Newsletter
Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Poll
Jobs
Policy | Charity & Fundraising | Research | Education | Executive | Media | Social Care | Communications
User login
RSSThe Tories’ war on independent women
The Budget is a direct threat to all women who believe their future should not depend on the ability to catch a man.
By Laurie Penny Published 29 June 2010 11:52
If the Conservative Party is looking for a theme song that sums up its message for the next election, it could do worse than Beyoncé Knowles's pop smash "Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)".
The Tories have already made it clear that a return to marriage as the fundamental framework of socio-economic control is the aspirational core of the party's ideology. Tuesday's emergency Budget sent an uncompromising message to women who have the temerity to divorce or to remain unmarried: single ladies will pay heavy penalties, especially if they have children.
As well as excising the health-in-pregnancy grant and other rare, precious tokens of state support for mothers, the new Budget expressly delineates welfare penalties and work sanctions for single parents, nine out of every ten of whom are women. Single mothers will now be required to find a job in today's shrivelled labour market as soon as their children are of school age, but as employers are under no obligation to pay a living wage that incorporates enough money to cover childcare, work itself will be no guarantee of a decent standard of living.
The changes to housing benefit -- justified with solemn anecdotes about chav families living in castles that sounded a little like the Chancellor had muddled his notes with a copy of the Daily Mail -- will also imperil lone-parent families, which are three times as likely to live in rented accommodation as families with two resident parents.
The charity Shelter has warned that the cuts will "push many households over the edge, triggering a spiral of debt, eviction and homelessness".
The Tories may have sidelined their plans to recognise marriage in the tax system, but the cuts announced in the new Budget are far more disastrous for women's rights than the crass symbolism of tax breaks for married couples, making it significantly more difficult for women to contemplate raising children without a man, any man, to offer the support that the new government takes moral exception at providing.
"Solutions" to poverty
Lisa Ansell, a single mother from London, explained that the new Budget may destroy her chances of building a stable home for herself and her three-year-old daughter. "I have worked all my life, and done everything right, but the VAT hike and housing benefit cuts mean I'm sitting here with a calculator wondering how I'm supposed to survive," she said.
"This attack on single mothers is directly in line with Conservative rhetoric about encouraging marriage," Ansell said. "If the only way for a poor woman to get out of poverty is a man, that has serious consequences for people like me and my daughter."
Like many lone parents, Ansell was relying on a job in the public sector to support her family, but after a freeze on recruitment in preparation for the cuts announced last week, the work she had lined up has disappeared.
"I am an intelligent woman and a good mother, but on Budget day, I woke up to find that I am society's garbage," she said. "If the new government feels that any woman who has a child with a man should be left in poverty if she separates from him, with a new sexual relationship her only route out, then it should just say so."
David Willetts MP, who is to sit on a new task force for children and families, articulates the Conservative attitude to women and the state with icy clarity in his recent book The Pinch. Lamenting the rise in divorce and praising marriage as a solution to poverty, Willetts complains: "A welfare system that was originally designed to compensate men for loss of earnings is being slowly and messily redesigned to compensate women for the loss of men."
A green paper on "the family", released in January by Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice, suggested that lone parenthood is responsible for "fracturing British society", and that governments should send a clear signal that "families matter".
Unfortunately for millions of parents, partners and children in Britain, only certain families truly matter to the Conservative Party. The entire premise of the Tory marital fetish is that "families" are not just any old riff-raff who love one other and are committed to each other's well-being: the proper form of the family in Conservative Britain is a rigid economic arrangement involving two married, cohabiting parents, preferably owning property and drawing as little state support as possible. Only 37 per cent of the population enjoy this sort of "traditional" arrangement, but Tory social policy has rarely taken the reality of working people's lives into account when imposing its diktats.
Unfeeling fetish
One does not need to be a socialist feminist to understand that the history of women's liberation has always been about economics. Indeed, after suffrage was achieved, the key victories of the women's movement in the 1970s involved the fight to allow women and children to be financially independent of men should the need arise.
