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.

See, I told you no-one agreed with me!

I feel that if a couple are worse off as a result of one of the couple working as opposed to staying at home, that difference should be covered by the State so that they at least aren't losing anything, even if one partner doesn't earn anything.

This could come in the form of tax relief rather than a cash handout - if I pay £300 a month tax but am £250 out of pocket because I work, wouldn't it be better for me to pay only £50 tax for a while instead of not working and paying taxat all? The gvt would also get tax on the money paid to the childcare provider, so at least they're getting something as opposed to nothing.

Also, I'm convinced that long-term, the money would easily be recovered by the State in terms of higher earnings and more tax paid in anyway.

LeninGrad, perhaps two wrongs don't make a right?