Scotland votes to provide free period products universally

One eyed Jack

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I agree with this but

Why can't the mother and father pay for these products for their daughter?

Just like the breakfast clubs etc

If you can't support your own child for the most cheapest basic life expenses how are you fit to be a parent?

Ehh, for all the other reasons which make people good parents?

Honestly that remark just shows a level of cluelessness as to the reality of people’s circumstances besides your own.

There are a whole multitude of circumstances to explain why parents may not be able to afford the basics for their children, and sanitary products aren’t cheap when you can’t afford them in the first place and are dependent upon charity from other people and organisations which provide these kinds of services for women and girls.

The HSE also provide a range of products for mothers and their children too and there’s no judgement of whether they have the capacity to be a good parent or otherwise just because they can’t afford nappies or other products.

Guy:Incognito

nullzero wrote: »

I honestly think that disadvantaged women who need assistance accessing sanitary products is to be applauded, but the notion of freely available products for everyone regardless of their ability to pay (which is what is implied by what is being said) is something worthy of attention.

Again, why is it worthy of attention? A few people getting some free tampons they might not technically "deserve" because they can afford to buy them is nowhere near a spending issue worth the cost of getting a civil servant to spend time even thinking about.

People in need will get the products they need. Some people may take advantage of that and grab themselves a few tampons. There isnt a "meh" big enough for that.

nullzero wrote: »

As for nuclear missiles? I'll file that under bizarre along with your Nazi uniforms.

What are you finding hard to reason with? This is government spending. A very small amount of it. The UK spends vast amounts on their military, including nuclear missiles.

Much like the free school meals for poor kids, the money is there, but a certain section of society are fine with kids starving while their government spends billions on an army. Because, you know, if their parents are **** and wont provide for them, **** them.

Guy:Incognito

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Honestly that remark just shows a level of cluelessness as to the reality of people’s circumstances besides your own.

Its not cluelessness for a large portion of people with that attitude, its very much deliberate.

SEPT 23 1989

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ehh, for all the other reasons which make people good parents?

Honestly that remark just shows a level of cluelessness as to the reality of people’s circumstances besides your own.

There are a whole multitude of circumstances to explain why parents may not be able to afford the basics for their children, and sanitary products aren’t cheap when you can’t afford them in the first place and are dependent upon charity from other people and organisations which provide these kinds of services for women and girls.

The HSE also provide a range of ideas products for mothers and their children too and there’s no judgement of whether they have the capacity to be a good parent or otherwise just because they can’t afford nappies or other products.

How much are tampons and how much is breakfast cereal and a couple of pints of milk?

Basic dole is two hundred a week over here

Not counting children's allowance etc

Why can't they provide the basics for their children on that money?

El_Duderino 09

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The cheapest. It'll likely be put out to some sort of tender. Shops may or may not but be good PR if they did, Pharmacies likely would, and toilets and schools covers a vast area regardless.

Yeah they’ll surely be the cheapest ones. The luxury brands will still be on sale like always.

nullzero

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Again, why is it worthy of attention? A few people getting some free tampons they might not technically "deserve" because they can afford to buy them is nowhere near a spending issue worth the cost of getting a civil servant to spend time even thinking about.

People in need will get the products they need. Some people may take advantage of that and grab themselves a few tampons. There isnt a "meh" big enough for that.


What are you finding hard to reason with? This is government spending. A very small amount of it. The UK spends vast amounts on their military, including nuclear missiles.

Much like the free school meals for poor kids, the money is there, but a certain section of society are fine with kids starving while their government spends billions on an army. Because, you know, if their parents are **** and wont provide for them, **** them.

You'd have to reason that if there are a significant number of women in Scotland that require access to free products that in my experience (through buying them for my wife) have a monthly cost less than a meal from McDonald's perhaps this isn't the major poverty issue in the country, rather just a symptom.

I do think it's a good idea for those who need it, but the notion that there is a legal requirement to supply said products to everyone across the board has probably taken the budget up a notch or two where it could have been used elsewhere.

strandroad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are a whole multitude of circumstances to explain why parents may not be able to afford the basics for their children, and sanitary products aren’t cheap when you can’t afford them in the first place and are dependent upon charity from other people and organisations which provide these kinds of services for women and girls.

Period products are super cheap though, you can have a large box of own brand tampons for literally one euro and that's a two or three months' supply. If you can't give your daughter 50c a month you shouldn't be seen as fit to receive her child benefit...

Makes them really easy to fund too. No reason for not stocking them in schools or public facilities.

Guy:Incognito

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Why can't they provide the basics for their children on that money?