The hypocrisy of the Tory family fetish, which rewards married, middle-class women for staying at home with their children while demonising poor, single women for doing the same, should remind the British left that even the most fundamental of progressive reforms can be reversed unless progressives remain vigilant. Contemporary Conservative policy on "the family" encodes a cold, reactionary moral agenda in the rhetoric of "allowing people real choice over their lives".
But this Budget threatens women's hard-won freedom to make important choices for themselves and their families: the choice to leave an unsuitable or violent partner without facing financial ruin; the choice to remain unmarried; the choice to live a dignified life independent of men, whether or not we have children. These choices are fundamental to women's rights. They are not optional extras that can be trimmed from the Budget whenever the nation feels the pinch; they are core provisions for female security in an unjust, patriarchal world, and they are priceless.
This Budget is not merely a repulsive moral assault on single mothers. It is a direct threat to all women who believe that our futures should not depend on the ability to catch and keep a man. The coalition has claimed that the cuts announced on Tuesday are "unavoidable", but the new Budget looks anything but reactive: it looks, among other things, like a concerted attack on women's hard-won freedoms, an attack based, in Harriet Harman's words, on ideology rather than economics.
Tags: Budget 2010 George Osborne
Pop culture and radical politics with a feminist twist
Latest Posts by our Bloggers
From the magazine
-
Jason Cowley -
Sophie Elmhirst -
Martha Gill -
Rafael Behr -
George Eaton -
John Pilger -
Will Self -
Bryan Appleyard -
Samira Shackle -
Rafael Behr
Elsewhere on the Blogosphere
- ConservativeHome
Could George Osborne's leadership ambitions deliver a referendum on the EU? - Political Scrapbook
Latest data shows recession worsen after Tory HQ attempt to spin figures - Coffee House
The coalition: two years in - Left Foot Forward
Spending watchdog slams Regional Growth Fund waste - James Kirkup
LOL: David Cameron's love-texts to Rebekah Brooks could mean voters laugh out loud – at his expense
Blogroll
- Alastair Campbell
- Benedict Brogan
- Coffee House
- Comment Central
- Conservative Home
- Dave's Part
- Gary Gibbon
- Guardian Politics
- Hopi Sen
- Iain Dale
- Labour List
- Labour Uncut
- Left Foot Forward
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Liberal Democrat Voice
- Luke Akehurst
- Neil Clark
- Next Left
- Our Kingdom
- Paul Waugh
- Penny Red
- Pickled Politics
- Political Betting
- Political Scrapbook
- Simon Fletcher
- The Bleeding Heart Show
- Think Politics
- UK Polling Report
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists
44 comments
P.S Perhaps not a moment too soon.. here come the "UN Women"; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-celebrates-a-watersh...
Sharing responsibilities often sounds OK in theory but in practice I think sometimes one could and should take charge first, when it's necessary or appropriate to avoid the usual frustrations ie uncertainty.
My Grannie raised three children in the 1940s and 50s with no help whatsoever from an errant husband living in the next town.
The stigma that my Mother and uncles carried from that time is something I never want to see again. When working class women will have to choose between school uniform and decent shoes for the kids is a disgusting state of affairs for 21st century Britain.
Seems everyone is missing the point here.
The real answer isn't just supporting marriage, or supporting single mothers, but supporting shared parenting.
Fathers need to be far more involved in their children's lives and children, mothers and society would reap vast benefits form such a policy.
Ironically, it's the gender feminists who have done the most to stop fathers having any sort of relationship with their kids after separation and are the most hostile to concepts such as shared parenting.
I agree with the above point about fatherhood- my daughters father is as important part of her life as I am, without doubt, and shared parenting is becoming the norm when people seperate.
I don't see how feminism is to blame for undermining fatherhood- when its feminists who have campaigned for parenting to be seen as something which is not just in the realm of women though. That doesn't make much sense to me.
