First ever housing only for women

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

Will naturally include men

it will include TW (men) but not cross dressing men (love to see how they’ll tell the difference!) but not TM (women)

Linky

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.

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/

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

The view that

Talking about security !!

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?

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!

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!!!

@YouAreNotBatman Like a virtual chastity belt.

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

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

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