Because they are ****ty parents and ****ty people. Its really not that outlandish a concept.

eviltwin

strandroad wrote: »

Period products are super cheap though, you can have a large box of own brand tampons for literally one euro and that's a two or three months' supply. If you can't give your daughter 50c a month you shouldn't be seen as fit to receive her child benefit...

Makes them really easy to fund too. No reason for not stocking them in schools or public facilities.

You’re assuming the parents will bother to buy them or give their daughter money. Sadly that’s not the case for some families. We’re talking a tiny amount of families here. Why would anyone begrudge it?

igCorcaigh

Why are people so hostile to the idea that such an essential thing be provided to people without condition?

Are people so conditioned by the money system that they see something like a tampon as a tradable commodity only?

biko

nullzero wrote: »

It's not free if taxes are paying for it.

I was just going to post this.

They just forced men and women alike to pay for something only women use.
Razors would have been more equal but of course has less feminist impact.

That said, I don't mind paying for them to have it.

cannotlogin

This is a real thing for a lot of women. I remember a friend in school, who had a very difficult upbringing, once ask me where women got sanitary products. She wasn't sure if you had to go to the pharmacy or what, she knew very little about periods and had no access to these products as a young teenager.

Father was an alcoholic, don't know about the mother but certainly away with the fairies. I remember distinctly a few months later the Tampex lady came to the school & 3/4 of us give her all of our samples. Myself & another girl used to fake needing to go to the supermarket every month just so we could get her a packet too when there. It was never discussed between us, she knew why we did it and had little option but to take the ones we gave her unfortunately.

It's not a huge cost but a very important change for some.

strandroad

eviltwin wrote: »

You’re assuming the parents will bother to buy them or give their daughter money. Sadly that’s not the case for some families. We’re talking a tiny amount of families here. Why would anyone begrudge it?

Oh I'm completely in favour. I was referring to comments about parents having legitimate reasons not to fund them. 50c a month out of €140 benefit?

One eyed Jack

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

How much are tampons and how much is breakfast cereal and a couple of pints of milk?

Basic dole is two hundred a week over here

Not counting children's allowance etc

Why can't they provide the basics for their children on that money?

Because what money they get doesn’t stretch far enough to be able to afford the basics for their children, even counting in the children’s allowance. If they were able to afford the basics themselves, they wouldn’t need help from the State in the form of sanitary provisions, clothes, breakfast clubs or any of the rest of it. They’re not all in identical circumstances either - some families have greater needs than others, but under no circumstances is their inability to provide financially for their children a reflection on their abilities as parents.

I know just as many parents who are raising children who will contribute nothing to society as they expect they should be waited on hand and foot, because they get everything they want and there’s never a question of whether or not their parents can afford it.

strandroad

biko wrote: »

I was just going to post this.

They just forced men and women alike to pay for something only women use.
Razors would have been more equal but of course has less feminist impact.

That said, I don't mind paying for them to have it.

Trust me you could have all the free tampons you want if you took my periods with them!

nullzero

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because what money they get doesn’t stretch far enough to be able to afford the basics for their children, even counting in the children’s allowance. If they were able to afford the basics themselves, they wouldn’t need help from the State in the form of sanitary provisions, clothes, breakfast clubs or any of the rest of it. They’re not all in identical circumstances either - some families have greater needs than others, but under no circumstances is their inability to provide financially for their children a reflection on their abilities as parents.

I know just as many parents who are raising children who will contribute nothing to society as they expect they should be waited on hand and foot, because they get everything they want and there’s never a question of whether or not their parents can afford it.

Somebody else said it's down to them being ****ty parents and ****ty people. Obviously that's not the situation in all cases, but what you're outlining above is at the other end of the spectrum. The truth is somewhere in between.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Reading the first few replies filled me with despair, the latter half thankfully rectified that.

Maybe you missed this part of my post R:

Wibbs wrote: »

I can certainly see very good logic in subsidising period products, but free to everyone?

Can’t understand how anyone would suggest that a woman should be forced to go without sanitary products for lack of income or otherwise.

I agree, but free to all is issue I'd have. Free supplies in school? Hell yes. Free to those on social welfare? Damned right. Free to any woman in need? No debate here. Things like public access machines that women can get their period products from? Yup. Make no mistake R, all that I am 100% behind. However also free to everyone? No matter how well off they are? That's the part I don't get. And how is this going to be implemented?

Deleted User wrote: »

18-24 £57.90 max rate
25+ £73.10 max rate
18+ Couples get £114.85 between them.

Aye, Irish people often forget how crap the social safety net is in the UK. And not just for "lifetime dole scroungers!!!" that a few here get the horn over. Disability allowances are a pittance, as are carers and cared allowances. If they can access them in the first place.