Talk about waste, How about a woman who is too disabled to work (obesity), with a husband who is an alcoholic (so he can't work either). They are registered 'carers' for her (sick) mother. She also has the use of her mothers(?) motorbility car. Of course this is not enough. She spends the next 18 months stealing off vulnerable adults in a day centre (thousands of pounds). She only stops when shes caught. What does she get? a 12 month CO with a curfew (not really a curfew because it was modified to allow her to go to bingo, dancing, holiday to butlins etc) - I fully realise that allowing her to go butlins is punishment.
How much in benefits, criminal justice and health does this 'family' cost us all?
The welfare state was supposed to be a safety net, not a trampoline. One poster suggests benefit cuts mean less food - in my experience it means waiting longer for the plasma TV. others will say fecklessness provides unemployment - I for one would rather be out of work ie not having to cope with social problems, because they don't exist. Many of my criminal justice clients were unemployable anyway ie "factory work is beneath me" (it wasn't 'beneath' ME).
Single mothers (who are vulnerable) should get adequate childcare, but made to work.
I know clients who have had a 14 year old child, but chosen to have more in order to protect their benefits (and openly said so).
No government has the courage to tackle the problem.
Still others say why attack the poor rather than the rich - how about proportionately targeting both.
It should be of no interest to my government what my marital status is. I am a citizen and I am of equal value to any other citizen, whether they be married, single, divorced or otherwise. The benefit system should be designed to meet the needs of the child and to guarantee a minimum standard of living and care for each child. The Tory proposals are anti-child as much as they are anti-women. I see and hear nothing in the political rhetoric of this Coalition that says there is any care or recognition of the needs of children. We can see that in the decision to cut budgets that would stop the leaking roofs of schools in deprived areas across the country.
@Luke Gervais - so, the left hates the married family, does it? What rot. Good of you to blame women for problem children too, as if all fathers are perfect and society is fair. But it's not worth arguing with people who think the way you do.
THe left hates families? And for this reason they object to the idea that a woman who has had a child, should have the ability to work and support her children taken away?
The left doesn't hate 'marriage'- that is absurd. Most single parents WERE married when they had their children.
A successful marriage is a wonderful thing, but it is a relationship between a man and a woman, and a relationship that often ends. And that relationship ending, does not mean that the roles of father and mother are any less important- or that either party were morally lacking.
As for it being odd that a feminist should believe that a motherhood is important- eh? Objecting to the economic disadvantage motherhood brings with it- and saying that children need looking after and parenting, and this is a 24/7 occupation which society doesn't recognise, is pretty much at the core of feminism.
As for it being bad feminism to know what motherhood is, and to know how that affects your ability to function at the same level in the workplace, as well as valuing the job of raising children? Eh?
Quite honestly-the versions of feminism that people here describe- appear to be about some charicature of women who hate men- one which doesn't actually exist, except in people's heads.
As right wing 'family loving' policies go, one where the logical conclusion is any man who can't fully afford to financially run two households, is a deadbeatdad, and that the act of leaving a relationship(regardless of the reasons), should mean that you have no ability to support you children- not a policy which loves family or women- it is not the 'left' which dislikes families.
I can't for the life of me understand why people who look to the state for help and support should be berated in this way. The prerogative of a good governrment, especially in a modern democratic society, is to protect, support and provide for its citizen and more so if it were a Labour Govenment and I'm not just talking about Gordon Brown's Labour govt. The other side of this is where the state feels no responsibility whatsoever towards its citizen, it personalises all states' properties, believes solely in capitalism and practices elitism. Public infratructures and services are usually ran aground in other for private ownerships to flourish and you'll see very little public sector offices.
Even some of the so called 'third world' countries provide free education, health services and demands no taxes from its citizen.
What this government if doing is not only pertuating an ideology - creating a small state - its action is spiteful and vindictive. Of course there is an alternative to this budget from Hell!
I think it all boils down to the cost of childcare in the uk. compared to other eu countries where nursery costs 200-300 euro per month for low earners,single parents have an extremely hard time here!1000£ monthly for nursery London is more than their salary for many, so it's cheaper to stay home...
make no mistake women within marriage are being done no favours here either.
