Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

83 replies

marantha · 29/01/2011 11:11

I am fortunate enough not to be personally affected by this rule, but a friend of mine has now had a bit of a shock because of it. The rule of which I write is the 'Cohabitation Rule', she lives with her partner and because he earns too much, SHE is not entitled to any benefits in her own right.

Now had she been living with a male friend (as opposed to partner) she could receive the benefit (s). So let's get this straight, in the 21st Century, whether or not people receive monies is dependent on whether they are having sex?!
Now I can sort of understand if they were married, why this may be acceptable-after all, they would have then held themselves out as a formal couple.

Or am I even wrong on this? After all, plenty of reason here for an abusive husband to deny his wife funds, isn't there? Should she be unfortunate enough to not be able to work any more.

I don't know; just seems totally screwed up to me.

It seems to me that UNTIL women are seen as individuals in own right, feminism has not worked.

I know that asking for people to be seen as individuals would destroy concept of marriage in a legal/financial sense- if everybody only got out financially into marriage what they put into a marriage when broken down, but somehow this seems far more 'feminist' to me.

OP posts:
Original poster
marantha · 29/01/2011 11:17

I believe it does work the other way around- sorry, going to have to abandon thread for now, got to go to work. But not done a thread 'hit and run'. Smile

OP posts:
edam · 29/01/2011 11:16

I'm not sure it is a feminist issue. It's about household income. Why should someone who is part of a couple or a family get benefits when the family income is above the benefits threshold?

It is a male/female issue as men still earn far more than women. But not sure the answer is to award benefits to well-off families.

Goblinchild · 29/01/2011 11:16

Slow posting, thank you for the answers. Smile

Goblinchild · 29/01/2011 11:15

Does it work the other way around?
If a low income male is living with and having sex with a high income female, is he not entitled to claim benefits in his own right?

MoonUnitAlpha · 29/01/2011 11:14

But if a woman is working and her male partner loses his job, he wouldn't be entitled to benefits either. It's based on household income isn't it?

liquiditytrap · 29/01/2011 11:14

But it would be the same if a man wasn't working but living with a woman who earned 'too much'.

And they ARE a formal couple - they are living together.

It would be better to be married, and then you would actually have a right to your H's earnings.

I don't see how it is 'feminist' to say that people should only get out financially what they put in to a marriage - you're contradicting yourself. That would mean a SAHM wouldn't be entitled to much money upon separation.

whatagradeA · 29/01/2011 11:14

Surely this works both ways though - a man who's (female) partner is earning enough to keep the household isn't entitled to benefits.

If you choose to live as a unit, you support each other when times are tough. The government can't do it all.

Original poster
marantha · 29/01/2011 11:12

Any thoughts?

OP posts: