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

I suppose in order to define something as a feminist issue or not we'd first have to reach a consensus on what feminism is. I'm not going to get way off topic here and start talking about why I don't think feminism equates to gender equality, despite the similarities. I see your point but claiming prostitution, the blanket problem, as a feminist issue is harmful IMO.

The gender of the perpetrator is a huge problem and women are disproportionately affected but because men are affected I'll maintain it's not an exclusively feminist issue although it's one that feminists can productively expend a lot of effort on. I suppose that depends which strand of feminisim you follow though. I'm also of the opinion that a very clear distinction needs to be made between willing and unwilling prostitution. The idea that men are responsible for prostitution existing in the first place doesn't sit well with me but then nor does the social construct that it's only okay for men to visit sex workers.

erase one of those "that was my points"

I didn't say prostitution wasn't as much of an issue for the individual men involved in it, or that they hurt less.

I was replying to your comment: "Male prostitution is just as much of a problem,"

It is not just as much of a problem. PRostitution is overwhelmingly a gendered phenomenon. That was my point. The buyers of prostitutes (male and female) are men, overwhelmingly men. So it is a gendered phenomenon. That was my point.

I'm sure that to a male prostitute who's been forced into it (despite the fact that he's not female), it is just as much of an issue. Men being objectified, dominated and disempowered is just as much as a problem as when it happens to women. That's why it's not an exclusively feminist issue/cause and why I sometimes think feminism has a narrow outlook on many issues, which is fine as long as that's recognised.

I'm not trying to remove the feminist side of the equation - there are feminist issues in why those things are such a problem for women, rooted in male dominance but they are not exclusively feminist issues and a woman not automatically being considered an individual for financial assessment purposes isn't either.

The feminist issue is probably more why the woman needs to claim benefits - is it due to inequality in the workplace? Inequity in education? Losing a job through discrimination? Or is it simply that she's not been able to find a job after redundancy, like many men and is currently relying on her partner's income, like many men? But the way it's assessed isn't. Just like the way anyone who has taken time out to raise children finds that work undervalued on reentry to the workforce or anyone who is forced to sell their body to another is being disempowered and objectified.

I do agree that the feminist movement can make a big difference because these are issues predominantly affecting women but to call them exclusively feminist is damaging to the men in those positions. There are very few things which are really 'feminist' issues IMO and it irritates me that by perpetrating predominantly feminist issues as exclusively feminist issues as such we're reinforcing the ideas that it's women who stay at home, it's women who are prostitutes, it's women who get raped, it's women who get abused.

Marantha, I'm not sure it is inconsistent.

The benefits law (where you are recognised as being financially interdependent if you cohabit) looks at the relationship now, at the present time.

The fact that the law doesn't get involved if you split merely says that the law doesn't recognise any intention to a long term financial interdependence.

you have completely removed male dominance from the equation Snap

Male prostitution is not "just as much of a problem". Prostitutes are overwhelmingly female
And in case of both male and female prostitutes it is overhwelmingly men who do the buying- men buy male prostitutes and rent boys, not women, on the whole.

So yes, you can remove the feminist side of any problem, if you try hard enough

I don't think prostitution and SAHPs are an exclusively feminist issue actually.

I think the feminist issue with SAHPs is the presumption it will be a woman who does that. A man who takes time out as a SAHD is equally negatively affected as a result but women are affected because of the preemptive discrimination that they will.

Prostitution is an issue because of the disempowerment and objectification of women in society. Male prostitution is just as much of a problem, and is taken up as such often by the LGBT community as the section of society it affects most.

Now if you'd said this issue was about the gender disparity or the fact men work/women don't and making women dependant or the way this perpetrates that dependance I'd agree but the idea that 2 people living as a couple should be treated as individuals is a legal problem not a feminist one. There's a feminist perspective but it isn't a feminist issue.

Here in Belgium, you can go to the Town Hall and sign a document that effectively makes you civil partners. You are basically declaring that you are a "family unit" and then are covered by the reponsibilities and benefits that that status implies. This can also apply to same sex couples. Otherwise, unless you are married of course, you are assumed to be "single".

As a married couple, we file a joint tax return. I don't see any issue with that. I was suprised when moving, that finances are automatically seen as joint - apparently it is not possible to set up secret individual bank accounts and borrow money without the signature of your partner. Whether that is a good or bad thing, I am not sure.

See this is where I think we should be able to file tax returns as a couple....

If you live as a couple, share financial responsibility, have joint accounts, file taxes as a couple etc then you should be treated as one for the purpose of benefits. Otherwise it seems the way of deciding is a little off.

However I have absolutely nothing against the rule in principle that if you are part of a financially interdependent unit such as a married/CPd/common law couple (or you've declared yourselves to be such by filing a joint tax return) you should be assessed on income as a whole because it goes for men and women. The fact that women are disproportionately affected is the issue, as many people have said. Giving women benefits isn't going to solve that.

