First ever housing only for women

@Mooshamoo I agree. I booked and paid for female only dorm accommodation when backpacking. It turned out to be mixed sex. Whilst nothing bad happened, I had thought I was paying for peace of mind.

I have also long said that there should be hotels only for women.

I've travelled a lot. In many hotels, male hotel staff have ruined the experience for me.

I've had Male hotel receptionists chatting me up. I've had male staff burst into my room.

I've had male staff bring me to show me my room, then linger in the room for way too long .

I've had male cleaners burst into my room in the morning when I had a do not disturb sign up.

I even once was staying in a hotel room in Asia. The room has glass panels at the very top of the room out into the hall. One male staff came to my room, climbed a ladder and took a photo of me in bed.

I think that when we stay in a place, where the hotel staff have keys to the bedroom, it can be dangerous.

There definitely should be female only hotels with female only staff

Its the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy as well. "we want to do an electrical check for your safety" while being happy to leave tenants with water pissing through light fittings all weekend.

Lot of info in this thread from four years ago.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/telly_addicts/3647056-George-Clarkes-Council-House-Scandal

Municipal Dreams The Rise and Fall of Council Housing by John Boughton covers these issues.

In the 1980s, residualisation may have been a partly unintended consequence of housing policies pursued with varying ideological intent.
Since 2010, and more so since the return of single-party Conservative government in 2015, we’ve seen something further: welfarisation – ‘a conception of social housing as a very small, highly residualised sector catering only for the very poorest, and those with additional social “vulnerabilities”, on a short-term “ambulance” basis

HAs and local councils are not only creating the slums of the future, but are the landlords of current slums. Many of you will have seen some of the deplorable living conditions of social housing tenants ie mold, one child is official recognised as having died because of the housing conditions the family are living in.

Compare this the over 100 year old system of social housing in Austria. https://www.ft.com/content/05719602-89c6-4bbc-9bbe-5842fd0c3693

And unfortunately many people working in social housing are products of this notion of social housing, and in fact rather than paternalistic are extremely arrogant, totally invested in doing the least possible, because the see themselves as propping up the least deserving

Ive experienced this first hand. Its horrible being on the receiving end

Brillant post @IwantToRetire Ive posted the same under a different username.

re housing associations - on one level they are becoming more "paternalistic" but in fact what has happened is the ansty change in social attitudes since Thatcher destroyed social housing.

In the past people in the UK were proud of social housing, not only as it expanded after both WW as a reward to returning "heroes" and recognition of the contribution of women to the war effort.

But also recognition that many people doing essential work such as the NHS, postal service, bus drivers etc., were never going to be high earners but deserved decent homes.

The snobbery of social climbing Thatcher egged on by the male establishment in the Tory party created this fiction that anyone in social housing were the dregs of society. Only the English could be so invested in fake status symbols, ie home ownership, that the could so misunderstand. Far more socially conservative countries, eg Austria, have really good and well thought out social housing.

In economic terms the destruction of existing social housing, let alone failure to expand is one the main contributors to the every increasing cost of living. (Not forgetting the destruction of the rail network by the Tories that has also contributed to every increasing cost of living.)

And unfortunately many people working in social housing are products of this notion of social housing, and in fact rather than paternalistic are extremely arrogant, totally invested in doing the least possible, because the see themselves as propping up the least deserving.

Although the questioning of a woman having a man who occassionally stays over night comes from the benefit system which assumes they are getting money, and equally the HA thinking it is someone in breach of their tenancy agreement.

Unfortunately the slavish adherance to home ownship, and just like turning education into a product, means every one has so much accummulated debt that they remain wage slaves for ever.

And means that we no longer have, as many other far richer european countries have, a well established network of social housing that not only the tenants are proud to live in, but those running the associations are will to protect and invest in.

In fact this sneering at social housing shows that politicians are far more influenced by the sink or swim attitudes to society of the USA than European social communality.

@LangClegsInSpace Excellent points on how women on low incomes/benefits dont get to have the luxury of dating as others do.

What about male children? Do they get their marching orders at 18?

@YouAreNotBatman Like a virtual chastity belt.

