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

re housing associations - on one level they are becoming more "paternalistic" but in fact what has happened is the ansty change in social attitudes since Thatcher destroyed social housing.

In the past people in the UK were proud of social housing, not only as it expanded after both WW as a reward to returning "heroes" and recognition of the contribution of women to the war effort.

But also recognition that many people doing essential work such as the NHS, postal service, bus drivers etc., were never going to be high earners but deserved decent homes.

The snobbery of social climbing Thatcher egged on by the male establishment in the Tory party created this fiction that anyone in social housing were the dregs of society. Only the English could be so invested in fake status symbols, ie home ownership, that the could so misunderstand. Far more socially conservative countries, eg Austria, have really good and well thought out social housing.

In economic terms the destruction of existing social housing, let alone failure to expand is one the main contributors to the every increasing cost of living. (Not forgetting the destruction of the rail network by the Tories that has also contributed to every increasing cost of living.)

And unfortunately many people working in social housing are products of this notion of social housing, and in fact rather than paternalistic are extremely arrogant, totally invested in doing the least possible, because the see themselves as propping up the least deserving.

Although the questioning of a woman having a man who occassionally stays over night comes from the benefit system which assumes they are getting money, and equally the HA thinking it is someone in breach of their tenancy agreement.

Unfortunately the slavish adherance to home ownship, and just like turning education into a product, means every one has so much accummulated debt that they remain wage slaves for ever.

And means that we no longer have, as many other far richer european countries have, a well established network of social housing that not only the tenants are proud to live in, but those running the associations are will to protect and invest in.

In fact this sneering at social housing shows that politicians are far more influenced by the sink or swim attitudes to society of the USA than European social communality.

Brillant post @IwantToRetire Ive posted the same under a different username.

And unfortunately many people working in social housing are products of this notion of social housing, and in fact rather than paternalistic are extremely arrogant, totally invested in doing the least possible, because the see themselves as propping up the least deserving

Ive experienced this first hand. Its horrible being on the receiving end

HAs and local councils are not only creating the slums of the future, but are the landlords of current slums. Many of you will have seen some of the deplorable living conditions of social housing tenants ie mold, one child is official recognised as having died because of the housing conditions the family are living in.

Compare this the over 100 year old system of social housing in Austria. https://www.ft.com/content/05719602-89c6-4bbc-9bbe-5842fd0c3693

Municipal Dreams The Rise and Fall of Council Housing by John Boughton covers these issues.

In the 1980s, residualisation may have been a partly unintended consequence of housing policies pursued with varying ideological intent.
Since 2010, and more so since the return of single-party Conservative government in 2015, we’ve seen something further: welfarisation – ‘a conception of social housing as a very small, highly residualised sector catering only for the very poorest, and those with additional social “vulnerabilities”, on a short-term “ambulance” basis

Lot of info in this thread from four years ago.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/telly_addicts/3647056-George-Clarkes-Council-House-Scandal

Its the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy as well. "we want to do an electrical check for your safety" while being happy to leave tenants with water pissing through light fittings all weekend.

I have also long said that there should be hotels only for women.

I've travelled a lot. In many hotels, male hotel staff have ruined the experience for me.

I've had Male hotel receptionists chatting me up. I've had male staff burst into my room.

I've had male staff bring me to show me my room, then linger in the room for way too long .

I've had male cleaners burst into my room in the morning when I had a do not disturb sign up.

I even once was staying in a hotel room in Asia. The room has glass panels at the very top of the room out into the hall. One male staff came to my room, climbed a ladder and took a photo of me in bed.

I think that when we stay in a place, where the hotel staff have keys to the bedroom, it can be dangerous.

There definitely should be female only hotels with female only staff

@Mooshamoo I agree. I booked and paid for female only dorm accommodation when backpacking. It turned out to be mixed sex. Whilst nothing bad happened, I had thought I was paying for peace of mind.

Yes to single sex accommodation in hotels etc..

I can remember when young, if a woman was travelling say for a job interview or even a holiday, the ideal was to get a room in a YWCA. Parents would often insist.

