First ever housing only for women

I am really beginning to think Alms Houses are the way forward. Not just because one helped my mother at a time she really needed it, but also because they keep small and are more likely to adhere to their principles.

Many social housing provides for instance do not make the right to sucession available under any number of guises as to why it cant be done.

Or as has happened to a lot of social housing in what was once run down areas, the houses the flats are in are sold off for huge profits because of gentrification, and people who were able to live on a relatively low wage near their work, then found themselves transferred miles away, which not only meant losing the community network they had, but also being able to work as travel costs and a minimum wage aren't compatible.

And in fact this seems to have happend to Women's Pioneer, having decided not to expand as it would compromise the basis on which they work, they are now doing it.

And I suppose could happen to an Alms House if some bright person thinks having a flat anywhere is okay, not taking into account social connections and community. I can imagine a row of Alms House cottages in some nice part of the country or near the sea, easily becoming the target of some company that did holiday lets, and the existing tenants being dumped in some remote village with no public transport or near by shops.

Yes, co-housing/intentional communities is a very different thing. In the olden days it's what we called a commune.

Not all intentional communities require much of a communal lifestyle. Some are designed for completely self-contained living with perhaps some shared facilities, e.g. a swimming pool or a vegetable garden.

But these are lawful because they are membership associations so all sorts of rules can apply. The community can state that both residents (i.e. members) and guests are female only. The only issue is whether you can exclude tw with a GRC. The proposed clarification of the EA - sex means biological sex - would allow an intentional community to exclude all males. If you keep your association below 25 members then you are not subject to the EA at all.

The trouble is that intentional communities mostly fall outside of housing law. If you buy into one then you need to make very sure of what it is you have bought and what happens to your money if you want to leave. If you join one as a renter then don't expect much in the way of housing rights at all.

This doesn't make intentional communities a bad thing, they're just different. They require a degree of trust and cooperation between all members, but it doesn't have to be a huge time commitment and there don't need to be any communal activities. Small cohousing / intentional communities - i.e. <25 members don't have any obigations under the EA.

Badley Fuckitt would be completely lawful and we could tell all the men to fuck off.

What I came back to say, is that those talking about Co-Housing should be aware that part of the purpose of this is to have some sort of communal living.

So in fact this is a worse option that say having your own self contained flat.

Every possibility that it could be your turn to cook the weekly communal meal and one of your Co-Housers turns up with their new BF who is actually a man in "girl mode" and you would be expected to sit while they eat the food you have made and become part of the community you joined. https://cohousing.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/about-cohousing-infographic.png

vulnerable woman could move in a new boyfriend (usually these womwn have the worst taste in men)

What a disgusting thing to say.

First of all WPH is not about "vulnerable" women. All sorts of women are on a low income, and despite this manage their lives and their relationships. The function of WPH is to help single women because in terms of social housing policy they will be at the bottom of the allocation list.

Someone who is "vulenrable" which isn't the issue here, but because of the gross remark made, are more likely to be targets of exploitative men. Although as any one involved in feminism would know, many, many women get exploited by men, irrespective of their income and back ground. The next thing you know someone will be saying that women who are subjected to domestic violence were to blame for choosing the wrong men.

Astonished that anyone would think that about other women let alone type it on a pubic forum.

(usually these womwn have the worst taste in men)

There's a reason for this and if you've never been on benefits you won't know.

If you can meet your own housing costs and bills without relying on the state then you have the luxury of forming relationships gradually. You can take your time building trust, you can sleep together as many or few nights as you please, and nobody counts, and you can keep both properties so you have your own home to go back to if it all goes horribly wrong. You can move in together, part or full time, and keep some or all of your finances separate, for a while or permanently. You can take 6 months or 20 years to fully share everything. You can go at the pace of your mutual trust and it's no-one else's business.

Women on benefits are not afforded any of those luxuries. You are either single or in a couple and there is no inbetween. If you are in a couple then you must share your home and all of your finances straight away. If you are single then you must share nothing. Any relationship grey area that normal people enjoy will get you investigated and may result in loss of income, including your rent, and so your home.

Women on benefits are normal women and so have the same relationship aspirations as everyone else but they are in a much more risky and precarious position because the benefit system forces them at an early stage into an all or nothing situation with any potential partner.

It's not that 'these womwn have the worst taste in men', it's just that they get stuck with them, having been required to share everything at far too early a stage in their relationship.

This is a huge part of why women on low incomes are vulnerable.

WPH do not solve this problem directly. Lots of their tenants will still be subject to these BS benefit rules, but by giving women an assured tenancy they provide good additional security. As long as she can meet her rent somehow, and she does not breach her tenancy (e.g. serious antisocial behaviour), then a woman has a secure home for as long as she needs it.

No joint tenancies means that any man who moves in will not have housing rights in her home unless she marries him. She's in a much better position than a woman with a private AST who has at most 6 months security in her home and at least 2 months before being evicted for no reason. If she's a lodger or sofa surfing or whatever she has even fewer rights.

I don't think Women's Pioneer Housing's aim is to provide single sex accommodation as such. Their aim is to offer assured tenancies to women. It's the same as a HA tenancy and it's very similar to a secure council tenancy.

This is a good thing, women need proper tenancies with full housing rights as set down in law. They don't need some mickey mouse paternalistic 'licence' which says they can be evicted if they have their boyfriend stay over.

So like everyone else with an assured tenancy, of course they are allowed peaceful enjoyment of their home, including having overnight guests. They can't be evicted for having a partner move in, getting married or having a baby. The tenant has the same rights of succession (to a resident family member of either sex) the same rights to take in a lodger and the same rights to exchange with other social housing tenants, or to apply for larger accommodation as their family grows, as any other assured tenant.