Bloody brilliant. You've just articulated and given depth to, what I - as a single mother - have been feeling nervous about since... May 6th. So - well said, thanks and shout it louder.
Great article. Worthy comments. I'm saddened by the bizarre vileness of Patoba Ipririm's sentiments.
Yes. Unless marriage is a free choice, it is effectively prostitution by another name. I thought we were against forced marriage?
The pernicious double-speak of 'recognising marriage in the tax system' is trotted out in support of a regressive taxation policy, but it misses the point that there's absolutely no practical or moral reason why taxation should discriminate based on marital status.
If it's cuts they need, how about the 8-figure annual bill for compensation against the police? How about the stupid amounts of money spent pursuing and fighting unnwarranted and retrospective extraditions to the USA? How about the silly money it costs to hold public enquiries into various public misconduct and scandals, without delivering any form of justice (Chilcott, anyone? Saville? Jean-Charles? David Kelly?)
Picking on the vulnerable is the tactic of bullies and cowards. Can't we do something?
Swatandra- people wanting independence should remember it comes at a price? So they should stay in relationships they shouldn't be in, they don't want to be in, or are dangerous to be in-because having children means their earnings potential is reduced?
In my work, many of the people I see are single with no children and no partner. Some make a decision to stay single, some simply don't fit the whole relationship 'mould'. The Tories do not just condemn single parents (of either sex); they condemn single people full stop.
A single person gets very little back from the system, the 25% sole occupancy rate on Council Tax is about all I can think of. Arguably, single people cost society less, they don't have children at school, the rubbish they put out is less, they are less of a cost on the health service (for there is only one to treat if they require it), and so forth. In return for this lesser cost to society, single people get nothing in return, no big tax breaks, nothing.
The whole Cameron 'family man' thing isn't just an attack on the unmarried, or single parents, it's a total lack of recognition that people have a right to stay single and be rewarded, not punished, for making that choice.
It's not just an attack on independent women, it's independent men as well!
Deborah
So your husband is knocking seven bells out of you and your child but you should hang around to collect the housekeeping? Your marriage fails but you should stick together for the same reason?
What about if the man does a runner and leaves the woman alone with the child?
I suppose if I and others on this thread believe the states duty is to leave no one behind and your view is to leave everyone behind as long my taxes are low and those ghastly single mothers get no help all the better?
Typical irrational, disgusting, tory right wing view point. When there really is no such thing as any society (this time round your 'boys' are having a damn good try at achieving what Maggie failed to do) and children, the old, the ill, the unemployed all start to die or live in poverty I hope you can live with yourself.
In short, you and all your ilk disgust me.
So, what you're basically saying is that women have a choice between dependence on the state and dependence on a man and, if the state's support is withdrawn, they basically have no choice but to find a man to live off?
I'm sorry but, wow. I'd like to think that women also have the choice to be actually independent - i.e. dependent on themselves for their income, not dependent on the state or on men.
Also, I'm not clear what you think the penalties are for women who don't have children. You say that there are "heavy penalties" for all women, just especially those with children, but don't go on to say what those penalties are for women without children.
Thankyou Tories for more worry and less food on mine and my son's plate. How about making the men who leave us in this mess a little more responsible? And why isn't the mother role respected? With a father out of the picture the role of a mother is even more important. If a woman decides to dedicate herself to bringing up a decent member of society applaud her, if she decides to work also SUPPORT HER also! Your mothers must be so proud of you gentlemen.
Laurie, you's funny!
No it's not war and I don't think it's "the Tories". I don't know why but one wonders if it may be simply more easy and cheaper to systematically ignore the true and correct state of independent women.
Just imagine what a great newly emerging market "independent" women could make across the globe..but to get there I daresay we should first need to sort out the education system eg get rid of the "terms" and other conditions which otherwise dominate the work/life balance.
Women within marriage who wish to persue a career are also being punished here. This budget means that it will no longer be worthwhile for a mother to go out to work whilst her children are small.