I bet the same wouldnt be said about a low income man

They don't need some mickey mouse paternalistic 'licence' which says they can be evicted if they have their boyfriend stay over

Im married and i live in social housing and when i started reading this thread i was SO pleased to come across a post from someone who GETS IT! HAs ALREADY act in a paternalistic way towards tenants. If i was single and moving in there i would not be impressed to learn i couldnt have a male partner or have one stay over. Just because i happen to be on a low income Extremely discriminatory and smacks of poilicing womens sexuality. This has been creeping up from social landlords for a while A lot of them seem to think they own the tenants as well as the homes we live in. There is a word for someone who thinks they own someone else and its not a very nice one. In this case instead of the coercive control coming from a potential partner , it is coming from the HA instead!!!

The argument for women to include TW was on following the excellent guidance via their EDI policies which “of course” meant they followed best laws and practices in the matter. Which is of course complete stonewall dogma regurgitated!

There was a really scathing article in the Spectator about this.

The angle being that the notion of women only housing is ridiculously outdated, and that in fact women's fear of trans inclusion has created this situation.

Obviously written by someone who doesn't appreciate women only situations, and hasn't bothered to see that it is trans inclusive.

Just out of interest what was the rationale by WPH to allow trans women and attached males to be part of it?

Talking about security !!

The view that

Completely recognise EDI and have swallowed that they are following the legal route by doing so

Currently being discussed in women’s hours. Guess what. They are gushing about how inclusive they are and isn’t that brilliant

Transgender women, including people intending to undergo gender reassignment, will be allowed, but men who cross-dress, transgender men, and anyone with a known history of male violence against women or children will not.

I read this sentence and felt almost certain that the journalist had used 'transgender women' and 'transgender men' the wrong way round - otherwise the sentence makes no sense at all surely?! I think a large proportion of the population could probably also make this error.

Not all Alms Houses are the ones depicted in films etc., as quaint little cottages.

As I reported up thread my mother got housing late in life via an Alms House, and had a tenancy. And the point being that because Alms Houses function in relation to the founding principles some are indeed purely to help single women who are in some way impoverished.

But as I said I suppose is an HA can change it founding principles preusmably and Alms House could also fall foul of trustees who invegale their way into the organisation.

The corruption usually comes from those who dont see the value in remain a small but specific venture as the Older Women's Housing Co-p (not having heard of any attempt to alter their purpose).

And any housing venture whose focus is single women is needed because in terms of social housing allocations, whether through an HA or Council single women do not score points.

Hence why WPH in their allocations policy mention women who do not qualify for social housing.

The irony being of course that in denying single women social housing they are far more likely to become the "vulnerable" women as too many then disappear into the hidden homeless ie sofa surfing, or worse dependent on some man who wants sex for rent.

There is a consultation being held by the Government on the scandal of "sex for rent" if anyone wants to contribute or wants to share with someone who has been subjected to this. Closes end of June https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-considers-new-sex-for-rent-law

Is this not just totally bonkers anyway regardless?? Like a neon sign for a women's shelter... 'abusers wait outside!!'

Thanks for those posts, LangClegsInSpace. They really illustrate the complexities women face in terms of housing choice, unless they have the money to live independently. It often feels to me as if topics that are initially presented as about transgender actually exemplify the structural disadvantages that many women face.

One can always stay single, it's not mandatory to be in a relationship.

And if one is that broke, perhaps there are more important things to worry about than boyfriends.

But my point was that this housing is totally useless and pointless if male partners and sons can live there.

So what’s even the point?
Those men are just foxes in the henhouse.

Almshouses are not the answer. Almshouses are charitable housing for poor people of the parish, usually elderly, often women only. People who live in almshouses don't have tenancies, it's a trustee-beneficiary relationship - i.e. no secure housing rights.

And yes, the C of E has sold off loads of their pretty little almshouses up and down the country and many of them in desirable locations are now holiday homes. Almshouses look very pretty but because they're so old, and sometimes listed, they often can't be adapted for older people with mobility issues. So in terms of the original aims, it's not always a bad thing if they are sold and the church reinvests in more modern alms properties. Still, they are charity housing and not a tenancy.