I think that for some reason this fell out of fashion, although YMCAs did seem to last longer.

Another article about this in the Guardian. I've only read a few of the comments but many seem quite terfy. I expect the mods will wise up and it'll be gone or full of holes soon.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/04/women-only-housing-britain-handmaids-social-london

Comments are closed and holey.

Going back to social housing. when my satnav diverted my from the South Circular, I became aware of the extent of council housing in South London, built between and after the Wars. They were proper houses, and built with respect for the people who were to live in them. Shame on the Tories who wrecked that with their contempt for their constituents.

However, I also noted it said that violent men would be excluded....

There's a huge spectrum of intimidating, predatory, boundary-crossing behaviour that isn't necessarily categorised as violent.

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.

That would make more sense - and I do genuinely think that some pollsters wanting to 'find' a certain kind of result deliberately capitalise on people's understandable confusion.

However, when it says "anyone with a known history of male violence against women or children will not", they clearly aren't thinking of women who have a history of perpetrating 'male violence'! That clause alone makes it clear that males who do not have a (known/acknowledged/recorded) history of violence against women WILL be allowed. It would be as silly as having a 'children only' facility and feeling the need to 'clarify' that 'children' over the age of 18 will not be allowed!

The problem is in fact created by the EA because it had to include men who have transitioned as being equally protected as biological females, and then had to provide this tiny loop hole, the exemptions, that means truely women only is only for "vulnerable" women.

I think many women at different stages of their life would feel more comfortable if living alone to know that neighbours were only other women.

But again it is the politics that if messing this up. How come you can have LGB only housing but not women only housing for those who want it. Or are LGB all considered to be "vulnerable".

What this is about really is that the more hoops and hurdles governments can put up the less money they have to provide for housing.

If housing was properly funded, you could design any number of different types of communities.

Needless to say women aren't allowed that right.

The real worry is that this acception of compromise by WPH may impact on existing tenants who already have lease which they took on the understanding that their flat was part of a women only situation.

Money talks louders than values.

Huh?
What are you on about @JenniferBooth ?

Just came across these two articles about Alms Houses being the future.

Was disturbed that the one they wrote about implied that they had to check in in the morning ie that it was some how sheltered housing.

But then I thought, if it is mainly individuals living on their own who dont have friends or family near by, maybe this is a good way, that isn't intrusive to let those in charge of the housing that you are okay.

I have had talks with friends, many now on their own, if we shouldn't have a system or checking in on each other.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/22/affordable-and-stress-free-how-almshouses-are-the-unsung-heroes-of-uk-social-housing

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/22/almshouse-residents-may-live-up-to-two-and-a-half-years-longer-study-finds

(I think the photo is really sweet, but in fact many Alms Houses aren't this type of picture postcard variety!)

Almshouses have a reputation for providing excellent sheltered accommodation but they are NOT the answer to general housing needs. Residents do not have a tenancy they have a licence to occupy which affords far fewer housing rights.

I find it quite alarming that this model is being touted as a solution to the housing crisis.

The government is at last waking up to the shitshow that is 'supported accomodation':

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/17/levelling-up-housing-and-communities-committee/news/173906/exempt-housing-and-support-services-are-a-complete-mess-says-committee/

The last thing we need now is for almshouses to become the next gravy train.

Residents do not have a tenancy

You have said this previously, and I replied at the time that my mother was in an Alms House and did have a tenancy.

Clearly it depends on the Alms House and how it is legally structured.

Secondly Alms Houses are not supported accommodation, their purpose is to allow people to live independently, quite often later in life when financial circumstances mean they cannot afford to house themselves and dont want to be an intruder in a family home. They are there to provide independence and dignity.

Again this has been said before.

And also exempt housing has nothing whatsoever to do with Alms Houses, they are a terrible solution to homelessness and children in care, and worse still now used by some councils for victims of DV.

I dont understand why you keep muddling them up and are so insistance that Alms Houses are some sort of devilish plot.

I am sure there are some that are still run on some old fashioned paternalistic grace and favour basis, but many aren't.

