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

[marantha]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

erase one of those "that was my points"

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.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that IMO the fact forced prostitution and sex slavery exists is just as much of a problem for men and women because it's not like one sex is exempt from it, unlike the purely feminist issues of not being able to vote or own property to take the big examples from the beginnings of feminims, and active discrimination against women in the workplace nowadays.

I see why it could be construed as feminist because the root is male dominance and oppressions but really it's more of an anti-masculinist (if that even exists). I see feminism as being a positive thing for the empowerment of women, when it comes to prostitution it's not so much that women need empowering (although they do), it's that men need disempowering.

Snap - almost no feminist issue is exclusively a feminist issue. That doesn't make feminism narrow. Feminist focus and analysis broadens the general discussion. If women had an appropriate voice in general there wouldn't be a need for feminist issues at all. It's because without a feminist voice issues that impact women are ignored or treated less seriously, and women's voices in general are silenced that feminism exists in the first place.

Sorry, but I really think that a feminist perspective sometimes serves to detrimentally narrow the focus, the OP being a case in point actually. Sometimes things which affect women, even if they predominantly affect women, are not just about women, and whilst it's great that there are feminists raising the profile of women and issues which affect them feminism is one voice - it's not the only voice - but it can be a very, very loud voice and take over. I think it was just the prostitution thing which riles me actually because I truly believe that's one area where feminism has acquired a monopoly almost and that's very damanging to men in that position.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? I know I'm not expressing myself particularly clearly and I know what I'm saying doesn't apply to all 'brands' of feminism but there are issues which affect women and only women (like 'push presents' or discrimination in employment because you happen to be of child-bearing age) which I consider feminist issues and issues which don't. Of those that don't there are issues which have a very strong feminist perspective but aren't exclusively a feminist issue (and I include prostitution in that) and issues which are an issue for both sexes but women may be disproportionately represented or affected, although on the surface it's fair which means that at the end of the day it's not a feminist issue in itself. The feminist issues are WHY women are particularly affected.

Neither of the issues you mention (push presents, or discrimination in employment) affect only women. There is a particularly binary distinction in the some of the roles played in them (only women receive push presents, only women of child bearing age are considered an employment "risk" because they might have children) but those issues affect the men who give push gifts and every single person who is involved in the economy (since we don't get the best people for the job in each role). these aren't simply feminist issues. they are economic issues. they are consumerism issues. they are marketing issues. They are family issues.

Generally though women's voices, even with the focus of feminism, is not proportionally as loud as the impact on women ought to dictate.

I do understand that issues of male prostitution are under heard. But it isn't as though issues around female prostitution are overheard. Given the horrendous impact of trafficking, violence, rape and drug abuse on women, female prostitution is still grossly under talked about. The fact that the smaller number of male prostitutes are even less well talked about at the moment does not mean prostitution isn't a feminist issue.

swallowedafly, with council tax, you are talking about costs that are not proportional to the number of people. 10 people will generate more rubbish, for example, than one but not 10 times more.

swallowedafly, 'Just cohabiting' I wonder what this means: if a person lives with a parent who is a multi-milllionaire, they ARE entitled to jobseekers allowance,
if that person is a 'partner', they are not.
So, yes, it does seem to me that if a person IS in a sexual relationship with another adult financial support will be expected of the working adult, jeez... Sorry, but this is ABSOLUTELY patriarchal.
In effect the state is saying 'you're s him/her, you give her cash'.
And the reality is this: from all the (admittedly anectodal) stories I've read about this- 'being in a relationship' is the factor that matters most.
If two platonic female friends are living their lives financially in same way as a couple, they WILL be seen as two single people in their own right, but if there is a sexual element present, they will not be.
(And I think it is naive to say that this does not happen; In my opinion, I would think that if a person mentions a 'relationship' they won't bother with the rest of the other deciding factors like stability and financial interdependence and so on).
Now if a person were to be completely right-wing and say, 'Why should anybody be entitled to any financial assistance from the state when down, them!'
I'd think, OK, bit harsh, but there you go.
It's a view I can respect.
But what I believe to be incorrect is that most people are using a 'sexual relationship' to ascertain whether people get cash or not.
I can't see this as being right.

BaggedandTagged, but surely in the event of the death of one of the partner's the surviving partner should be entitled to widow's pension? After all, the state has already got a record that they are a couple by dint of making an assessment that they are not entitled to single person benefits.

I've tried to argue the same point re childcare credits - I think it's unfair that one half of a couple, often the women, is often unable to return to work after having a baby (usually the second one so two in nursery) because her salary would be less then the childcare bill. Because of a higher earning partner, the women gets no help with childcare. So if the family can't afford to absorb the negative difference, she can't go out to work, effectively trapped at home watching her career take serious knock.

Every time I raise the issue I get roundly lambasted on here, no-one agrees with me, so I'm not surprised no-one agrees with you either! And TBH, I don't really agree either - it's a gender-indifferent rule based on household income, and no-one is being held back in the their career with their long-term prospects going down the drain because of it.

I would find it more palatable if the state treated people as couples when it came to taxation. It would be more palatable if the state gave cohabitees entitlement to widow's benefit.
Does a person take their partner with them to work? Do they get taxed as a couple? The answer to both questions is 'no'.
As far as this rule being 'gender-indifferent', I would argue that most things discussed on this site can be gender-indifferent; men CAN be prostitutes, the higher earning partner CAN be a man, a sahp CAN be a man.