One thing that is different is WPH don't issue joint tenancies so the tenancy stays solely in the woman's name (unless she dies and the tenancy succeeds to a male family member).

I think that's a good model (aside from their dodgy definition of 'woman'), it provides a secure base for women to build their lives. I just don't think it's a good idea putting them all in a big tower block together. It makes them a target.

I just don't see how this can work in practice. I think there is a huge need for social housing for single women on low incomes but there seem to be so many practical difficulties. What happens if a partner or a son inheriting the tenancy moves in and it then emerges that they are abusive - how will they be asked to leave? I imagine it will be quite difficult and time consuming to evict someone.

Older women’s co housing is based on a rather different premise and usually depends on people having money, so would be surprised if the issue of inheritance did come up there. https://cohousing.org.uk/about-cohousing-2/

Quite a few gay co housing projects have started (have no idea about trans policies but suspect they are Stonewalled.

The Older women's co housing web site does have a link to plans for a Lesbian Co Housing Project. Wonder how that will go https://lolcohousing.co.uk/

It would have to be actually women’s only, none of this boyfriends and sons non-sense.
Aren’t those exactly the reason to have women’s only housing?
I wouldn’t feel safe at all.

It seems that whoever came up with this idea is highly naive.

It would be great if it was for same sex attracted lesbians only, and it was a really female only block. But no we are not allowed to have that because some man will want to self id as lesbian into it. Just called it a block for everyone and stop pretending it is women only

Unless it’s run like a Victorian boarding house with “no male visitors” allowed and the locks and security to enforce it, the fact that it’s a women-only resident block is meaningless even before you consider the odd transwoman moving into a flat. There are going to be boyfriends staying over and wandering the hallways.

Holly Lodge in Hampstead used to be women only, I had friends there and I applied for a flat but then bought something instead. I am not sure if it still is all female.

There’s always a problem with women only spaces which are also open to men who say the magic words. The decent men stay out, but the violent/abusive men are happy to lie to get in. So all we’ve done is exclude the good men - which actually makes women less safe.
That in no way means I think all TW are violent/abusive, although some definitely are. There just is no way to tell the difference between a man who just wants to live their life and an abuser (regardless of how they dress & identify) until it’s too late. However, wanting in to women’s spaces is one clue

The person taking the tenancy must be a single woman, and men will only be able to live in the tower block if they become a tenant’s partner. The only way a tenant could be male is if they are the adult child of a female tenant and inherit the tenancy.

So there is no point to this then.
Already vulnerable woman could move in a new boyfriend (usually these womwn have the worst taste in men) and impose risk on rest of the women, and that man knows the whole place is filled with vulnerable women!?
Madness!!
What could possibly go wrong.

Also, sons are going to be problem.
Every woman thinks the men in their lives are the ’good one’s’ and are blind to the reality.
That’s why we’re in this mess in the first place.

Yes that's probably the one I was thinking of.

Women on low incomes are vulnerable.

Ther aren't "vulnerable" women. They are women on low incomes.

Or rather that was the original remit of Women's Pioneer.

Maybe in the 2023 update low income women will be seen as irrelevant, and flats will go to the highest bidder, more likely than not a woman with a man in tow.

I don't think a tower block full of 102 vulnerable women is a safe idea in the first place, even before adding in some men who say they are women. It's not like a refuge, the address won't be secret. It'll be a huge magnet for abusive men.

What??? but if they acquire a male partner he can move in

Silly me thinking their web site would be accurate.

Or worse still that because this will be a huge expansion of the number of flats they have they dont think there are enough women wanting women only accommodation.

As has been said upthread - why bother.

So the previous managment who said they wouldn't expand as they wanted to keep the ethos of the organisation have been proved right. Expand and just turn youself into an all purpose housing project.

Bet they dont also prioritise women on low incomes who have difficulty securing housing.

I don't really get this place. What's the point of a female only space which can have male partners living there? Seems to completely undermine the ethos. It's not a female only space if there are already loads of men in it. It may well be a block of flats which gives priority to female applicants who fulfil certain criteria, but calling it female only is a stretch.

That Guardian article says only single women will be given a tenancy, but if they acquire a male partner he can move in, @IwantToRetire ?

That seems crazy.

If we are still talking about Women's Pioneer their housing is only for single women.

Eligibility

The application process aims to help women who need but do not have access to social housing through other routes. You must be:

• not a home owner or have a share of a property anywhere else
• a single woman
• earning under £40,000 a year
• willing to consider living in any area we have homes
• reasonably mobile (most flats offered will be on higher floors)
• not living in housing association or council accommodation, or be eligible for housing assistance from the local authority
• able to prove your Right to Rent in the UK

You must also:

• have a need for women’s housing.
• have less than £16,000 in savings.

If you accept an offer, you need to move in two days after sign-up.

If you turn down an offer, we’ll remove your name from the list.

http://womenspioneer.co.uk/our-waiting-list/

NB anyone interested unfortunately the application process was only open during the early part of April.

The allowing trans women is appalling, of course; but so is allowing male partners of women choosing to live in what they assume is an all women environment?
How exactly is it for women only? 🤯

On historic women only housing initiatives it looks like many no longer survive https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/womens-history/buildings-that-celebrate-working-women/

And look at this beautiful (up market) women only project now, surprise, surprise, no longer wome only. https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/womens-history/buildings-that-celebrate-working-women/waterlow-court/

The kind of women who are happy to share with men who say they are women can just live in ordinary housing.

I suspect it is the other way round. The instance by trans women that they must be included in women only housing, whatever, is for them an end goal.

I suspect many women who accept this transing of women only do so because they fear losing their housing. It is about who have more power in a situation. And 99.9% of the time it isn't women.