Blud

Stop gap measure at best.

Blud

Blud wrote: »

Stop gap measure at best.

to what? Are Scotland planning to eradicate periods?

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

to what? Are Scotland planning to eradicate periods?

I think it was a punctuation pun (using the American terms for a full stop plus the posters username seems oddly apt).

strandroad

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree, but free to all is issue I'd have. Free supplies in school? Hell yes. Free to those on social welfare? Damned right. Free to any woman in need? No debate here. Things like public access machines that women can get their period products from? Yup. Make no mistake R, all that I am 100% behind. However also free to everyone? No matter how well off they are? That's the part I don't get. And how is this going to be implemented?

It's explained in there. The bill obliges them to set up some sort of a scheme (TBD) where people can request vouchers for period products.
Seeing how the cost is euro or two per month, it wouldn't be worthwhile to means test it at all and most people won't bother with it anyway.

Faugheen

I find it funny that:

1. The usual ‘concerned citizens’ have an issue with this.
2. Most of them do not, and will not, have periods.
3. They’d be the first to kick up a fuss if they were charged for a sheet of bog roll to clean up their sh*t in a public toilet.

harmless

strandroad wrote: »

It's explained in there. The bill obliges them to set up some sort of a scheme (TBD) where people can request vouchers for period products.
Seeing how the cost is euro or two per month, it wouldn't be worthwhile to means test it at all and most people won't bother with it anyway.

That's if they only make disposable products available the eco friendly ones like mooncups would be a higher one off cost but would last years.

I would hope the cheaper overall eco option would be the one encourage but of course it can't be the only option as it is not suitable for every woman.

beachhead

Zaph wrote: »

What complete and utter nonsense. Period poverty is very real for many women, I've read stories of girls skipping school when they had their period because they couldn't afford sanitary products. A simple measure to ensure that doesn't happen again in the future should be applauded, not derided.

I believe that story referred to certain African countries but could be more widespread

Wibbs

strandroad wrote: »

It's explained in there. The bill obliges them to set up some sort of a scheme (TBD) where people can request vouchers for period products.
Seeing how the cost is euro or two per month, it wouldn't be worthwhile to means test it at all and most people won't bother with it anyway.

Ahh, now I get it SR. That makes sense.

Gervais08

No skin in the game here as I’m 50 now and the monthly pal has ****ed off thankfully!!!

Completely agree with them being made freely available in schools, colleges, public restrooms and similar. Also included in food bank parcels maybe ? Reach the most woman and girls?

Pre-Covid my teams football ground had them in the ladies’ jacks. Great stuff.

Ladies who want to buy the expensive ones can still do so - no worries there.

Sounds grand to be honest.

Have we had the first eejit yet saying “boys have periods too??”. They don’t.

CtevenSrowder

Gervais08 wrote: »

No skin in the game here as I’m 50 now and the monthly pal has ****ed off thankfully!!!

Completely agree with them being made freely available in schools, colleges, public restrooms and similar. Also included in food bank parcels maybe ? Reach the most woman and girls?

Pre-Covid my teams football ground had them in the ladies’ jacks. Great stuff.

Ladies who want to buy the expensive ones can still do so - no worries there.

Sounds grand to be honest.

Have we had the first eejit yet saying “boys have periods too??”. They don’t.

Bohs fan are we?

And on Twitter we have, but sure that's hardly surprising.

strandroad

beachhead wrote: »

I believe that story referred to certain African countries but could be more widespread

To have a period related "accident" is mortifying for a girl, and periods are often painful... If your family won't give you period products they won't be bothered by you skipping school either so unfortunately it's a valid scenario for girls anywhere.

igCorcaigh

strandroad wrote: »

To have a period related "accident" is mortifying for a girl, and periods are often painful... If your family won't give you period products they won't be bothered by you skipping school either so unfortunately it's a valid scenario for girls anywhere.

Unreal. Is this not provided by schools?
I went to a segregated (boys) school in primary.

beachhead

Gervais08 wrote: »

No skin in the game here as I’m 50 now and the monthly pal has ****ed off thankfully!!!

Completely agree with them being made freely available in schools, colleges, public restrooms and similar. Also included in food bank parcels maybe ? Reach the most woman and girls?

Pre-Covid my teams football ground had them in the ladies’ jacks. Great stuff.

Ladies who want to buy the expensive ones can still do so - no worries there.

Sounds grand to be honest.

Have we had the first eejit yet saying “boys have periods too??”. They don’t.

Probably meant to say men suffer the menopause too