>The new flats will provide low rent accommodation to single women only.
>Men will be only permitted to stay in the building if they are partners of the tenants, or adult children set to inherit the property.
Partners of single women?
in a world of gender fluidity, what if a woman moves in and decides later on to transition to male? Presumably they could not be evicted. Or could they?
“The new flats will provide low rent accommodation to single women only”
“Men will be only permitted to stay in the building if they are partners of the tenants”
So not single women only?
Men are about 5x as likely to be homeless than women, and we’re building tower blocks exclusively for women. Wild.
[removed]
What’s the criteria for living in it?
Surprised this doesn’t fall flat as the same type of discrimination legislation as Shelia’s Wheels; who offered cheaper insurance to women.
This line in the article makes no sense:
> Men will be only permitted to stay in the building if they are partners of the tenants, or adult children set to inherit the property.
So you have a male child who is say 30. They can only visit if they’re going to inherit the property, which is… a rental
> The new flats will provide low **rent** accommodation
I see they’ve really thought this virtue signal through.
I think its pretty obvious what is going to happen. Lots of women are going to apply for the property and then their families are going to move in. That, or it is going to be an dystopian shit hole where adults are quizzed about who they’re bringing home to stay.
Seems probably unworkable but I’m fascinated to see it unfold
Ok everybody. Take a pause before commenting. So far no one has added anything to the discussion other than: what if [situation covered in the scheme already] happens.
There’s nothing strange nor controversial here and so far none of the comments justify not having this exist. At best, one or two comments justify helping homeless men in some way too but that’s another topic for another day
We shouldn’t not help a group just because there is a needier group. Follow that logic to conclusion and we wouldn’t help homeless men either (think of all the homeless children… Forget the homeless children think of the starving children… And so on) There is always a needier cause.
Edit, this triggered a lot of fragile male egos so…
>the application, which will see 102 new flats built, from the Women’s Pioneer Housing Association (WPA). Brook House, an area of low-rise blocks owned by WPA opposite Acton Town tube station, will be knocked down and replaced.
Is the suggestion here that a woman’s charity should not spend their money helping women. That the money donated to them specifically for that purpose they should not spend while men need help.
There’s nothing stopping any of the men here from setting up or donating to a men’s charity but they don’t because helping homeless men isn’t their goal (as another commenter pointed out).
Let’s try this one.
Whites-only tower block given go ahead by Ealing Council.
So basically men are allowed to stay if the couple are playing the system
*reads title then immediately sorts by controversial*
As articles to make people kick off on the internet go, this is top tier.
How exactly is this legal? I know the equality act allows for exceptions for the sake of acheiving a legitimate aim but I’m not seeing what that aim is here.
This is going to fuel resentment amongst people waiting for council housing and further damage community cohesion.
You only have to look at the tension about social housing being given to those fleeing persecution and successfully getting asylum in the 1990s early 2000s
For such segregation not to cause resentment you need social housing supply t outstrip social housing need.
The phrase ‘oodles of lawsuits’ comes to mind.
What about male children? Will they be barred from living in their childhood home when they turn 18?
It’s bizarre how angry women organising themselves to help out other vulnerable women seems to be seen as such a THREAT by some men.
I don’t see those same men collaborating to set up a housing association to help vulnerable men. No discussion of that at all – we only hear from them when they want to complain about women doing something to help themselves.
Literally every article on this sub about women doing anything – “but what about men?”.
It’s absolutely pathetic.
[removed]
In this economy? Wish I could afford to live alone.
The ultimate justification for this appears to be that women, on average, earn less than men, so should be offered subsidised housing.
In which case, why not just offer subsidised housing to anyone with low income?
This will be challenged in court and thrown out under the equality act. You can’t have a service for one gender unless it’s very specifically protected.
I don’t see the issue.
There’s literally hundreds of hostels for the homeless in London. Off the top of my head St Mungo’s has at least 90, and some of them are mixed, and some of them aren’t. This is not counting many more smaller housing and resettlement projects.