Without asking you to specify which almshouse charity your mother is accommodated by, all I can say is that it sounds most unusual for someone living in an almshouse to have a tenancy. The general model is to provide licences to occupy charity owned accommodation.

The recognised definition of an almshouse is:

An almshouse is a unit of residential accommodation (usually a house or flat) which belongs to a charity, is provided exclusively to meet the charity’s purposes (for example, the relief of financial need or infirmity) and is occupied or is available for occupation under a licence by a qualified beneficiary.

An almshouse charity is typically a charity which is established for purposes which are to be furthered by the provision of one or more almshouses.

An almshouse charity is usually a charity for the relief of financial hardship by the provision of housing and associated services or benefits which must (or is authorised to) provide its primary benefit by the grant of a licence to occupy the accommodation that it owns to its beneficiaries.

https://www.almshouses.org/what-is-an-almshouse/

Can you provide a link to any almshouse charity that provides proper tenancies?

Lots of almshouses do provide sheltered accommodation, i.e. independent living with a warden on site, hence the bit that alarmed you in the guardian article about pressing a green buzzer in the morning to check in. Almost all almshouse accommodation is aimed at older residents. According to your second Guardian article, 'residents typically move into almshouses in their early 70s'.

I can see that the almshouse movement is keen to expand its offer as an alternative to social housing for residents of all ages but currently it's almost all retirement (over 50's) or sheltered accommodation.

Yes, I am well aware that this is not the same as exempt 'supported accommodation' but the bottom looks about ready to fall out of that particular model. Meanwhile the entire rental market continues to spiral round the plug hole with LL selling up and rents skyrocketing.

It's a piece of piss for wealthy 'benefactors' to set up 'charities' to provide housing. Why wouldn't dodgy investors move their money into this field as other fields collapse? Why wouldn't the government also exempt this kind of propert if they provide 'services'?

This looks at the proposal for the block from another angle. That the design is really bad, and being allowed as it is "only catering to women".

Upon closer scrutiny of the planning drawings, it transpires that the benevolent agenda obscures a bog-standard design which doesn’t propose anything beyond the bare minimum. The press release points out the flats are specially designed for women, with details such as lower kitchen countertops and enhanced ventilation to ensure comfort for menopausal women.

In the grand scheme of things, these design features sound insignificant and reactionary. Cross-ventilation, where windows are placed on opposite walls of a room is the best way to ensure fresh air flow but this isn’t present in the proposal, which is filled with small, hotel-like, corner units. Lowered countertops, while a reasonable addition, highlight the lack of larger-scale, architectural responses to the brief.

Bar the rooftop garden, the housing block does not offer any flexible rooms or communal facilities. The scheme is a collection of run-of-the-mill, individual flats, which gives no opportunity to create solidarity among the residents, such as opportunities of sharing domestic work or socialising, or even a little extra circulation space that could facilitate moments of respite and interaction. It’s the same basic housing product, repackaged in pink.
Underprivileged women deserve a better solution to the systemic problems affecting them; a solution rooted in urban planning, bolder briefs and more ambitious architecture. The new Brook House is a desperate measure for desperate times, not a long-term solution for a truly feminist city.

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-uks-first-women-only-tower-block-is-a-desperate-measure-for-desperate-times

I rent from this landlord. I agree that it seems painfully disconnected from its early vision. I feel that I'm paying out an ever-rising rent to fund the employees' ambitions and hefty wages, self-justified by their weird, insulting narrative that women rent because we are "vulnerable". 🤦 As you know, in central London there's literally nowhere affordable for single average earners to move to, so doubtless women will quickly fill the new tower block, but I don't envy them.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4870514-working-class-women-and-dv-kids-removed-celebrities-and-people-with-money-no-involvement?page=1

So not read the whole thread, but what is the legal basis for this? There is no basis for having single ‘gender’ accommodation in the Equality Act. If transmen are not allowed then that is direct discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. If some men (transwomen) but not others are allowed then that is also discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.

Sounds like a convent.