Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Coercive control and cohabitees’ rights to property - Maria Wheeler and Labour

111 replies

LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 08:43

From a Guardian article.

”Labour would also seek to give common-law wives who live with their partners the same rights, including over property, as married women should their relationship end.”

Bit misleading. That right couldn’t be restricted to women. It would also be available to men who move in with a woman who owns her own property. Which would make a woman subject to coercive control even more unable to leave the relationship.

OP posts:
ICanSeeMyHouseFromHere · 08/10/2023 11:25

I live in Ireland, where this is already largely the case, and I've just gone through a split. I spent more than 20k (and him 5x that) - and it wasn't even particularly complicated or acrimonious. Even if we'd agreed on what was fair, and had gone the minimum route, it would have cost 7k in total for both of us.

It's all very well having the law, but the fact of the matter is that it's only accessible for a small number of people who have the money for solicitors, and that means that it's not going to do anything to protect women with children, who have the least time and money to spend defending themselves.

It will be used by abusive men, to further pummel women.

Original poster
LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 11:09

“It also seems to be, at least from the empirical evidence, a more stable context for raising kids. Of my friends who have split up with their male partners, those that were not married tend to be worse off”

Interestingly, not my experience.

Amongst my extended family, it’s the cohabiting relationships that have endured longer than the marriages.

And amongst my friends, it’s not whether they were married or cohabiting which was the key factor in their post-separation economic circumstances. The key factor was whether the kids father was a feckless / useless sort, and how much income of their own they had pre-separation.

edited to add the missing quote.

OP posts:
Gothambutnotahamster · 08/10/2023 09:56

TheirEminence · 08/10/2023 09:09

This also undermines marriage. Of course there are valid criticisms of marriage as an institution but at least both partners have to sign a binding contract and know what they are getting themselves in for. It also seems to be, at least from the empirical evidence, a more stable context for raising kids. Of my friends who have split up with their male partners, those that were not married tend to be worse off.

Absolutely this!

DreamItDoIt · 08/10/2023 09:35

I'm conflicted about this. I don't think it's right that just because you live with someone you have rights to their property.

This may mean people don't move in together, not great for the housing crisis.

Whilst I agree it is normally women who come off worse perhaps education of this is the answer, of both men and women. I don't like Labour and this already shows their nanny state approach.

Original poster
LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 09:24

“but at least both partners have to sign a binding contract and know what they are getting themselves in for. “

Agreed. Same for civil partnerships. This: “know what they are getting themselves into” in advance is the key point for me.

OP posts:
Original poster
LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 09:20

TheirEminence · 08/10/2023 09:05

Labour’s view of women really seems to be from the 1970s, including the preference for a sex-blind approach, and the concern that this would have unintended consequences is a valid one.

It’s also quite a middle class view:

  • It’s of no benefit to cohabiting couples living in rented accommodation.
  • It’s of no benefit to those who don’t have the money or skills to get a lawyer.

And there’s a question of: why should you be entitled to half someone’s property just because you’ve been living with them? The answer is: because you had kids and you lost your earning potential as a result of not being able to afford childcare.

So here are two alternative “policy solutions” to address that problem: free universal childcare, and making absentee fathers actually pay for their offspring.

But those policies a) cost the government money and b) don’t create a lucrative new income stream for law firms.

OP posts:
ResisterRex · 08/10/2023 09:14

TheirEminence · 08/10/2023 09:09

This also undermines marriage. Of course there are valid criticisms of marriage as an institution but at least both partners have to sign a binding contract and know what they are getting themselves in for. It also seems to be, at least from the empirical evidence, a more stable context for raising kids. Of my friends who have split up with their male partners, those that were not married tend to be worse off.

This. An inconvenient truth. But it's true nonetheless.

TheirEminence · 08/10/2023 09:09

This also undermines marriage. Of course there are valid criticisms of marriage as an institution but at least both partners have to sign a binding contract and know what they are getting themselves in for. It also seems to be, at least from the empirical evidence, a more stable context for raising kids. Of my friends who have split up with their male partners, those that were not married tend to be worse off.

TheirEminence · 08/10/2023 09:05

Labour’s view of women really seems to be from the 1970s, including the preference for a sex-blind approach, and the concern that this would have unintended consequences is a valid one.

Original poster
LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 08:53

Nellodee · 08/10/2023 08:45

Possibly, but I think it would probably protect and benefit far more women than men.

Those that can afford the legal fees.

OP posts:
Nellodee · 08/10/2023 08:45

Possibly, but I think it would probably protect and benefit far more women than men.