Would it be better if we stuck a big cross on the outside and called it a convent?
It’s social housing, something we could do with a lot more of.
My point is that there are social issues people go through which come with a lot of trauma – homelessness, domestic abuse and violence, and so on, and while the practical aspects are easier to deal with, it can take years, even decades to recover from the emotional and psychological trauma.
Obviously it would be much better to actually prevent such issues from affecting people’s lives to begin with, but that would require coming up with a better socio-economic system than neoliberal ‘free market’ capitalism and an economy driven by economic growth and the profit incentive. But here we all are.
My point here is that people who have gone through such traumatic social issues as homelessness and domestic violence can’t just ‘get over it’, find a job and reintegrate themselves back into society. There’s a recovery process which is made much more difficult and complicated by the lack of social security.
Maybe instead of arguing and fighting over who gets what and how and why, we need to reflect on why we find the generation of so much human trauma, suffering and hardship acceptable for the sake of an artificially contrived made up socio-economic system.
This stupid idea and comments on this thread go to exactly show that housing should be provided to people who need it, and whoever they are.
Not who need it, and who they are.
Why does the downtrodden of society have to be subdivided further still? Why, if we turn on each other we won’t combine to fight the terrible political decisions that have lead to scarcity of housing in the first place.
And this is why I call this selective housing as stupid
I feel like this is technically a good idea, but not actually executable. And, you knwo, there’s single men who are facing eviction or homelessness or who have become homeless are automatically lower priority than women in the same situation, and less likely to get a flat from social hosuing, and it’s not fair to them to always be treated like they can cope with homelessness more than women could. So it would be understandable for men to become resentful to this idea.
Ohh the outrage at an organisation that started 4 or 5 generations ago in 1920. They own 1000 properties already so this isn’t some new age attack on men. Instead of buying more flats they building them.
It owns the 39 flats that are already there and have the exact same criteria, single women. If a woman starts a relationship then a man can move in but the tenancy stays with the woman.
It will take residents referred to it via the council and Ealing women’s refuge, victims of domestic abuse.
This does make sense as alot of low income and affordable housing is in bad areas where it is more dangerous for women to walk around and they are specifically targeting women who have recently gotten out of abusive situations rather than just random women, however it isn’t going to make a huge dent in the housing market and we need more places like this open to everyone with a low income.
It’s just sexism plain and simple. Having problems and needing help isn’t only for women, yet that seems to be where all the help is aided at
Another reminder to men and boys out there. If you are struggling, there isn’t help for you. There’s help for everyone else. But as a man, you gotta do it yourself.
8 out of 10 homeless people are men and more and more studies are coming out showing men are facing just as much domestic violence as woman. But it’s only the women getting access to discounted housing
And the real issue isn’t that it’s a woman’s only block for victims. We need spaces for victims
The problem is that if anyone tried to do this for men, there would be protests until it got shut down. If it got that far. Which it wouldn’t. Discounted housing for men wouldn’t even make it past the first hurdle. It would get laughed out of the meeting
Why can’t a similar scheme be set up for homelessness?
So how is it fair that single women get cheap housing in Ealing but everyone else doesn’t?
I’m pretty sure this is illegal, it breaks the Equality Act 2010.
The Equality Act 2010 protects you from discrimination by:
– employers
– businesses and organisations
– health and care providers
**- someone you rent or buy a property from like housing associations and estate agents**
– schools, colleges and other education providers
– transport services like buses, trains and taxis
– public bodies like government departments and local authorities.
There are nine protected characteristics in the Equality Act. Discrimination which happens because of one or more of these characteristics is unlawful under the Act:
– age
– disability
– gender reassignment
– marriage or civil partnership (in employment only)
– pregnancy and maternity
– race
– religion or belief
**- sex**
– sexual orientation
I look forward to this being legally enforceable and a heart warming, measured debate when the first trans women moves in.
