 1200 words on marriage and cohabitation without once referring to them.

4 hours ago, winkie said:

Really don't know what he means?.....is it because 'unattached' men are less productive in society? They have no reason to work hard, spend less because they have less responsibility for others, can afford to be irresponsible and reckless?..........One guy that works part-time out of choice said that a colleague at work said to them, "how come you can afford to drive a certain smart car and go on holiday so often?".....the guy said "because I am single without kids".;)

Lol, how old he is?  Driving a fancy car all on his own and going on holiday all on his own?  Both are more fun with a family.  Can't believe he'll get to 70 and think it wonderful he never married or had kids.

2 hours ago, winkie said:

Yes, behaviours have changed....I am sure IDS knows why but is keeping it to himself and blaming it on something else.;)

If you know, tell us.

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

The biggest problem to society are those who add to population growth, married or not.

No population will be low enough to satisfy real hard-core misanthropists....

1 hour ago, durhamborn said:

What he really means is the state is picking up a massive bill for single mothers.The reason there are lots of single men is because Gordon Brown decided to be the father to the countries children through tax credits.Women dont need a man anymore for money,its the opposite.Marrying a man who might lose his job/be low paid in todays economy means less tax credits.So lower earning men are not attractive to lower earning/none earning women.

No, that's not what IDS means - it's just what you'd rather he'd said or meant because you think you're an authority on it.  He's talking about men (and therefore women) who cohabit, not about women who neither marry nor cohabit as you're suggesting.  Also, the negative impact of marriage on a mother's tax credits is surely greater when the man is a high earner, not the minimum wage type you're describing.  Therefore the incentive on the woman to cohabit with a man rather than marry him is that much greater when he's a high earner whose large income doesn't have to be declared re. tax credits.

34 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Population isn't declining. Replacing dead people is not a problem. Even if it was declining as long as the rate wasn't too high that would be great news, not bad news. What is a problem are people whose idea of a "solution" to people living longer but not working longer is to have more young people - who eventually grow older themselves, so you need even more young people, i.e. those types who think a pyramid scheme is a solution.

If it's really a "pyramid scheme", how come it's worked for thousands of years?  Pyramids never last that long.  As Wasbuckers said earlier, look at Japan to see what a catastrophic collapse of the birthrate means in certain communities, shades of Children of Men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Qetesuesi said:

If it's really a "pyramid scheme", how come it's worked for thousands of years?  Pyramids never last that long.  As Wasbuckers said earlier, look at Japan to see what a catastrophic collapse of the birthrate means in certain communities, shades of Children of Men.

For thousands of years it hasn't gone up at anywhere near the rate it has done in the last couple of hundred. World population in 1800, around 1 billion. In 1900 around 1.6. In 2000 6.1 billion. In 2017 7.6 billion. You're not close to comparing like with like, although even at past rates it would cause trouble eventually, just not for an awful long time. There's some reason to think that the rate of increase might be slowing, although the "need more young people to counteract aging" group are actively working against that.

As for "catastrophic collapse", note that I said "as long as the rate wasn't too high."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Qetesuesi said:

No population will be low enough to satisfy real hard-core misanthropists....

Would that be the definition of "misanthropist" that's something along the lines of "people who don't like insane population growth, and realise that the world would be a lot better off with a lot fewer people in it"? But hey, fewer, none, easier to lump them all together and label everyone there as a misanthropist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Qetesuesi said:

 

Lol, how old he is?  Driving a fancy car all on his own and going on holiday all on his own?  Both are more fun with a family.  Can't believe he'll get to 70 and think it wonderful he never married or had kids.

No....there are plenty of both men and women that do not want to form a single unit, many more that choose not to want children, best find out first or could be disappointed.....people who do not want to live in each others pockets but do not want to 'sleep around'..... together but apart, spend time together, go on holidays together but also have separate interests..... relationships built on respect and trust...... emotions in short supply in these times.

25 minutes ago, Qetesuesi said:

If you know, tell us.

What I do know is there are lots of pressures put on people particularly young men to succeed in society......when in fact there is no right way to live your life......a misconception to think we should all, go to school preferably a private one, go to university, meet a person of the opposite sex, get two good jobs in a 'good' place, buy a nice first home near to work, have a couple of kids preferably one girl and one boy to replace selves.....get promotion, buy larger home, get pension, retire and die.

Not a life everyone would aspire to live by.........we are all different and being different is not bad.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, durhamborn said:

If IDS wants a lower benefit bill,the answer is,well er cut benefits.Make being a single mother very difficult so it stops being a lifestyle choice funded by other low paid taxpayers.

Also - make prenuptial agreements carry full weight at law so that people can marry with complete security that all assets earned prior to marriage are nothing to do with the party they marry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 292 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.