'Period poverty'

Jun 4, 2012
25,904
16,050
I get it, man.

Thank fuck I'm not there so see that kinda shit.

Fortunately this will never be a problem here. Poor people are poor because they're shit at life so are basically left to fend for themselves and tax dollars are funneled into real priorities like corporate welfare and ridiculous military campaigns and budgets.
:lol:
 

AnthonyWilliams

My time to get an avatar is running out
May 9, 2013
1,068
351
Everyone.

Women don't choose to have 'times of the month'. Why should they have to pay for shit like this that is part of nature.

Condoms are free in this country, but you choose to fuck people. You don't choose to have periods, they just happen.
Can I have free razors then please? Or free food? I don't choose to eat, I have to.

And nothing is "free", you're just saying people shouldn't have to pay for it themselves, high tax payers should.
 
Reactions: Dazl1212
Nov 9, 2014
4,975
1,726
£5 or £2 or whatever they cost might be the difference between eating for some lassies, heating their house, paying the rent or feeding their children.

Tampons should be free.
Ffs people Trail is the one speaking sense here.

It should be free for those who can't afford it, £5 a month for pads is £60 a year, I grew up broke, I know how far you can stretch that, u16 should be provided in all state schools for free.
 
Reactions: Trail and mandela

Trail

R.I.P. Joe Rein
May 24, 2013
30,212
6,665
Ffs people Trail is the one speaking sense here.

It should be free for those who can't afford it, £5 a month for pads is £60 a year, I grew up broke, I know how far you can stretch that, u16 should be provided in all state schools for free.
If lassies are heading out to food banks because they can't afford rent, Council Tax, electricity, gas or to stick food in their mouths or their children's mouths then how can they afford to stick tampons in their private parts every four weeks?

I appreciate if they are going through 20 B&H a day it's a different ballgame, but when you can't provide for yourself or your family then getting charged for Tampax (other brands are available) is ridiculous.
 
May 16, 2013
3,102
1,429
This should be offset by the fact that men pay more for just about everything and we are expected to pay for every thing on dates and be the primary bread winners.
 
Reactions: Dazl1212
Jun 4, 2012
25,904
16,050
Ffs people Trail is the one speaking sense here.

It should be free for those who can't afford it, £5 a month for pads is £60 a year, I grew up broke, I know how far you can stretch that, u16 should be provided in all state schools for free.
95p a month actually, but I agree on providing them for free in schools.
 
Reactions: Trail
Mar 6, 2014
7,481
3,245
Just announced they will be free in schools from next year, chancellors spending review
 
Jun 4, 2012
25,904
16,050
Pads aren't 95p are they?

The amount regardless is irrelevant to the point am making
I just checked, and no they're not 95p. It is 84p for 24 of Morrisons pads. I didn't disagree with your point, in fact I explicitly stated that I agreed with you, but I was pointing out that your guess at how much it cost was way off. In fact, I overestimated too. So while I AGREE with you, the reality is that we're talking about 85p a month.

The initial "period poverty" argument that garnered so much attention was about the 5% rate of VAT on these products and how misogynistic that was. In that regard, the campaigners would be talking about a saving of 4.2 pence per month on the aforementioned product.

My point was simply that 4.2 pence per month is not the difference between eating and not eating for a single person in the entire country, including the homeless.
 
Nov 9, 2014
4,975
1,726
I just checked, and no they're not 95p. It is 84p for 24 of Morrisons pads. I didn't disagree with your point, in fact I explicitly stated that I agreed with you, but I was pointing out that your guess at how much it cost was way off. In fact, I overestimated too. So while I AGREE with you, the reality is that we're talking about 85p a month.

The initial "period poverty" argument that garnered so much attention was about the 5% rate of VAT on these products and how misogynistic that was. In that regard, the campaigners would be talking about a saving of 4.2 pence per month on the aforementioned product.

My point was simply that 4.2 pence per month is not the difference between eating and not eating for a single person in the entire country, including the homeless.
Yh the Vat thing is ridiculous, that's one of the reasons 'feminism' is laughed at by wider public, they take any reasonable point and turn it into some propaganda machine

Probably isn't £5, not like I would actually know.

My opinion has no relation to the actual argument of vat thing, in total honesty I didn't pay it any attention and would not have unless it was brought up here.
 
Reactions: Strike