Christ, if you read the comments on here you would think that Ealing council were suggesting gassing any male that comes within 200 yards of the entrance and that this would be manned with turrets 24/7.
It’s a tower block for women fleeing domestic abuse. Men can still go in and live there, they just need to be visiting somebody or their partners name will need to be on the lease if its a more permanent arrangement.
One of the biggest issues that faces people who flee from domestic violence is stable accommodation.
A charity building flats does not remove housing from the existing shallow pool, it adds more.
Men would not get slaughtered by the media for creating the same, there would likely be some shit articles in a rag like The Sun – but as long as the messaging is right it’d be seen positively – at least by younger generations who seem to have a healthier attitude towards mental health.
The approval of this block does not invalidate, nor ignore the struggles of men who are homeless, fleeing from domestic abuse or both. There should also be accommodation for them – I’d support any charity making this an aim to provide.
We as a society need to be able to celebrate wins for some of the most vulnerable, this is one of them, attacking it just because they only want women’s names on the leases is meaningless division.
An awful lot of men getting triggered in the comments here by something so simple as a women’s charity trying to set up housing for vulnerable women.
And to all the guys arguing “we’d never be allowed to set up a men only housing block” please come back to reality, there is zero demand for something like that in the real world and we all know it.
Men make up the overwhelming majority of homeless people.
Ealing council: “We need homes exclusively for women”
What a joke time we live in. There is literally no benefit to this other than maybe it’ll be the only council estate in London that doesn’t stink of piss.
Expected a facepalm worthy comments section.
Was not disappointed.
Amazing how many haven’t even read the article. This is nothing new. They’re simply replacing a building which already operates on the same rules.
And you just know many of those throwing a fit will also spend their time on trans threads ranting about how important women’s shelters are…
Absolutely astounding how many men get angry at female DV shelters instead of channeling some of that passion into fighting for more male DV shelters.
Do you actually care about male victims or are they just useful when you want to scream about the genders being reversed?
People’s status changes over time – we can’t dictate that. Clearly there is a need for this.
37 comments
>The new flats will provide low rent accommodation to single women only.
>Men will be only permitted to stay in the building if they are partners of the tenants, or adult children set to inherit the property.
Partners of single women?
in a world of gender fluidity, what if a woman moves in and decides later on to transition to male? Presumably they could not be evicted. Or could they?
“The new flats will provide low rent accommodation to single women only”
“Men will be only permitted to stay in the building if they are partners of the tenants”
So not single women only?
Men are about 5x as likely to be homeless than women, and we’re building tower blocks exclusively for women. Wild.
[removed]
What’s the criteria for living in it?
Surprised this doesn’t fall flat as the same type of discrimination legislation as Shelia’s Wheels; who offered cheaper insurance to women.
This line in the article makes no sense:
> Men will be only permitted to stay in the building if they are partners of the tenants, or adult children set to inherit the property.
So you have a male child who is say 30. They can only visit if they’re going to inherit the property, which is… a rental
> The new flats will provide low **rent** accommodation
I see they’ve really thought this virtue signal through.
I think its pretty obvious what is going to happen. Lots of women are going to apply for the property and then their families are going to move in. That, or it is going to be an dystopian shit hole where adults are quizzed about who they’re bringing home to stay.
Seems probably unworkable but I’m fascinated to see it unfold
Ok everybody. Take a pause before commenting. So far no one has added anything to the discussion other than: what if [situation covered in the scheme already] happens.
There’s nothing strange nor controversial here and so far none of the comments justify not having this exist. At best, one or two comments justify helping homeless men in some way too but that’s another topic for another day
We shouldn’t not help a group just because there is a needier group. Follow that logic to conclusion and we wouldn’t help homeless men either (think of all the homeless children… Forget the homeless children think of the starving children… And so on) There is always a needier cause.
Edit, this triggered a lot of fragile male egos so…
>the application, which will see 102 new flats built, from the Women’s Pioneer Housing Association (WPA). Brook House, an area of low-rise blocks owned by WPA opposite Acton Town tube station, will be knocked down and replaced.