Five year (at least) break from employment coupled with employer discrimination over employing women of a certain age means that we've been forced to take a huge step back.
I want to work as well as my husband. I want to show my daughter that my husband and I are equally as responsible for every element of family life. I want her to grow up with these as her views. I want her to take these views into her own marriage and family when the time comes.
That now seems unlikely.
@S
You're response is shortsighted. The most obvious problem facing women is that through the withdrawall of tax credits and family tax credits it no longer makes financial sense for a woman to work. Secondly, for a single mother to work she needs to find a job where her employers are happy to let her leave by 3pm everyday, take 13weeks holiday a year and have unlimited sick days to take care of their children should they be off sick from school/nursery.
This affects single women with no children because it perpetuates the discrimination many women face with regards to simply being of childbearing age.
So yes, this budget is certainly incredibly regressive when it comes to women's rights.
Nick - single people may produce less rubbish than a bigger household (hence rebate) but not than other individual people who are part of a family. Similarly with health care - if anything single people might be more of a drain as they can't be cared for by a partner. If you are married with children (or indeed single with children) then you are doubly hit - by the cost of raising the children and by the need either to give up earnings or fork out large sums in childcare. Children may cost the state money through education but they will (hopefully) go on to generate money for the country - a drop in population would mean that it would be difficult for the state to look after its elderly population.
To the person above that asked why a woman couldn't bring herself out of poverty.
Read my blog post. In my profession, if I work full time, I cannot physically bring in enough money to take me out of the housing benefit trap. As it is, I have a 3 year old- so in order to work full time, I have to pay about £60-700 a month childca
I work at home, so I don;t have a childcare bill- but again, I cannot earn enough, I physically do not have the extra hours in the day or the extra pair of hands.
I keep working because if I keep my skills updated, I stay in the labour market, I stay in the community I live in- then one day I will be able to work and make the money I need not to need state help.
HOwever, this cut means that will not happen in the next 8 years.
Living with a small deficit- means that I spend at least 3 or 4 hours a week on the phone to people, jugglign late payments- as my income is just not enough to meet our basic outgoings. That deficit has just increased by about £100 per month.
And unless I get married I can't get out of it. I am not getting married. My daughter has a father- and I don't want her confused about another one if y ou don't mind.
NO, it shouldn't be a choice between the state and a man. But then again- if I am told to go and do it on my own- I would like a labour market that accepted women with children- I would like a rent that was smaller that I could pay, and cheaper childcare. I can't get those things.
My ex does what he can/ He is a brilliant father- but he can't afford to run two homes- of course he can't. We live in a country where one full time salary is rarely enough,.
I don't have the option of shared housing- I have a child. I am trying to find a one bedroom place so me and my daughter can stay in the town we live in. But landlords won't let a 1 bedroom place to a woman with a child- because tehy dont want to be accused of providing cramped accomodation.
Can I also add- I know they say cuts are necessary. But this is not necessary. THe IMF is not telling them I need a marriage.
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the cuts-but the moralising and the assumption that I did something wrong, am a scrounger, and brought this on myself is awful.
I knew it would be tough, I even prepared for not being able to make ends meet for a few years. I figured it would end. I would be able to save for my masters- and eventually it would be over.
I was supposed to start that process this September when she started school full time- that is now not an option. NOt at all.
I will be fine, I have good people around me, and I am smart and can process what is going on- and why.
But to do this to thousands of women and then to moralise and blame them for it- is not fair. Is not fair at all.
Peolple who plead 'independence' should remember that 'independence' comes at a price, and they should be prepared to pay for that independence' and not expect the State to pick up the tabn at the end of the day. It helps if responsibilities are shared, whatever the responsiilities.
most children have two parents - unless one has died ie if a mother is a 'single mother' she has some responsiblity for that state.
If a possible mother choses to sleep with a man who will not undertake half the 'running costs' and the time taken to look after a child that is her choice - but then she shouldn't look to the state to provide
Thank you Laurie Penny for reminding us how much the left hates the married family, one of the most important, normal and familiar instituions of human life. You only have to look at the legions of violent undisciplined savages that our fatherless feminist society has produced to know that this is not "progress" at all but barbarism.
