Proud to be Professionally Offended, Hysterical with a Tendency to Over-Thinking

Professionally offended and hysterical being two of the most common insults hurled at feminists who think that words actually do have power and that being an arsehole isn't normal behaviour for adults who aren't arseholes; odd as that may seem to actual arseholes. As far as I can tell, over-thinking is applied to anyone who actually graduated from Kindergarten what with their emphasis on being kind to others and sharing and eating cookies with milk.

This weeks installment has come via a Mumsnet thread on the increasing nincompoopery of one Jamie Oliver. Now, I have never understood the fascination with Jamie Oliver. I don't cook and I can't think of anything more tedious than cooking shows, with the sole of exception of every sports show going. I don't think he's funny but that might be because I genuinely don't understand half of what he's wittering on about, what with the whole not cooking thing. 

Anyway, apparently, he used this particularly stupid phrase in his show yesterday to describe barbecue sauce.

"It should punch you round the face, with a little kiss after" 

I just don't see why it's necessary or funny to use phrases which imply domestic violence. Mostly, I think it makes him sound like an arsehole, regardless of whether he intended the reference or not. Because, I genuinely can't believe that people don't see the inference of domestic violence in that statement. This is part of the normalisation of male violence against women. And, I don't believe it was an off-the-cuff remark. I think it was planned, rehearsed and agreed on because it sounded "cool" and "edgy", just as kickassangel said. It will have been chosen deliberately to increase publicity, what with the whole "there's no such thing as bad publicity". 

I, for one, am sick of this bullshit. 

I am sick of men normalising male violence against women because they think it's hip. 

I'm sick of their apologists who tell survivors of domestic violence to "get over it".

I am proud to be professionally offended, hysterical with a tendency to over-think things because it means that I'm not actually an arsehole.


Turns out kickassangel has blogged about this too here. 

Read More

The "Father's Rights Movement" is Dominated by Hypocrites

Last week, I published a report written by Nick Smithers from the organisation Circle who claim to be "Supporting Families In Scotland". The report is a joke. It's based on a sample size of 8 and tries to prove that "all" fathers are somehow victimised and are all prevented accessing their children due to lying whores of mothers, nasty feminists and evil social workers. Honestly, I've marked junior high essays where the students have had a better grasp of source material. There is nothing positive to be taken from the study except to reiterate that abusive men make shit fathers. Men who commit domestic violence against their partners are committing domestic violence against their children. 

Children have the right to grow up secure and loved. They have the right to grow up with parents who love them. They have the right to grow up in homes free from violence. I believe that abusive men should be prohibited from contact with their children until the children are old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want contact. But, and this is a huge but, only following proper specialist intervention. Children should not have to visit men who abuse them or their mothers. Forcing women to continue to have contact with a man who abused them is not about the rights of the children. It's about the rights of men to continue abusing their ex-partners with the full support of the legal system. We do our children a tremendous disservice in allowing this to happen.

I wrote this list for Father's Day.

Do 50% of the parenting.

Do 50% of the scut work.

Do 50% of the shit work.

Get up in the middle of the night with your sick kids.

Take the day off work when your kids are sick.

You don't 'baby-sit' your kids. You are a parent.

You don't get rewards for acting like an adult. You shouldn't get one for being a parent.

Pay maintenance. Not paying maintenance is child abuse.

You show up for contact. There is nothing more important than your children. 

You skip contact to watch football, then you are a shit father.

Domestic violence makes you a shit father. Abusing your partner in front of your children is child abuse.

If you can't name your child's teacher, best friend or medication, you are a shit father.

If you can't name your child's favourite toy, you are a shit father.

If you need to be told what time your child's school starts or the names of their after-school activities, you are a shit father.

Parenting is a 24/7 job with no breaks or overtime. If you don't understand that, then don't have PIV. 

Children deserve real fathers; not neglectful arse wipes who care more about their cocks than they do their children.

Read More

Walk a Mile in her Shoes: Just a Bunch of Wannabe Nigels

The 'Walk a Mile in her Shoes' images are making the rounds on Facebook. Again. They have always made me twitch. I just don't see how men walking down a road in high heels will lead to a greater awareness of male violence against women; not when rape culture is getting worse. I'd like to put them with the group of men, like those who support White Ribbon Campaign, who want to help make things better; even if they don't always get it right. But, there is something about the 'Walk a Mile in Her Shoes' campaign that just makes me really, really uncomfortable.