Is the suggestion here that a woman’s charity should not spend their money helping women. That the money donated to them specifically for that purpose they should not spend while men need help.
There’s nothing stopping any of the men here from setting up or donating to a men’s charity but they don’t because helping homeless men isn’t their goal (as another commenter pointed out).
Let’s try this one.
Whites-only tower block given go ahead by Ealing Council.
So basically men are allowed to stay if the couple are playing the system
*reads title then immediately sorts by controversial*
As articles to make people kick off on the internet go, this is top tier.
How exactly is this legal? I know the equality act allows for exceptions for the sake of acheiving a legitimate aim but I’m not seeing what that aim is here.
This is going to fuel resentment amongst people waiting for council housing and further damage community cohesion.
You only have to look at the tension about social housing being given to those fleeing persecution and successfully getting asylum in the 1990s early 2000s
For such segregation not to cause resentment you need social housing supply t outstrip social housing need.
The phrase ‘oodles of lawsuits’ comes to mind.
What about male children? Will they be barred from living in their childhood home when they turn 18?
It’s bizarre how angry women organising themselves to help out other vulnerable women seems to be seen as such a THREAT by some men.
I don’t see those same men collaborating to set up a housing association to help vulnerable men. No discussion of that at all – we only hear from them when they want to complain about women doing something to help themselves.
Literally every article on this sub about women doing anything – “but what about men?”.
It’s absolutely pathetic.
[removed]
In this economy? Wish I could afford to live alone.
The ultimate justification for this appears to be that women, on average, earn less than men, so should be offered subsidised housing.
In which case, why not just offer subsidised housing to anyone with low income?
This will be challenged in court and thrown out under the equality act. You can’t have a service for one gender unless it’s very specifically protected.
I don’t see the issue.
There’s literally hundreds of hostels for the homeless in London. Off the top of my head St Mungo’s has at least 90, and some of them are mixed, and some of them aren’t. This is not counting many more smaller housing and resettlement projects.
Would it be better if we stuck a big cross on the outside and called it a convent?
It’s social housing, something we could do with a lot more of.
My point is that there are social issues people go through which come with a lot of trauma – homelessness, domestic abuse and violence, and so on, and while the practical aspects are easier to deal with, it can take years, even decades to recover from the emotional and psychological trauma.
Obviously it would be much better to actually prevent such issues from affecting people’s lives to begin with, but that would require coming up with a better socio-economic system than neoliberal ‘free market’ capitalism and an economy driven by economic growth and the profit incentive. But here we all are.
My point here is that people who have gone through such traumatic social issues as homelessness and domestic violence can’t just ‘get over it’, find a job and reintegrate themselves back into society. There’s a recovery process which is made much more difficult and complicated by the lack of social security.
Maybe instead of arguing and fighting over who gets what and how and why, we need to reflect on why we find the generation of so much human trauma, suffering and hardship acceptable for the sake of an artificially contrived made up socio-economic system.
This stupid idea and comments on this thread go to exactly show that housing should be provided to people who need it, and whoever they are.
Not who need it, and who they are.
Why does the downtrodden of society have to be subdivided further still? Why, if we turn on each other we won’t combine to fight the terrible political decisions that have lead to scarcity of housing in the first place.
And this is why I call this selective housing as stupid
I feel like this is technically a good idea, but not actually executable. And, you knwo, there’s single men who are facing eviction or homelessness or who have become homeless are automatically lower priority than women in the same situation, and less likely to get a flat from social hosuing, and it’s not fair to them to always be treated like they can cope with homelessness more than women could. So it would be understandable for men to become resentful to this idea.
Ohh the outrage at an organisation that started 4 or 5 generations ago in 1920. They own 1000 properties already so this isn’t some new age attack on men. Instead of buying more flats they building them.
It owns the 39 flats that are already there and have the exact same criteria, single women. If a woman starts a relationship then a man can move in but the tenancy stays with the woman.