I'm not completely following your argument there Sarah. I'm saying that single people make a contribution to society in the same way that many others do; it's no less valuable and however you put it I cannot see how you can say they are not less costly. Your argument on say the rubbish creates a counter argument that it may be fairer to say that households should be charged per number of inhabitants in the household. I can see the point you make about single people not being cared for in later life but equally it could be argued that they are more likely to have adequately provided for their own retirement so I'm not sure I buy that one.
I also see what you are saying Swatantra but it's the current situation which has created this latest wave of social injustice not single people. The point I'm making is that a fair wave of single people have come to see me recently and made the point that they are being unfairly treated. They are saying they make a choice to be single and not have children or enter into a long term partnership where they live with one another; they don't see why they should pay for other people's children. To be fair to them I think they have a point, the State are saying they are passing responsibility back to the parents and the single people are also saying 'please don't expect us to pick up the tab'.
It's interesting to see how families with children see it so differently to those without. There is a two way argument and independence should not be seen as bucking social responsibility, interestingly many of the single people I see are not solely focused on being 'independant'; they are just people who simply end up on their own.
My wider point is that Cameron almost labels anyone who isn't 'happily married' (some one should show him the divorce statistics) as almost 'dysfunctional'. In his eyes that seems to include not just single parents but single people as well in general.
On the social responsibility issue one could also argue the green point that perhaps this earth is already too full of people we can't adequately provide for. Personally I'd like to see a greater distribution of wealth and it's perhaps here that I should clarify that the single person I'm stating a case for are not independent in the sense that they are wildly enthusiastic (greedy even) minded entrepreneurs but just ordinary folk who work hard and put away enough for them not to become a burden upon others and in return they don't see why they should be burdened with a responsibility they've chosen not to have, they still contribute to society through taxes but they think they are entitled to a bit of recognition of their reduced cost to society.
Deborah - Why the analogy of one parent dying, to make your point??!! very bizzare! why not simply, divorced, separated or gone awol, whereabouts unknown. I still think that whatever the makeup of a family, the state has an obliged responsibility towards them, because its the children in these families that becomes the adult citizen that works (believe it or not) and contribute to the same society, and they continue the circle.
Talk about a war on independent women. Did you read Sullivan today? http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/the-final-s... -- wow.
Brilliant piece - really outlines exactly the issues facing women. The 37 per cent figure is particularly startling - this message needs to be out there - the party line is repeated so often without contradiction that I sometimes find myself thinking I live in a world of wealthy middle class families! Ofcourse women dont want to live off the state but we clearly live in a market economy which does not provide jobs which pay enough, jobs which do not fit around childcare needs, unaffordable and in a lot of cases unavailable childcare, and an increasingly high cost of living (made all the higher with the VAT tax rise).
"I don't see how feminism is to blame for undermining fatherhood- when its feminists who have campaigned for parenting to be seen as something which is not just in the realm of women though"
They've undermined men and fatherhood with the constant insinuations that men are evil and cannot be trusted with children (Harman and Hewitt wrote a document stating the later)
They pretend that all domestic violence and child abuse is committed by men, and than women never lie and are perfect individuals.
Yes the gender feminists do give wishy-washy support to the concept of fathers doing more, but when it comes down to it they actually do everything in their power to stop fathers having any access to their children whatsoever.
Sexist feminists tend to be extremely hostile to the ideas of groups such as Fathers 4 Justice. They believe women should always have a career, the house AND the kids and men should simply be walking cash machines.
Gender feminists have done more than anyone to pretend that fathers are somehow an irrelevance and that fathers don't need contact with their dads, and we're now starting to see the consequences of their sick philosophy.
This is one of the NEW WORLD ORDER(s)
that we will be faced with in months or years to come.It is everyone's HUMAN RIGHT to marry or not to marry.And marriage does not mean that you will never have financial problems.One of the reasons why marriage fails is because all of the SEX we see on t.v.But no one should be forced to marry...this is very and very scary crazy
I don’t follow all the logic here (and please note I voted Labour!). There’s a point to be made, but this article seems to overstate it.