To be completely honest, despite it making me uncomfortable, I haven't actually thought about what the "Walk a Mile in her Shoes" marches mean or what their origins are. I've just assumed they were from something dodgy, but, then, I think most things involving men yakking about violence against women are dodgy [See also: the unrelenting white hero narrative of Half the Sky ]; unless they are doing it as an ally. Allies are good. Patrick Stewart makes a good ally. He supports women's organisations not by taking over but by using his celebrity to access a public platform to talk about how important those organisations are. Men who co-opt the movement for publicity or to make themself feel cool = bad.

I probably wouldn't have thought much further on this issue had it not been for this Facebook status update by Virginia Pele yesterday:

Dudes, u wearing high-heels shoes might be some kinda fun, but u know what would make a real change? You and your caste stopping raping womyn ! #walk a mile in her shoes, as if all womyn wore heels. They could at least criticize harmful beauty practices for womyn. Do so-called pro-feminists always have to be that ridiculous ?  

 My first response was this: 

Of course, when we point out the physical damage caused to women's bodies by wearing heels, we are told we are over-thinking things and to concentrate on something more important. But, men walking up the high street in suits and heels is totally going to end VAW and is massively important. More important than anything a woman could ever do.

Since then, I've been trying to articulate what exactly it is that bothers me about this but haven't been quite able to make sense of it but I think it does boil down to the double standard: women-only Reclaim the Night marches are jeered and insulted despite it being very clearly about victims of sexualised violence reclaiming their bodies and the public space. A bunch of men tottering about in heels is cheered and supported by all. I think it works to further silence women's voices because it makes it about men; not men stopping violence against women but a mockery* of that. Women's concerns about male violence and the sheer power of the fashion-beauty complex are being belittled by men; men who probably think they are helping.

Today, I took Virginia's advice and had a proper nosey about their website. I suggest everyone do so because it is really quite, well, arrogant and self-righteous. Apparently, "sexualised violence does not just affect women." I think we can all agree with that. Men can, and are, victims of sexualised violence; as are children. But, this isn't what the "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" men are talking about: sexualised violence affects men because of their relationships with women:

It affects the men who care about them, their families, their friends, their coworkers, and their communities. Sexualized violence is epidemic. Some of the statistics:** Every two minutes someone in America is raped. One in six American women are victims of sexual assault.That means someone you know, someone you care about, has been or may become the victim of sexual violence. It may be your mother, your sister, your friend, your girlfriend, your wife, your coworker, or your daughter.

So, they are completely ignoring the issue of male rape and focussing on rape being a problem because it might happen to some woman that men might know or, more cynically, think they have the right to possess. This, in and of itself, is really unbelievably patronising and arrogant. It also neglects to mention that the most sexualised violence is committed by men. It is committed by men on the bodies of women, children and other men. You can not have a discussion about sexualised violence without naming the perpetrators. To do so is asinine, counter-productive and, frankly, stupid. "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" has done precisely that.

I'm also finding it hard to take this line seriously: "See Photos of courageous men taking a stand against sexualized violence." Men, who have not been victims of sexualised violence, tottering about in high heels is not courageous. Women marching in Reclaim the Night marches are brave. Men talking about their personal experiences of sexualised violence are brave. Men playing dress up are not brave. They are playing. I actually find that line unbelievably disrespectful and minimising of the experiences of survivors of sexualised violence.

As irritating as all that is, the mission statement of "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" is really the most obviously stupid:

Co-creating a United Gender Movement, men will be a part of the solution to ending sexualized violence.

Walk a Mile in Her Shoes® Events are political and performance art with public, personal and existential messages. At a Walk a Mile in Her Shoes® Event there is no distinction between performer and audience. Our mission is to create a unique and powerful public experience that educates individuals and communities about the causes of sexualized violence, provides them with prevention and remediation strategies and empowers them to further develop and implement these knowledges and skills interpersonally and politically.

First off, WTF is a United Gender Movement? Because, google wasn't exactly forthcoming on this issue. Secondly, sexualised violence requires men to be more than "part of the solution". That only works if you think women rape themselves or are responsible for being raped. If men want to stop sexualised violence then they need to stop raping women. They need to stop raping children. They need to stop raping other men. Sexualised violence will, effectively, disappear if men just stop perpetrating it.

