Push back on Gender Equality??

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Since the life expectancy of women is longer than men, I'm surprised that women were allowed to retire at an earlier age than men.  

[Deleted]

I think it's fair the ages are equal. As to roll out? I guess anyone 60 (61-3?) in 2019 or 2020 is going to feel most. They only knew since 2011 they would have to work an extra 4-7 years... Otherwise the plan was announced in 1995... Plenty of time to adjust.

I do think the 60-65 leap is a big one for gradual increases, I'm guessing it was initially meant to be steps...

[grumpyhermit]

I don't understand why the age for collection was ever different. I just looked, and like most countries, the life expectancy for a woman is still longer than for a man in the UK. If anything, men should have been collecting sooner if the effort was toward equalizing.

I do think 5 years notice is  a bit short however, and I can understand why they are grumbling about that. Hell I have had like 30+ years notice that my SS age is going to be more than 65 and I'm still bitter.

[Ombud]

Wish Social Security had given 5 yrs notice on File & Suspend as that's plenty of time to adjust. As another poster correctly stated on another thread,

Dec 18, 2015 8:24:26 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Females tend to live longer than males across the board, in all societies and economic situations. It's a medical fact. There are biological reasons for this if you care to google them.

{Looked it up & it's true}

women should work longer than men

[weltschmerz]

Dec 17, 2015 10:33:24 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

I'm curious about the general thoughts about this development


Full Article

More than 55,600 people have so far backed the petition set up by the action group Women Against State Pension Inequality – you can sign it here. It calls on the Government to step in and help those born in the 1950s who will have to wait longer than expected to receive their state pension due to rises in the state pension age.

There are two separate increases of the state pension age currently underway.



Under the 1995 Pensions Act, the Government decided the pension ages of men and women would be equalised by 2020. Previously, women retired at 60 and men at 65.

In 2011 the state pension age for both men and women was raised to 66.

Here's another article about it. 

"The policy decision to increase women's State Pension age is designed to remove the inequality between men and women," the DWP said in an official response, published to the government's petitions website. "The cost of prolonging this inequality would be several billions of pounds."

"Parliament extensively debated the issue and listened to all arguments both for and against the acceleration of the timetable to remove this inequality. The decision was approved by parliament in 2011 and there is no new evidence to consider," it said.

The SPA for women in the UK is due to rise from 60 to 65 to match that of men from 2018, before it increases to 66 for both sexes in October 2020 and to 67 by 2028. The government plans to carry out a review of the SPA every five years to ensure that the system remains sustainable given changes in life expectancy, with the first review due to conclude by May 2017.

The government said that this review would consider the impact of the SPA change on women "amongst a number of other factors" in its response to the WASPI petition.

The 1995 Pensions Act introduced 'staggered' increases to the SPA for women, which would have reached 65 by 2020. However the 2011 Pensions Act, passed by the previous coalition government, accelerated the planned changes to achieve equalisation by 2018. The 2011 Act introduced some transitional protection by capping the maximum increase under the new timetable at 18 months, rather than two years.

So the question is,  is the problem more about the transition time frame or is it that the pension age is being changed for women's age to match the men's age.


I ask, because on another board this was being discussed and while there was was grumbling about the goal post changing there was more grumbling about how this change was unfair to women in that they had to work longer than expected.  

Parliament? Which country are they talking about? The UK?

[weltschmerz]

If both sexes have to work until the age of 66, where's the inequality?

[Deleted]

Dec 19, 2015 19:12:09 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

If both sexes have to work until the age of 66, where's the inequality?

That's the problem... it's now equal and they are losing another year because of it. Feminists don't want equality. They want "better for women".

ETA: In many cases "better for women" is making things equal... but in other cases, not so much. This is one of those cases.

[weltschmerz]

Dec 19, 2015 20:26:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 19, 2015 19:12:09 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

If both sexes have to work until the age of 66, where's the inequality?

That's the problem... it's now equal and they are losing another year because of it. Feminists don't want equality. They want "better for women".

ETA: In many cases "better for women" is making things equal... but in other cases, not so much. This is one of those cases.

I'm a feminist. I have no problem with it.

[Deleted]

Dec 19, 2015 23:13:23 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Dec 19, 2015 20:26:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

That's the problem... it's now equal and they are losing another year because of it. Feminists don't want equality. They want "better for women".

ETA: In many cases "better for women" is making things equal... but in other cases, not so much. This is one of those cases.

I'm a feminist. I have no problem with it.

If you want equality you aren't a feminist... you are an egalitarian (many female egalitarians make this mistake).