Sorry, but as long as this rule exists, feminism is not working.

See, I told you no-one agreed with me!

I feel that if a couple are worse off as a result of one of the couple working as opposed to staying at home, that difference should be covered by the State so that they at least aren't losing anything, even if one partner doesn't earn anything.

This could come in the form of tax relief rather than a cash handout - if I pay £300 a month tax but am £250 out of pocket because I work, wouldn't it be better for me to pay only £50 tax for a while instead of not working and paying taxat all? The gvt would also get tax on the money paid to the childcare provider, so at least they're getting something as opposed to nothing.

Also, I'm convinced that long-term, the money would easily be recovered by the State in terms of higher earnings and more tax paid in anyway.

I've tried to argue the same point re childcare credits - I think it's unfair that one half of a couple, often the women, is often unable to return to work after having a baby (usually the second one so two in nursery) because her salary would be less then the childcare bill. Because of a higher earning partner, the women gets no help with childcare. So if the family can't afford to absorb the negative difference, she can't go out to work, effectively trapped at home watching her career take serious knock.

Every time I raise the issue I get roundly lambasted on here, no-one agrees with me, so I'm not surprised no-one agrees with you either! And TBH, I don't really agree either - it's a gender-indifferent rule based on household income, and no-one is being held back in the their career with their long-term prospects going down the drain because of it.

swallowedafly, with council tax, you are talking about costs that are not proportional to the number of people. 10 people will generate more rubbish, for example, than one but not 10 times more.

Neither of the issues you mention (push presents, or discrimination in employment) affect only women. There is a particularly binary distinction in the some of the roles played in them (only women receive push presents, only women of child bearing age are considered an employment "risk" because they might have children) but those issues affect the men who give push gifts and every single person who is involved in the economy (since we don't get the best people for the job in each role). these aren't simply feminist issues. they are economic issues. they are consumerism issues. they are marketing issues. They are family issues.

Generally though women's voices, even with the focus of feminism, is not proportionally as loud as the impact on women ought to dictate.

I do understand that issues of male prostitution are under heard. But it isn't as though issues around female prostitution are overheard. Given the horrendous impact of trafficking, violence, rape and drug abuse on women, female prostitution is still grossly under talked about. The fact that the smaller number of male prostitutes are even less well talked about at the moment does not mean prostitution isn't a feminist issue.

Sorry, but I really think that a feminist perspective sometimes serves to detrimentally narrow the focus, the OP being a case in point actually. Sometimes things which affect women, even if they predominantly affect women, are not just about women, and whilst it's great that there are feminists raising the profile of women and issues which affect them feminism is one voice - it's not the only voice - but it can be a very, very loud voice and take over. I think it was just the prostitution thing which riles me actually because I truly believe that's one area where feminism has acquired a monopoly almost and that's very damanging to men in that position.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? I know I'm not expressing myself particularly clearly and I know what I'm saying doesn't apply to all 'brands' of feminism but there are issues which affect women and only women (like 'push presents' or discrimination in employment because you happen to be of child-bearing age) which I consider feminist issues and issues which don't. Of those that don't there are issues which have a very strong feminist perspective but aren't exclusively a feminist issue (and I include prostitution in that) and issues which are an issue for both sexes but women may be disproportionately represented or affected, although on the surface it's fair which means that at the end of the day it's not a feminist issue in itself. The feminist issues are WHY women are particularly affected.

Snap - almost no feminist issue is exclusively a feminist issue. That doesn't make feminism narrow. Feminist focus and analysis broadens the general discussion. If women had an appropriate voice in general there wouldn't be a need for feminist issues at all. It's because without a feminist voice issues that impact women are ignored or treated less seriously, and women's voices in general are silenced that feminism exists in the first place.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that IMO the fact forced prostitution and sex slavery exists is just as much of a problem for men and women because it's not like one sex is exempt from it, unlike the purely feminist issues of not being able to vote or own property to take the big examples from the beginnings of feminims, and active discrimination against women in the workplace nowadays.

I see why it could be construed as feminist because the root is male dominance and oppressions but really it's more of an anti-masculinist (if that even exists). I see feminism as being a positive thing for the empowerment of women, when it comes to prostitution it's not so much that women need empowering (although they do), it's that men need disempowering.