Thirdly, sexualised violence is a crime. It is not an opportunity for performance art with "public, personal and existential messages". WTF does that even mean? Women in Reclaim the Night marches aren't performers. They are women engaged in political protest. They do not have an "audience" to perform for. Men meandering about in high heels does not educate people about the causes of sexualised violence, particularly when they are too chicken to name the perpetrators. And, I can't even begin to work out how they think a bunch of men in Louboutins are learning "prevention and remediation strategies [that] empowers them to further develop and implement these knowledges and skills interpersonally and politically". 

Honestly, who buys into this twaddle? Every page on their website has a huge donate here button which probably wouldn't have set off my trolldar if "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" weren't now part of Venture Humanity Inc. Venture Humanity only has one another subsidiary: Now House Therapy Centre which runs classes in Postmodern therapies.

I genuinely don't even know where to start with "postmodern therapies". I really don't; except to say that following the money is always a good idea. Not that I have the skills to look out their finances but I find the connection between the "performance art" of Walk a Mile in Her Shoes and the "postmodern therapies" of Now House Therapy Centre deeply suspect.

But, then, I'm always cynical about men trying to fix things without actually naming the thing they are trying to fix; just like with Half the Sky.

*This word came via a discussion on twitter. 

**This embedded link was included in the quote.

Read More

In the missing the point entirely category today:

We have this somewhat ridiculous article by Kamila Kocialkowska on whether or not the cultural appropriation of the Plains Indian War Bonnet is offensive. Now, I fully planned on blogging about this last night after reading the article but the thought of, once again, having to point out that it doesn't matter if white Dudes think it's okay to run around pretending to be 'Indians', it's still rude. White Dudes have a habit of thinking all sorts of things are okay despite them being obviously racist, homophobic, disablist or misogynistic. As a general rule of thumb, if white Dudes think something is socially acceptable, it's probably best to take 2 minutes to double-check. Just in case.

I decided to have a bubble bath instead. I know this isn't a very helpful response to this level of nincompoopery but this will be something like the fourth time I've written about cultural appropriation in the past two weeks and I'm starting to bore myself. 

Here's the thing, I think the cultural appropriation of the Plains Indian War Bonnet by Lana Del Ray, No Doubt and Victoria's Secret is incredibly rude, offensive and totally lacking in critical thinking skills. Frankly, this total refusal to listen to the opinions of other people sets my teeth on edge. That's why we have a Tory party. If you don't belong to them and you are spouting the "it's P.C gone mad" line, you might want to rethink your political position. Or, acknowledge that you're an asshole. Or, both. Probably both.

Pretty much the entirety of Kocialkowska's article pissed me off with it's total refusal to engage with the opinions of others but I found this section particularly telling: 

The truth is that nowadays, cultural assimilation has become so all-pervasive it’s almost unnoticeable. Popular culture has always consisted of mining, borrowing from and subverting the cultural heritage of the past. In fact, Frederic Jameson went so far as to see this as a defining factor of the postmodern age. For him, the past and its symbols no longer exist, "except as a repository of genres, styles, and codes ready for commodification”.

This has vast implications for political incorrectness - no symbol can truly be said to be culturally isolated any more. The eagle-feathered headdress which inspired such extensive outrage on the Victoria's Secret runway doesn't belong to the Native American repositry alone. It's origins date back to widespread early cultures, including Aztec warriors, early Gaelic clan chiefs and Slavic hussars. Now it’s been assimilated into contemporary culture and passed into the collective unconscious. Its original meaning is melded and mixed in a sea of new, secular meanings.

In other words, in a postmodern, post-ironic, globalised world, can anyone really be said to have ownership over their own heritage?

First off, Victoria's Secret were referencing the Plains Indian War Bonnet. They were not referencing Aztec warriors or Gaelic clan chiefs or Slavic hussars. So, let's not play the "other-people-did-it-so-its-totally-not-special" game as it makes everyone look like a buckethead. Secondly, we all know that things-which-one-sticks-on-one's-head are frequently used as signifiers of power. That is because it is a simple and visible way to denote power relationships; see: the Victorian top-hat. Minimising or dismissing these signifiers, as Victoria's Secret did, is rude and is, inherently, racist. Thirdly, even if you were too dim to get this, First Nations, Metis, Inuit and Native Americans have been saying this for years. 30 seconds on google would have been evidence of this. Fourthly, invoking the "John-Wayne-and-Clint-Eastwood-were-in-movies-about-Injuns" argument just makes you look more racist and dim. The fact that they engaged in racist stereotypes does not make using those stereotypes acceptable. It just means there are a whole lot of racist, culturally insensitive, dim people running about the continent. 

