In Britain, as in most countries, women retire at age 60, earlier then men (age 65). A clearly blatant sexist discrimination.
Analysis from the Men’s Network showed that men live 13 years in retirement whilst women enjoy 20 years. No mention from Saga and Unions Together on that point?
Women live a few years longer (Interim Life tables), work shorter years (due to child rearing vacations), contribute less to retirement funds. Women don’t pay appropriately higher retirement contributions during their work life, rather men pay for women’s longer retirement. In Brazil, to get full retirement benefits, women need to contribute for 30 years, men for 35.
Men pay for female privileges in early retirement and shorter work life (due to sexist legislation)
It says EU law prevents it from increasing men’s pension age before women’s,
Amazing. Why would there be such a clearly sexist law discriminating against men?
but surely that is a reason to delay the increase for everyone until 2020 rather than punish women? It’s certainly no justification for increasing women’s pension age by even more than that of men.
‘How could I foresee such a discriminatory bombshell?’| Telegraph
Rectifying or reducing 70 years of legally codified female entitlement and male discrimination is punishing women?
Today’s men have been indoctrinated with feminist religious dogma from kindergarten on (Generation Y, raised on nothing but feminism, will be a nightmare for men). Thus men, like sheep, swallow any absurd feminist entitlement attitudes and allow such drivel to be published.
Since 1948, state pension has been paid to women at 60 and men at 65, it is only in 2018 that this injustice against men will be rectified, some 70 years later. And Altmann says pension policy is always against women. Unbelievable. I wonder what the male members of Saga think of her ‘balanced’ statement.
A good look at this and other issues about the effect on the genders was produced by Mark Easton of the BBC.
Blatant large scale financial discrimination against men. Men paying women’s retirement benefits, and in exchange retiring later. Where are the million men marches for gender equality?
Equality means equality and men have been the most discriminated group when it comes to state pension age. For anyone to claim otherwise shows they have no sense or belief in what equality really means. They purposely only have one eye open.
THE SCANDALOUS STATE PENSION AGE HYPOCRISY | The Rights Of Man
Why do men retire later then women
Goes back to the first world war or thereabouts (economists please advise) when the state pension was first introduced. Someone calculated that on average a man tended to be five years older than his wife. They then thought they would equalize the retirement of the darlings and set the retirement ages at 65 and 60 as they have been ever since.
Isn’t that sweet? Unless it’s an urban legend of course but I have believed this version for a long time. […]
I did say I might be wrong and I took a look in more detail and found this excellent page at the BBC and it shows when the 60 – 65 split first arose, 1946 Act. Try as I might though I can’t find why they split the ages. I did find another excellent page, from the LSE this time, which discusses the pensions arising from the 1946 Act.
Two web pages then.
Source: Tes Forum
Women financially supporting men with their work at the end of work life: more gender equality
Would it not be perfect if men retire earlier, and women still win the bread for 5 years? After all, traditionally, men were the bread winners in younger ages. So this would be one more step towards gender equality. Of course, equality is socially undesirable if it remedies female privilege.
Compare Ester Vilar’s opinion below. Women, united, just fight for their privileges, and chivalrous men let them. Men rarely protest female privileges. This seems to be in-bred into our genes.
Men should retire at younger age then women with higher pension benefits or lower pension deductions
- as affirmative action to right 70 years of discriminatory retirement practices
- to have equal duration of retirement benefits
- to have equal amount of working years
- female retirement contributions and benefits should be according to free market actuarial science, taking into account gender differences in working years, working hours, health care cost, survival rates, length of retirement. Brazil put discriminatory "equality" into their constitution.
Men’s rights proponents shirk from demanding true justice and equality. Of course, men would never even dare to dream of demanding unjust selective "justice" and selective "equality when it behooves us" as feminists routinely achieve in legal practice.
Feminism is sexist in favor of women, radical feminism is totally sexist and almost gender-cidal. Men try to right the wrongs committed against men and to attain almost equal rights for men. Radical masculinism (a male equivalent of radical feminism) or male supremacy movement that actually demands male privileges is unheard of. Men with vastly superior physical strength and slightly superior IQ (3-5 points) could easily suppress and dominate women, but have always coddled and privileged women due to their chivalry. So the unequal fight continues: strongly sexist united feminist women (Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are not too far apart) against infighting lone wolf males fighting for egalitarianism.
Feminists entitlement attitudes preserve unjust female privileges and impunity
As usual, the feminist trade union complains about every single perceived disadvantage for women (like the "glass ceiling" which is due to higher male ambition, work hours, etc.), while remaining quiet about male disadvantages (higher workplace deaths, higher prison population, higher rate on death row, gender discrimination in military draft obligations, presumed guilty in alleged rape and alleged child abuse cases, etc.).
Women are not only quiet about discrimination, rather they defend such discrimination with fervor. They favor the shocking criminalization of men for DNA testing their offspring in Britain. Technology would allow men to reach a level playing field with women with mandatory DNA testing at or better before birth ("mother’s baby, father’s maybe"). But feminists successful defend the historical feminist privilege to cheat, cuckold and still get financial support from men. We are far from getting justified jail terms for aggravated paternity fraud perpetrated by women, who ruthlessly bilk innocent cuckolded men of 50% of their income every month for decades for offspring they did not father.
“Why require parties to place 35% women on election lists and not the 50% as originally demanded?”
Did the feminists also demand that 50% of trashmen, coal miners, high-rise construction workers and fishermen be women? Funny how the dirty and dangerous jobs do not warrant the same feminist attention to equality as electoral lists. BTW, why not go further and declare that 35% of neurosurgeons must be women? This goal could be easily achieved by relieving women from the whole “outdated”, “patriarchal” duty of going through medical studies, the way women are relieved from the “outdated”, “patriarchal” burden of having to compete for votes in an open election. In plain English, a 35% quota for women means that 35% of men are held back by law so that they can’t compete on a level ground. Doesn’t the Polish constitution prohibit gender discrimination? Hello, Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, anybody home?
Polish Feminism is No Longer Ridiculed quoted by the antifeminist
Female privileges, according to Ester Vilar
Here is a list of issues which I recognized in the original book to be men’s most significant disadvantages compared to women.
- Men are conscripted; women are not.
- Men are sent to fight in wars; women are not.
- Men retire later than women (even though, due to their lower life-expectancy, they should have the right to retire earlier).
- Men have almost no influence over their reproduction (for males, there is neither a pill nor abortion – they can only get the children women want them to have).
- Men support women; women never, or only temporarily, support men.
- Men work all their lives; women work only temporarily or not at all.
- Even though men work all their lives, and women work only temporarily or not at all, on average, men are poorer than women.
- Men only "borrow" their children; woman can keep them (as men work all their lives and women do not, men are automatically robbed of their children in cases of separation – with the reasoning that they have to work).
As one can see, if anything, the female position of power has only consolidated. Today a career in the military is also open to women in many countries – but without conscription for all.
Many achieved for themselves the right to practice their job for the same number of years as their male colleagues – however, the retirement age was not increased for all of us. And now as before, it does not occur to the underprivileged to fight against this grotesque state of affairs. Only as far as the sixth point is concerned, has there been a significant change. In the more entertaining spheres of work, there are more and more women who happily and willingly work and still keep their jobs despite having the children they nevertheless desire. But only a few of these women would be prepared to offer a life of comfort not only to their children but also the children’s fathers, supported by their often substantial salaries; and fewer would further be prepared, in case of a separation, to give up their home and offspring and support the next admirer with what is left of her income.