“single ladies will pay heavy penalties, especially if they have children.” What penalties will they pay if they *don’t* have children?
You could turn the argument round and say that if single mothers are encouraged to stay at home then that too could be seen as regressive.
I’m sure the cuts *will* have a bad impact on the poor, as per the Shelter quote (and I didn’t vote for such cuts) but I’m not sure this is a strongly gendered issue.
You say that the changes will make it more difficult to contemplate raising children without a man – but , again, I would have thought children after a certain age might in some if not all cases do better with a working parent than a non working one.
Lisa Ansell may not be working right now – but she says she’s always worked - so the cuts are affecting her because she is comparatively poor, not so much because she is a single mother. I assume she wants another job. Again this doesn’t seem to be case where a government antifeminist ideology is to blame.
I’m not sure how feminist goals can be achieved well by women staying at home after their children are of school age. What’s so great about not having a job and a better pension? I thought feminism was (partly) about helping women fill roles other than motherhood. If you think women should stay at home almost indefinitely if they are single and have children then that seems pretty conservative to me. Wouldn’t it be better to incentivize such women to get back to work? Again, I’m not saying I support the government line as I think any toughening up of welfare benefits should go hand in hand with improved child care or maybe schemes to encourage employers to take on single parents to work p/t and flexibly. You talk about a goal of feminism being to make women financially independent – the article’s title suggest that ‘independent women’ are being targeted- but there’s nothing terribly financially independent about living for years on benefits. I see myself as independent because I work f/t – I’m married, with children, but earn more than my husband and stay with him because I want to. Lisa seems – if I’ve understood her correctly – to pay *all* childcare herself although her daughter has an involved father. That also seems regressive – perhaps this is more obvious when the parents are living together but when we had childcare it was to enable us *both* to work. My husband paid that cost but I paid the mortgage.
There are points which *can* be made about the government and feminism. I agree the David Willets quote was strange. Also some minister – forget which – was quoted recently saying that child benefit might be front loaded to encourage mothers – and it was mothers who were specifically mentioned – to stay at home in the first few years.
Douglas – I take your points. Groups campaigning for fathers’ rights (not that I’m saying these groups are beyond criticism) are treated with hostility and derision – the same weapons used to marginalize the suffragettes, who were similarly driven to eccentric methods by being ignored.
I don't see how 'freedom' that's supported by the state is any kind of true freedom. Society doesn't mind who brings up babies but it can't afford to support professional single mother spongers. Daily Mail fiction? Go to Dewsbury. See for yourself.
Starvation is preferable to freedom. 3 year olds don't understand freedom. And I know Dewsbury very well. Very well indeed. There is another example of what happens when industry is torn away from a town. Yeah- you will find the stereotypes there. It happens in deprived areas- you don't see many in posh areas of Surrey there. Heartbreaking. I will probably survive- god knows what happens if you have no education, no skills, in a town with no industry, and you have never been part of a community with a work ethic- brilliant. Starve em. Kids deserve it.
Still if the married women have to stay at home cos they cant afford to work, and the single ones can't earn enough to keep a roof over their head...perfect world really that.
Patoba Ipririm you disgust me beyond words, labelling without any justification the hard-working, deserving and ignored single parents, especially mothers, as 'scroungers' of society. Society cannot afford to support these so-called 'scroungers'? No, Society cannot afford to support the group you so snugly fit into, the elitist scum with no understanding of the meaning of the word 'struggle' but greed to feed at least 1000 of some of these tireless soldiers of a society that should not any longer tolerate such stone-hearted, incompassionate and frankly vile supercilliousness.
May I also add how your chosen words on single mothers - 'professional' and 'spongers' - are almost oxymoronic and thus argue my case without any need for voice.
What an embarrassment to women. I sincerely hope that she has an incredibly happy marriage.
Post new comment