Finally, we may be living in a world where postmodernism is God but that doesn't mean that postmodernism is actually God. Or, that most of the people running about claiming to be postmodern have any understanding of postmodernism. The word postmodernism is bandied about a lot by people who think it makes them sound clever when, frequently, it's the opposite. So, yes, people are entitled to have ownership over their own heritage. There is no grey area over this. Deliberately, or undeliberately, minimising, mocking or otherwise plagiarising the cultural heritage of other people is ignorant, arrogant and rude.

There is no such thing as post-irony either. That's the same twaddle as people suggesting we live in a post-feminist, post-racism world. It's just nincompoopery.

Oh, and what  Kocialkowska neglects to mention in her article is that the model in the War Bonnet image was meant to represent the month of November: the month where Americans give thanks for committing mass genocide. Because that wasn't at all stupid either.

Read More

Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women Day

I find it quite perplexing that the White Ribbon Campaign in the UK has decided to make November 25th White Ribbon Day since women's groups have been using it as a day of protest since 1981. Actually, I find it quite disrespectful to women in the UK who have been protesting on November 25th for years and  to the men in Canada who created the White Ribbon Campaign as a way for men to take responsibility for male violence against women in light of the massacre of 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal on December 6th 1989.

This is the statement from the feminist organisation of Nia on why they are talking about The International Day to End Violence Against Women and not White Ribbon Day. I agree with it completely. Today should be about women's voices discussing and debating violence against women. Men do have a part in these debates but they don't help when they co-opt a day created for women by women. The White Ribbon Day should be December 6th: a day when women mourn 14 women murdered just for being women and a day when men take responsibility for male violence against women.

25th November – Are you talking about The International Day to End Violence Against Women or White Ribbon Day? 

#IDTEVAW #whiteribbonday 

Women's activists have marked November 25 as a day to fight violence against women since 1981. In July 1981, women from across Latin America came together in Columbia. They decided to hold an annual day of protest on 25th November for this International Day Against Violence Against Women in memory of the Mirabel sisters. Patria, Maria Teresa and Minerva Mirabel were assassinated in a ’car accident’ in the Dominican Republic in 1960. They were political activists, killed for their involvement in efforts to overthrow the fascist government of Rafael Trujillo.
In 1991, the first White Ribbon Campaign was launched by a group of men in Canada after the mass shooting of 14 female students at the University of Montreal.

On December 17, 1999, the United Nations General Assembly designated 25 November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. The UN invited governments, international organisations and NGOs to organise activities designated to raise public awareness of violence against women on this day.

The White Ribbon Campaign has become a global campaign to ensure men take more responsibility for reducing the level of violence against women. We support men’s acknowledgement of their role in ending violence against women but we don’t want men’s contribution to overwrite that of women and therefore, nia’s focus is on 25th November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

Read More

16 Days of Action on Violence Against Women: A Bloghop

For the past few weeks, people have been saying that Feminism is Dead. Personally, I think that position requires rather a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance and running about with fingers in ones ears singing. It is so patently untrue that even responding feels silly. There is so much brilliant feminist activism in the UK right now: with grassroots organisations and political lobbying groups get real media attention.

Just as importantly, Feminists have been reclaiming the internet through social media and blogging. Everyday I find myself in awe and inspired by the most amazing, incredible and brilliant women; their writing, their art and their souls. It is a sisterhood (re)awakening. As part of the 16 Days of Action on Violence Against Women, I want to share these voices that have inspired me. I am starting a bloghop where a new blogger will link a piece each day. Some of these will be new. Some of these are older pieces which require rereading. They are personal, political, academic, but, most of all, women's voices. Some will be heart-breaking. Some will just inspire. Others are designed to provoke.

I want to hear new voices too. Please link your blogs. Link as many different pieces as you would like. We need to hear one another. That way, the next time someone posts a silly article about Feminism being Dead, we can just ignore it. And, continue celebrating with our sisters.

If you don't blog and still want to participate, please email me at stewiegriffinsmom@gmail.com. I will publish your piece.

Participating Bloggers:

Bug Brennan
Ex London Call Girl
Exiled Stardust
FeministMeUp
Frothy Dragon and the Patriarchal Stone
Gherkinette
Glosswatch
HerbsandHags
Hiding Under the Bed
Jellypop
JumpMag
Just Some Stuff About Us
KickAss Tales
Lexicon lane
Minja (Medecins San Frontiers Field Blog)
Mitherings From Morningside
Progressive Women
Salt and Caramel
ScallopsRGreat
The Astell Project
Tilly Jean
Tricialo
WeekWoman
Zohra Moosa (F-Word)

This is a Blog Hop!

