Equality (but only when it suits)

McBain said:
How?

Not denying it could've been handled better because it probably could have, I'm not being funny, genuinely interested as to how.
Click to expand...
67 for all woman currently at the age of say 30, gives them long enough to adjust any pensions and what not. Before that add at least 2 or 3 years max.

Or my choice men retire at 60.
 
StriderX said:
And its facile.

Sure it's basically equal because 67=67, but the sudden jump from 60 to 67 with little recourse when the men only went up by two years, is entirely a justified position to call discriminatory.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

There's plenty to get frustrated about with gender discrimination and so called faux equality, but this really isn't it.
 
AHarvey said:
I was thinking, women live longer than men so shouldn't that mean the men should retire early? :D
Click to expand...
Back then women did more work than the men after retirement, they were looking after the home and the family AND working before retiring (some would say that is still the case more than not!)

Men would work and go to the pub leaving the woman at home! (some would say this is still the case too!! :p )

So, honestly by the age of 60, that kind of woman could do with not having to work along with everything to be done at home/local community, and I think that is fine, especially when it means the man can go to the pub and not do stupid housework/looking after family, that's what some of the weekend was for, duh!

Hold on, does that mean women retiring at 60 was a form of patriarchal control? ;)

I think this may partly be why less women drop dead after retiring, because they still had the other stuff in their lives to keep them busy... whereas men tend to die more after retiring (could be length and type of working life there for a man dont get me wrong) because men valued themselves on the work they did for the main part so a bigger part of that type of man dies alongside the death of their work.

Anyway *shakes 8 ball* it will be interesting seeing how it all went when we get a few decades into the future and look back eh!
 
StriderX said:
And its facile.

Sure it's basically equal because 67=67, but the sudden jump from 60 to 67 with little recourse when the men only went up by two years, is entirely a justified position to call discriminatory.
Click to expand...
Not according to the judges.
 
VincentHanna said:
Your own link gives the real reason for this.

Men knew their pension age, but for women it was changed quite abruptly and some women who were close to the old retirement age and were perhaps relying on the pension hadn't made provisions for it to change suddenly.

My wife's mother is one of the people it affected.
Click to expand...
Made provisions? All they have to do is continue working, as men have had too, equality when it suits?

The judges said: "There was no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, because this legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law. Rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men."

A judgement nobody should disagree with.
 
Em3bbs said:
Not according to the judges.
Click to expand...
Imagine it will be appealed and go to the superior epic court for extra refinement where judges get the ultimate JUDGE MOD power trip of saying "Actually lowbie judge, you are wrong! Not only that here are 7 pages explaining exacly why you were a noob judge.

DISMISSED!
 
StriderX said:
And its facile.

Sure it's basically equal because 67=67, but the sudden jump from 60 to 67 with little recourse when the men only went up by two years, is entirely a justified position to call discriminatory.
Click to expand...
LOL what kind of mental gymnastics your brain must do to come up with such statements.
 
Em3bbs said:
Interesting the judges said that men had been discriminated against historically. Maybe retired men should start taking their ex-employers to court?
Click to expand...
I would imagine they have a strong case against the government if someone wanted to pursue it for a laugh, how could you ever argue that it wasn't discrimination against men.
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
LOL what kind of mental gymnastics your brain must do to come up with such statements.
Click to expand...

Nobody said that men couldn't also sue the government for similar reasons did they? The increase was clearly discriminatory considering the context of a woman's life from the 50s onward's. You're never going to agree so you can stew in your MRA hole.
 
The problem here is some people assume that all disadvantage from the current position must be discrimination, which isn't the case, especially when the negative change is to correct historic discrimination.

The Judgement is correct, you aren't entitled to compensation when an advantage caused by discrimination is removed from you.
 
VincentHanna said:
They just lost, so i'm sure that will give you a big smile

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49917315
Click to expand...

What a stupid post.

platypus said:
The argument for gender discrimination, was based on the fact that women were discriminated against because they were not given a state pension until more recently then men, and so contributions were obviously smaller. So there is part of it that is gender discrimination. And its hard not to see the gender discrimination that was inherent in the pension system in that regard.

That said, I'm also very pleased to see in the judges summation:
a ruling that is genuinely unbiased towards gender.
Click to expand...

Which is fair and as it should be.

I'm a believer that equality means equality, no better or worse for either and you see it too often that those seeking equality actually don't want that, they want an unfair advantage.

I understand the grievance they may have that in the past it was biased against them, but trying to fix a current wrong by inflicting a bias in the now just undermines the arguement and gives fuel to those who fight against genuine equality.
 
There were 2 separate changes that were handled very differently.

1. The first was announced in 1992 (live on TV) and came into law in 1995, which equalised the state pension age for both men and women at age 65 from 2010. This wasn't an immediate jump but was staggered over 5 years. Women had 15 years to sort out their retirement provision and claims 'they didn't know' doesn't hold much water to me.

2. In 2011 the government decided to accelerate the timescale for the change from age 65 to 66 for both men and women. This was dumb, as it occurred slap bang in the middle of women changing from 60 to 65, so women were doubly penalised. It also gave next to no notice for women (and men) to do anything about.

In my opinion change 1 was reasonable because it gave plenty of notice for people to do something about it.

However change 2 was rushed, ill thought and should have occured after the state pension ages had been shifted to 65 for both.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
My wife is one of them, she was 60 in August but has now got to work another 6 years.
Click to expand...
She should just become a millionaire and retire early.

(Isn't that the usual advice around these parts? :p)

If she's not a millionaire she needs to work harder until she is. (Am I doing this right?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom