can we discuss feminism please

petunia were the service users permited to choose their contact with the service on any other grounds? For example if someone said they didn't like a particular woman would they automatically be moved to someone else, or would the service be withdrawn?

Many thanks for that article MBHP1, it blew my mind too. No wonder so many women hit a brick wall.

I have had a personal experience of Stonewall's policies, at a national charity I work for.

Following a colleague's disturbing incident with several transgender individuals at work, I asked at a meeting what would happen if a woman was referred to our service and refused to be dealt with by a transwoman. The example I gave was a severely traumatised woman (in other words, a fair chunk of our day to day work) who had suffered domestic violence or assault at the hands of a man. To then have a transwoman, no matter how supportive or nice in such a situation must be incredibly upsetting and insensitive. I was told, clearly and firmly that any woman who objected to the service provided by a transwoman would have her care withdrawn. So there you have it. A national charity refusing a traumatised woman a service.
I have since found out that the charity is fully signed up to Stonewall.

Mmm an interesting article and a classic example of how you can if you wish present the facts in a skewed way to enforce your argument. For example at Edinburgh University there is no Disability Equality Policy-how awful you think, but actually there is a Disability Service which fully supports disabled students at the University www.ed.ac.uk/student-disability-service
A completely equal rights system would therefore necessitate not just a policy but a Trans support service. No mention of that in the article of course. I don't like people who use misinformation to support their views.

Given the discussion points on this read I thought I would share this article link...blew my mind

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/01/submission-and-compliance/

Rosie51 is your DIL caliming all the benefits parents of disabed children are entitled to? And has she also checked out local provision for carers. Although she may not gain anything through the child benefit system she may well be eligible for other things. Difficult just now because of covid but in normal times there are respite facilities, special carer meetings and other social activities on offer.
Caring is a different and much more time consumng occupation than ordinary parenthood and there is a special benefit for it.

I can understand that, Rosie and honestly didn't mean to cause offence.

Situations such as you describe should be at the top of the list for help (practical and financial) on any feminist agenda.

"it came" would be better grammar.

Doodledog my last comment wasn't directed at you at all, apologies if that's how it's come across. I get very frustrated at their situation being lumped in with people who have the luxury of not having paid employment. To see my darling d-i-l looking 10 years older than her age because of the pressures on her makes me very sensitive to criticism of women who do not "work".

There are two separate things here. One is the tax and benefit system, and the other is the situation that your son and his family are in.

You were the one to link them, not me.

I honestly think that whatever I say now will be taken as a dig, so I will say no more, other than that your last comment is based on zero knowledge of me or my situation, so is very unfair.

I totally agree that yummie mummies who choose not to work without any other considerations should not be supported by eg single mothers (of whom my family can supply more than one example, single mothers not the yummie variety). All the while my d-i-l's situation is ignored, disregarded, and dismissed. Her health is suffering, both physical and mental, and my son cannot do much since he needs to keep on working to secure his employment and their income. Covid19 means I cannot relieve the pressure at all. It's so easy behind a screen and keyboard. Save the world and all who inhabit it, then switch off and enjoy all the comforts of home. Intellectualism has a bloody lot to answer for!!!!!

It really isn't what I'm saying at all.

It's not for me to say, and I don't want to say the wrong thing accidentally, but it doesn't sound to me as though your daughter chose not to work - certainly not in the way I am talking about.

I think that there should be support for parents of disabled children (certainly a lot more than there is in place). Whether that takes the form of respite care, support for parents to work or day centres for the children (whatever their age) to stimulate them and give the parents a break, it is really important that this happens.

My point in relation to feminism (although I would also make it on a thread about distribution of benefits) is that better off parents are subsidised by the less well-off, and these parents are usually women.

It is not passing judgement about working or not, and certainly not suggesting that carers, whether of disabled children, sick spouses, elderly relatives - whatever - should not be supported.

It is more that I think that the contributions of people on minimum wage, or those who spend a significant amount on childcare because their benefits would be stopped if they didn't work, should not go to support the lifestyle choices of others, and that if we have to have means testing at all it should be applied to individuals, not to households, as this is how we are taxed.

I don't know what would be fair, but I do know giving up a career she loved wasn't easy. Sorry, but the impression I've got from your posts is that having "chosen" to give up work she has little to no input into the Country's functioning, and is riding on the backs of others that don't "choose" to stay at home. Perhaps I'm too sensitive, but that's the way it's come across to me.

Not at all, Rosie51

You were the one who brought up child benefit, and unfortunately your daughter's situation does not make it fair that people who choose not to work are supported by those who can't make that choice.

That is not to say, however, that in a decent and fair system there should not be full support for people in her situation, whether that is in the form of support for them to continue their careers if that is what they want to do, or to make the lives of their children as comfortable as possible.

Nothing I have said has ever suggested that anyone lacks worth to the country. I repeat - my point is simply that when people choose not to work they are supported by those who cannot make that choice. Nothing about worth or financial input whatsoever. What do you think would be fair?

I must remember to tell my son and daughter-in-law that as they chose to have a disabled child with severe learning difficulties, and then compounded it by my d-i-l giving up her prestigious career to care for said child, she has displayed her lack of worth and financial input to the country. I'm working on the sackcloth and ashes!

www.theguardian.com/society/2010/oct/04/child-benefit-a-potted-history

trisher

I was looking for some evidence on this but I thought that there was a time when family allowance (as it was known) was paid to the mother on the grounds that she would then spend it on the children. Does anyone know if this was true?

Yes, it was described as 'from wallet to purse', and the idea was that even if the man didn't 'tip up' any of his wages, the woman would have something to spend on the children.

I believe that it came out of what had been the married man's tax allowance.

I am struggling to remember, was it Barbara castle, am I making this up ? I think it was originally suggested to go to the head of the house, in those days always the man, but she argued that it go to women so they had money of their own.

I was looking for some evidence on this but I thought that there was a time when family allowance (as it was known) was paid to the mother on the grounds that she would then spend it on the children. Does anyone know if this was true?

Yes I agree it should be a universal benefit as it was before these changes.

In fact, this illustrates my point well.

A single mother who is forced by the system to go to work as soon as her child is 5 will be paying NI which supports the wife of someone earning up to £60k by way of child benefit, and subsidises anyone (even if their spouse earns £200k) who will get their State Pension contribution paid for them if they choose not to work.

Cross posted with trisher - good point.

Which is why it would make more sense to make it a universal benefit, and then tax people earning well above average (I'm reluctant to suggest figures, as they are inevitably arbitrary) so that they contribute more.

My point is not specifically about SAHMs, but about anyone who chooses not to pay into the system being supported by those who do. This does not apply to those looking for work, or to those who are sick, disabled or otherwise unable to work (that is why we have a welfare state), but those who make a conscious decision not to work and have that choice subsidised by people who are financially unable to make that choice themselves.

I would have thought it was perfectly obvious. If you insist single mothers must go out to work as soon as their children are school age and make claiming benefits dfficult so that they become economically active, you can't then reward SAHMs n(or dads) for not working.

Up to whatever the cut off point is.

But it doesnt affect just sahm it affects whichever partner is a low earner. So if you have a person earning 50 grand and their partner earning 10, they dont get the allowance whereas a couple earning 60 between them will.