---

1. What is funfeminism? And how

2. Name The Problem

3. Ann Summers misogyny tour

4. The Countess of Strathearn

5. Femfresh

6. The lies I had to tell myself

7. Misogyny - A Taboo Word?

8. Hiding Under The Bed

9. Violence at Christmas

10. Avoid The Knife - FGM in Kenya

11. Right, listen up everybody

12. The truth about body hair.

13. 16 Days - Disability

14. There in the Shadows FGM in UK

15. Put Yourslef in their Shoes

16. Violence & mental healthcare

17. Govt commits new money on VAWG

18. Red Flags

19. Supporting Women Is Vital

20. The Myth Of Female Brutality

21. Jeremy Kyle: Excusing Abuse

22. Disney And Its 3D Misogyny

23. Parable of the justice evader

24. Rape: our dirty little secret

25. The rapists safe space

26. Victim Blaming Celeb Style

27. On prostitution

28. Reporting

29. WTF is TYFA? A new generation.

30. Eat Factory-Farmed Chicken

31. Feminism & Women-Only Spaces

32. Femen Redux

33. Reclaiming the Internet

This linky list is now closed.

What is a blog hop?
Get the code here...

Powered by Linky Tools

Read More

There are a few moments when I am at a loss for words:

This is one of them because I genuinely can't believe that someone would invent a product designed to feed an infant too small to hold a bottle for themselves. Or, that its somehow more important to vacuum than feed your baby. There is never, ever a time when housework is more important than taking the time to feed and cuddle your baby.

Feeding, whether breast or bottle, is an important cuddling session for babies. Their emotional health and development is dependent on this. There is nothing more important than ensuring that your baby is fed safely and securely. Neither of these products are safe. They contravene NHS guidelines on feeding infants and are incredibly dangerous. 

But, it's not just that these products are dangerous. And, they are. They really, really are. The risk of choking is huge; as is the risk of over-feeding. This is just part of the growing industry in guilting and bullying new parents into believing that babies are just accessories or that their needs aren't as important as the parents. We devalue the parent/ child relationship with these products. Babies are only small for a short time. The human infant is one of the weakest and least capable of caring for itself in the animal kingdom. Instead of ensuring that new parents and their babies bond properly, our culture keeps inventing ways to ignore the needs of babies so that new mothers can crash diet to look fuckable and new fathers can keep pretending they are bachelors with no responsibilities. We all lose out on this in the Capitalist-Patriarchy.

We should be encouraging parents, siblings and the extended family and friends in building these relationships. Not suggesting that new mothers, and the cartoon is quite telling on sex discrimination, aren't failing if they just spend time playing, cuddling and caring for the needs of their babies.

Read More

I am grateful to Caitlin Moran for one thing:

Moran has pushed the debate on how we define feminism and who gets to define feminism back into the media. Personally, I don't like Moran's brand of feminism. I think it focuses far too much on the individual and fails to acknowledge the oppression of women as a class or the multiple oppressions of non-white, heterosexual women. I've not read How To Be A Woman as I'm not really a fan of her work so I can't comment on the text itself but I have found some of Moran's columns to be, well, deeply unkind about other women. Her treatment of Samantha Bricks was unnecessarily cruel [and rather lacking in feminist analysis]. Her refusal to engage meaningfully with criticisms of her interview with Lena Durham was, well, silly. Moran's focus on individualism obfuscates feminist theory and feminist activism within the UK. It elides some of the incredible work that British feminists are doing whilst simultaneously opening a space in which to have a debate about feminism. It's an odd, problematic situation. So, whilst I am incredibly uncomfortable with the media constructing Moran as the best "British Feminist", she has mainstreamed feminism within the media itself. 

More young women are identifying as "feminists" which is important, but we really do need to start questioning what we mean by "feminist". Rosie Kelly's Guardian piece is quite problematic. In many ways, I think Kelly's understanding of feminism is quite naive. I think this comment is quite telling: 

"To me, what feminism boils down to is the realisation that, in some areas, women still have a harder deal than men."