It will take residents referred to it via the council and Ealing women’s refuge, victims of domestic abuse.
This does make sense as alot of low income and affordable housing is in bad areas where it is more dangerous for women to walk around and they are specifically targeting women who have recently gotten out of abusive situations rather than just random women, however it isn’t going to make a huge dent in the housing market and we need more places like this open to everyone with a low income.
It’s just sexism plain and simple. Having problems and needing help isn’t only for women, yet that seems to be where all the help is aided at
Another reminder to men and boys out there. If you are struggling, there isn’t help for you. There’s help for everyone else. But as a man, you gotta do it yourself.
8 out of 10 homeless people are men and more and more studies are coming out showing men are facing just as much domestic violence as woman. But it’s only the women getting access to discounted housing
And the real issue isn’t that it’s a woman’s only block for victims. We need spaces for victims
The problem is that if anyone tried to do this for men, there would be protests until it got shut down. If it got that far. Which it wouldn’t. Discounted housing for men wouldn’t even make it past the first hurdle. It would get laughed out of the meeting
Why can’t a similar scheme be set up for homelessness?
So how is it fair that single women get cheap housing in Ealing but everyone else doesn’t?
I’m pretty sure this is illegal, it breaks the Equality Act 2010.
The Equality Act 2010 protects you from discrimination by:
– employers
– businesses and organisations
– health and care providers
**- someone you rent or buy a property from like housing associations and estate agents**
– schools, colleges and other education providers
– transport services like buses, trains and taxis
– public bodies like government departments and local authorities.
There are nine protected characteristics in the Equality Act. Discrimination which happens because of one or more of these characteristics is unlawful under the Act:
– age
– disability
– gender reassignment
– marriage or civil partnership (in employment only)
– pregnancy and maternity
– race
– religion or belief
**- sex**
– sexual orientation
I look forward to this being legally enforceable and a heart warming, measured debate when the first trans women moves in.
Christ, if you read the comments on here you would think that Ealing council were suggesting gassing any male that comes within 200 yards of the entrance and that this would be manned with turrets 24/7.
It’s a tower block for women fleeing domestic abuse. Men can still go in and live there, they just need to be visiting somebody or their partners name will need to be on the lease if its a more permanent arrangement.
One of the biggest issues that faces people who flee from domestic violence is stable accommodation.
A charity building flats does not remove housing from the existing shallow pool, it adds more.
Men would not get slaughtered by the media for creating the same, there would likely be some shit articles in a rag like The Sun – but as long as the messaging is right it’d be seen positively – at least by younger generations who seem to have a healthier attitude towards mental health.
The approval of this block does not invalidate, nor ignore the struggles of men who are homeless, fleeing from domestic abuse or both. There should also be accommodation for them – I’d support any charity making this an aim to provide.
We as a society need to be able to celebrate wins for some of the most vulnerable, this is one of them, attacking it just because they only want women’s names on the leases is meaningless division.
An awful lot of men getting triggered in the comments here by something so simple as a women’s charity trying to set up housing for vulnerable women.
And to all the guys arguing “we’d never be allowed to set up a men only housing block” please come back to reality, there is zero demand for something like that in the real world and we all know it.
Men make up the overwhelming majority of homeless people.
Ealing council: “We need homes exclusively for women”
What a joke time we live in. There is literally no benefit to this other than maybe it’ll be the only council estate in London that doesn’t stink of piss.
Expected a facepalm worthy comments section.
Was not disappointed.
Amazing how many haven’t even read the article. This is nothing new. They’re simply replacing a building which already operates on the same rules.
And you just know many of those throwing a fit will also spend their time on trans threads ranting about how important women’s shelters are…
Absolutely astounding how many men get angry at female DV shelters instead of channeling some of that passion into fighting for more male DV shelters.
Do you actually care about male victims or are they just useful when you want to scream about the genders being reversed?
People’s status changes over time – we can’t dictate that. Clearly there is a need for this.