Feminist Distortion about Pensions

	posted by Matt on 12:18 PM May 23rd, 2006
	AngryMan writes "This article in the London Independent tells us what a hard time women have regarding state pension entitlement. It is the usual distorted feminist whining, "Boo Hoo. It's not fair". It does mention in passing "To qualify for the full pension, women need to work for 39 years (men, 44 years)", but strangely, this doesn't seem to be a problem for the sisterhood. Combine it with the fact that men die before women, and you can see who is really being discriminated against! Men work longer, pay more taxes, and then claim less back in pension because they die sooner. Women work less, pay less tax, and then get more back in pension becuase they live longer, yet it is women who are being treated unfairly. Unbelievable."

<  Cancer in Boys and Floridated Water | The Revolution is Revolting  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Responsibility (Score:1) by robrob on 03:53 AM May 24th, 2006 EST (#1) The most salient part of the article is probably that which is most unpalatable to women. Namely, since women live longer than men and retire earlier, why are they not taking responsibility for their own futures. In education, it's apparently "peer presure" and individual irresponsibility that currently prevents males matching female's achievements. In pensions, it's government discrimination against women. What happens if a woman decides she will never have children? Does she automatically now only have to work for 30 years, or is it just if a woman takes time off to have children that they qualify? What if a man gives up 3-7 years to look after a child because that particular family decide that the woman will work and the man will look after the children? Does he only have to work 30 years? There are many unanswered questions on this one.

Some good news (Score:1) by RandomMan on 04:47 PM May 25th, 2006 EST (#2) In between all the man-hating, marriage-killing news about British divorce law reform (the courts deciding that men should be paying women for their victimization as voluntary mothers and wives, lawyers advising young men to never marry, or if they do, get a pre-nup which probably won't be binding), I found this particularly interesting tidbit: The state retirement age for women is already due to rise from 60 to 65 by 2020, putting women back in line with men. Under the White Paper, it will now rise to 66 by 2024, 67 by 2034 and 68 by 2044 - six years earlier than expected. (details here) Why isn't the retirement age for women being adjusted to be HIGHER than the age for men, since the little princesses live longer, thanks to the steady neglect of men's health issues? Since when do those humans with a vagina deserve to work years less than men, anyhow? Or live longer? Or be exempt from the requirement that they earn their own way? Differing retirement ages favoring women are pure sexist nonsense, and it's an embarassment to the "women's movement" that it's going to take until 2020 to rectify. Of course, to "rectify" the issue, women would have to start dying seven years earlier than they currently do, and the pension age for men would STILL have to be 5 years younger for at least several decades. THAT would rectify the situation. Obviously, like all other "equality", it's never going to happen. As for the divorce issue, who the hell would want to marry a person with the legal standing of a privileged adult, but the legal responsibilities of a child? No thanks, I can burn my own money - I don't need some woman and her pet courts to accelerate the process.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]