Women have a much harder deal than men in all areas, not simply reproductive freedom and rape. There are more than a few areas where gender equality is a problem. It is everywhere and this is the problem with Moran. Her, fairly lazy, definition of feminism has garnered mainstream media attention because it doesn't question the status quo. It allows men like Kelly's friend Dan to claim that most feminists are sexists and hate men. But, this isn't the fault of feminists. This is the fault of a male-controlled and male dominated media who actively seek to minimise and ridicule women's attempts to secure basic human rights. It is men who actively oppress women who spread the lies about feminists being man-hating harpies. I'm never surprised that men buy into these lies. After all, acknowledging their privilege might led to some unfortunate conclusions about their own behaviour.

It is Dan's refusal to see the oppression of women which is the problem. It is his belief that feminists seek to "punish" men which is the problem. After all, Dan doesn't seem to give a shit about how many women are punished every day in the UK by men through rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, street harassment, and simply by being paid less than men for equal work. Moran's brand of feminism might be simplistic and problematic but the real problem for women in this country is men like Dan. Not women like Moran; although a little of self-reflection wouldn't go amiss from time to time. 

I disagree with Kelly's new "feminist chronology" being separated into Before and After Moran. Moran will never be one of the important feminist theorists or activists in the UK and I doubt very much Moran would speak of herself in those terms. Kelly is wrong about British feminists too. Young women aren't being turned into feminists because of Moran. They were already there: on the ground campaigning. Kelly just didn't look hard enough for them. A few hours on Twitter and Facebook will show just how many young, vibrant, brilliant feminists there are in the UK. "Informed women" who know that women have a far way to go before we can achieve equality. "Informed women" who are fighting back through grassroots activism and by serious political pressure.

And, for the last time, can we dump this man-hating, hairy lesbian shit. It's rude, disrespectful and is predicated on the belief that lesbians are just not proper women. It's perfectly acceptable for women to hate the men who have hurt them. After all, a whole lot of men seem to hate women and no one runs about whining to Ryan Gosling about other men who hate women. Frankly, all this "man-hating" discourse does is prove how shit scared men really are of feminists. Because we rock. 

Read More

Maria Miller's Visit to Mumsnet Didn't Go to Well

Not, that I had any thoughts that it would go well considering the Minister for Women is an uterus-bothering buckethead. But, we are Mumsnet. We have a reputation for intelligence, compassion and not putting up with bullshit. And, all Miller had was spin and bullshit. It was never going to go well.

I think this exchange between Miller and I is an accurate demonstration most of the chat: I ask a question, she lies, I call her a liar and she agrees with me. It was embarrassing and summed up best by Bonsoir's : 

<Thank you Maria, that was a really clear demonstration that you understand absolutely nothing about the issues for which you have responsibility. We know where we stand with you >

And, the fact that the Minister of Women wasn't aware of the Mumsnet campaign for a Miscarriage Code of Practise. Make of that what you will.

MariaMillerMP Thu 22-Nov-12 13:14:14

StewieGriffinsMom

How do you square your government's policies on women, particularly the destruction of the CSA and the benefits system, with being the Minister for Women?

We've got a strong set of policies to support women, including supporting 2 million of the lowest paid out of income tax altogether - most of whom are women - and extending help with childcare for those that work less than 16 hours a week. A first for government!

StewieGriffinsMom Thu 22-Nov-12 13:29:22

That doesn't answer my question about the CSA. The reason many single parent families headed by women live in poverty is because of men refusing to pay maintenance and a government that doesn't give a crap.

The cuts to housing benefit, income support and tax credits have disproportionately affected women forcing more women and children into poverty. 

The idea that your government is somehow helping these women is, simply, a lie. You have done anything but.

Instead, you are rewarding men who financially neglect their children.

MariaMillerMP Thu 22-Nov-12 13:35:32

StewieGriffinsMom

That doesn't answer my question about the CSA. The reason many single parent families headed by women live in poverty is because of men refusing to pay maintenance and a government that doesn't give a crap.

The cuts to housing benefit, income support and tax credits have disproportionately affected women forcing more women and children into poverty. 

The idea that your government is somehow helping these women is, simply, a lie. You have done anything but.

Instead, you are rewarding men who financially neglect their children.

StewieGriffinsMom, you are absolutely right. That's exactly why we are reforming the CSA - to make it work better in getting children the support they need.

StewieGriffinsMom Thu 22-Nov-12 13:44:00

"StewieGriffinsMom, you are absolutely right. That's exactly why we are reforming the CSA - to make it work better in getting children the support they need."

Are you agreeing with me that you are lying about your government's plans to alleviate women's poverty?

Or, are you agreeing that CSA is in complete shambles following your government's destruction of it? And, that your "fixing" has actually made it worse for resident parents?

Read More