OTOH, this struck a chord with me marantha
"It does disgust me that 'being in a relationship' is seen as a criteria to deem whether or not someone is entitled to get money to feed themselves (especially as people pay tax as INDIVIDUALS (!)).
And there is no doubt that cohabitees get treated like dirt by the tax/benefits system- single when suits (i.e. cannot claim widows pension) and 'married' when it suits (cannot claim single person benefits).
I would like to see someone defend this as being in any way shape or form as being fair."

The system is stacked against women. I started a thread on here a while back about social workers who are obligated to remove the children from the mother if the father is abusing her ; and yet nobody is under any obligation to take the abuser out of the home-- despite the fact that if there is enough evidence to remove the children, then there's certainly enough to remove the abuser.
BUt then, if a mother leaves an abusive partner, often she is obgligated law by to allow her children to see him. THe law does an about turn when it suits it, just like in your above example.

Although, I also agree with Thistledew "Would it not be counter-productive to the feminist cause? It would put a defined (low) value on child raising and diminish the argument that a SAH parent provides an equal contribution to a relationship, albeit one that is not quantified in monetary terms."

scrap one of those 'or nots'

I agree that it's a feminist issue.

phooey that is shocking, that your benefits were dependant on whether or not you were having sex or not.

marantha, you seem to be arguing that "being in a relationship" should not imply any responsiblity of one partner towards the other but isn't that exactly what is implied by commitment?

Anyone who came on MN with a tale of a partner who could not be relied on to provide support in time of need would be told in no uncertain terms to end the relationship. The expectation of sharing resources one way or another is part of what we understand about committed relationships, isn't it? Just like the benefit rules state, it is one of the ways in which we can recognise a couple from two people who are not a couple.

MsHighwater, if you look at the link I posted above it gives guidance on the difference between a committed partnership and a temporary hookup. It's a very interesting area of law.

I do agree that it is very unfair that cohabitees cannot claim bereavement benefits, even if they were regarded as a couple for benefits purposes while alive. That sort of inconsistency is not defensible (especially if there are children from the relationship, meaning that the parent who died would have had a legal duty to financially maintain those children if they hadn't died.)

However, are you really saying that each partner in a couple should get the same level of means-tested benefits as they would if were single? This would mean that people with partners on 50k, 100k or more could claim hundreds of pounds each week in benefits. What public services should be cut to pay for this?

Means-tested benefits are intended as a safety net for people who otherwise wouldn't have enough to live on. They should be targeted at those most in need, which doesn't include people who are financially supported by high-income partners. Hard cases make bad law, and it wouldn't be right to base the rules on the minority of cases where higher-income partners refuse to share any of their income with the non-earning partner. Other mechanisms and funding should be in place to help people in financially abusive relationships.

marantha, your proposed divorce rules are intriguing. What if, after both parties have provided proof of what they contributed, there is something left over? That is to say, what if some of a couple's assets could not be proved to have been the sole contribution of one or other partner? Who gets the balance?

Perhaps you have a point about cohabitees and entitlement to benefits but then could that be the price a couple pays for the uncertainty that goes with cohabiting? If a couple lives together but has not in any way formalised their partnership by marrying (or by becoming civil partners), how does the state tell the difference between a committed partnership and a temporary hookup?

That aside, even if cohabitees are treated unfairly, as long as the sexes are treated equally unfairly it is not a matter of discrimination against women.

DWP rules on cohabitation ("living together as husband and wife or civil partners")

The law in this area is quite clear that no one factor is conclusive in deciding whether two people are a couple. "Evidence of a sexual relationship does not, on its own, mean that two people should be thought of as LTAHAW or LTACP. Similarly two people may be LTAHAW or LTACP without having a sexual relationship."

So, if two people have a sexual relationship but don't regard themselves as being a couple, are largely independent and they keep their finances separate then they shouldn't be regarded as a couple under this rule.

Being a couple is about a lot more than just sex; it's about commitment and caring for each other. In particular, if you are married or civil partners then you have clearly made a commitment to support each other and that should include financial support. Is it realistic to expect taxpayers to fund non-earning partners of high-earning people, in every case? Factors such as disability or caring responsibilities may mean that it's fair for the non-earning partner to get some benefits (which they can, under the current system), but I don't think it would be fair for every non-earning person with a partner to get the same level of benefits that they would need if they were single. If a SAHM married to a husband on 60k is assessed on an individual basis and gets the same level of benefits as a single parent with no other income, that means a much greater burden on a taxpayer and a reduction in benefit rates all round.

Maranth, the rule isn't that a sexual and intimate relationship must equal financial support. If you are living apart from someone who you have a sexual and intimate relationship with then the the state does not have the same expectation of financial support. It's the keeping of a household together that changes this. And you can do this without having sex (as quite a few couples in long term relationships seem to).