Sharing one-time maternity allowance payment with partner?

Pixie5740

Retireby40 said:

Pixie5740 said:

Retireby40 said:

Pixie5740 said:

Retireby40 said:

Spendless said:

Retireby40 said:

Siebrie said:

I've been hunting for the source, but I cannot find it anymore, sorry. Probably an article in a magazine from either 'Child & Family' (Kind&Gezin) or 'Family Union' (Gezinsbond), where the explanation they gave was that historically, the money went to the Mother, as the Father was likely to use it to celebrate the birth of a(nother) child in the pub. Of course, not all fathers, but enough to persuade government to pay it out to the mother.

Did the working father not have his own money in the past to buy a beer with? Especially as "historically" the father worked around the clock to put food on the table and pay rent/mortgage and all the other costs.

There's some pretty poor opinions on this topic and I do think if it was a reversal of roles people wouldn't be saying the same thing.

2 people had a child. 2 people have to pay for all costs relating to the child. It really is that simple. His salary. Her one of grant. 

No different to how child benefit in the UK was historically paid, to the mother because the father couldn't be trusted not to drink it in the pub. 

Where did you read it was paid to the mothers for that reason? Do post the link. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/06/child-benefit-70-years-eleanor-rathbone

Not an impartial article. One designed to make men seem horrible creatures written by a feminist. 

Regardless of what you think of the author it doesn't change Rathbone campaigning in the 20's for the family allowance to be paid to the mother or Wages for Housework campaigning to keep family allowance being paid to the mother when Heath proposed paying child benefit to father's instead.  Now that you know some of the history you are free to do your own research.

Was Rathbones campaign "lets pay the money to the mums just because the dads will get drunk"?

Was that the whole reason behind it? Or was that just used as a stick to beat men with?

Was it designed maybe to give women a compensation for their work in the household and independence? Yes.

2 different things.

I see you didn’t bother reading the full article and that you are incapable of doing your own research. 

Retireby40

Pixie5740 said:

Retireby40 said:

Pixie5740 said:

Retireby40 said:

Pixie5740 said:

Retireby40 said:

Spendless said:

Retireby40 said:

Siebrie said:

I've been hunting for the source, but I cannot find it anymore, sorry. Probably an article in a magazine from either 'Child & Family' (Kind&Gezin) or 'Family Union' (Gezinsbond), where the explanation they gave was that historically, the money went to the Mother, as the Father was likely to use it to celebrate the birth of a(nother) child in the pub. Of course, not all fathers, but enough to persuade government to pay it out to the mother.

Did the working father not have his own money in the past to buy a beer with? Especially as "historically" the father worked around the clock to put food on the table and pay rent/mortgage and all the other costs.

There's some pretty poor opinions on this topic and I do think if it was a reversal of roles people wouldn't be saying the same thing.

2 people had a child. 2 people have to pay for all costs relating to the child. It really is that simple. His salary. Her one of grant. 

No different to how child benefit in the UK was historically paid, to the mother because the father couldn't be trusted not to drink it in the pub. 

Where did you read it was paid to the mothers for that reason? Do post the link. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/06/child-benefit-70-years-eleanor-rathbone

Not an impartial article. One designed to make men seem horrible creatures written by a feminist. 

Regardless of what you think of the author it doesn't change Rathbone campaigning in the 20's for the family allowance to be paid to the mother or Wages for Housework campaigning to keep family allowance being paid to the mother when Heath proposed paying child benefit to father's instead.  Now that you know some of the history you are free to do your own research.

Was Rathbones campaign "lets pay the money to the mums just because the dads will get drunk"?

Was that the whole reason behind it? Or was that just used as a stick to beat men with?

Was it designed maybe to give women a compensation for their work in the household and independence? Yes.

2 different things.

I see you didn’t bother reading the full article and that you are incapable of doing your own research. 

Where did it say that child benefit was paid to women for the sole purpose that the husband didn't drink all the money? Can you link me a source not an article from a feminist who claims all our great grandfather's were rapists and alcos

sheramber

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collections/eleanor-rathbone/family-allowances-act-1945/

Family Allowances Act 1945

Rathbone always viewed family endowment as a women's question, a recognition of their contribution to motherhood and to fight the economic dependence of women on men. She launched her campaign in 1918 and published her seminal book, 'The Disinherited Family'. in 1924. It was of ‘immense importance' to Rathbone that the allowance be paid to mothers, but officials and ministers fought this premise to the bitter end. However they were unprepared for the cross-party rebellion that erupted when the Family Allowances Bill was published in February 1945, stating that the money would belong to the father. MPs Mavis Tate, Nancy Astor and Edith Summerskill agreed that the issue was fundamentally one of women's rights, and with virtually no support in the House for the payment to be paid to fathers, the bill was quietly amended. It was enacted in June 1945, marking a victory for Rathbone and her 25 year campaign.

zagfles

sheramber said:

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collections/eleanor-rathbone/family-allowances-act-1945/

Family Allowances Act 1945

Rathbone always viewed family endowment as a women's question, a recognition of their contribution to motherhood and to fight the economic dependence of women on men. She launched her campaign in 1918 and published her seminal book, 'The Disinherited Family'. in 1924. It was of ‘immense importance' to Rathbone that the allowance be paid to mothers, but officials and ministers fought this premise to the bitter end. However they were unprepared for the cross-party rebellion that erupted when the Family Allowances Bill was published in February 1945, stating that the money would belong to the father. MPs Mavis Tate, Nancy Astor and Edith Summerskill agreed that the issue was fundamentally one of women's rights, and with virtually no support in the House for the payment to be paid to fathers, the bill was quietly amended. It was enacted in June 1945, marking a victory for Rathbone and her 25 year campaign.

Similar when Gordon Brown introduced the new child tax credits in 2003, there was a big deal made about it being paid to mothers (technically "main carer" but usually shortened to "mother"). Also the big discrepancy between maternity and paternity pay & leave, the biggest in the developed world, which helps reinforce stereotypical societal roles.

At least in 1945 they had the excuse of being before sex discrimination was outlawed and at a time when it was fine to say a woman should be at home and a man should be out at work.

This is an interesting article: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/mar/27/shared-parental-leave-johnny-davis