[Closed] Gender privilege

There's a shiney thing over there ====>

😆

If you want to have retirement age as say 80% of life expectancy then men in easterhouse would retire at 40, women in sussex at 75

If you want to have retirement age as say 80% of life expectancy then men in easterhouse would retire at 40, women in sussex at 75

The problem with that is that men in Easterhouse and women in Sussex don't tend to work......though for rather different reasons one would imagine. (-:

Well it is all nice of you to try and reform pension ages going forward for those of us that will work till we die, much more equal system.

Still no equality sorted in this thread yet... I hope all the blokes got home to find the dishes done and dinner in the table #70slife

Well it is all nice of you to try and reform pension ages going forward for those of us that will work till we die, much more equal system.

You do rather have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about this, don't you? Just relax, the next 50 or so years will just fly by!!

So why do men die younger?

Have you bothered to do any research?
As it's November/Movember there is a lot to look at
https://au.movember.com/mens-health/prostate-cancer
https://au.movember.com/mens-health/testicular-cancer
https://au.movember.com/mens-health/mental-health
Lack of basic care, lack of awareness, not getting checked for curable disease
https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2013/06/17/192670490/why-men-die-younger-than-women-the-guys-are-fragile-thesis
More info on other factors here - but you have to remember these stats are based on historic data so for people currently alive it includes WWII, Vietnam and other wars, it includes a time where men carried out the majority of dangerous and heavy industrial work with poor H&S and many other factors.

None of which are related to the way women are still not treated equally in society.

its just a sampling error and not statistically significant

So why do men die younger?

I'd hazard a guess that in the past men were more likely to smoke & drink. Less social pressure to look thin and attractive leading to more men 'letting themselves go' at an early age and I'd guess typical jobs would have been a contributing factor. Also men are 3 times more likely to commit suicide and more likely to kill themselves by accident in their younger years which both help to bring the average down.

If these are contributing factors (and I'm just guessing here) then a lot of these differences aren't as pronounced as they would have been thirty years ago so it'll be interesting to see how the disparity of lifespan changes over the next 50 years.

None of which are related to the way women are still not treated equally in society

Oh, how so,how are they not related?

Tell me how they are related first....

Tell me how they are related first

I never said they were. You seemed to know specifically that they weren’t and I was interested to hear your views on that.

If you want to have retirement age as say 80% of life expectancy then men in easterhouse would retire at 40, women in sussex at 75

And perhaps that would be the fairest thing to do. Remember equal doesn’t necessarily mean fair and fair doesn’t necessarily mean equal.

In the mean time I take it you have no intention of demonstrating why I was wrong earlier in the thread? 😉

Gonefishing - as you bring it up again. a mix. I wasn't as right as I thought - the perils of taking shortcuts / listening to my missus 😉 the acceleration in the change of retirement date meant the increase to 67 was 3 years notice for some women that their retirement date would be 67 but that was not from 60. cunfusion / attempting to be consise / not being clear

And you were right in that "neanderthal" was not aimed at you

I do think that one area in which there is a legitimate grounds for complaint is the acceleration to 65 that was introduced 2011. I've not looked in detail to the actual impact of this but I would suspect it is a matter of months rather than years of a difference. In hindsight it is clear why this was done as there was clearly a desire to increase the state pension age to 67 but were that done for men and not women then it would rightly have been condemned on grounds of gender equality. I also think should any concession be made to women in the lowering of the pension age (e.g. getting a lower pension in return) must also be made available to the men that are in the same cohort.

tjagain - Member

Gonefishing - as you bring it up again. a mix. I wasn't as right as I thought - the perils of taking shortcuts / listening to my missus

Can you remember this next time you are 100% sure you are in the right and prepared to argue to the death about it 🙄

When changes were made due to sexism in previous years which benefited men, was there an implementation period so that the men were not inconvenienced ?

No.

Sexism was bad and had to stop with immediate effect. Men might have complained that the calendar full of naked women ran a whole year and already had some meetings pencilled into it and it was only April. Irrespective. Sexism was bad and had to stop immediately.

The idea that this was sprung on people at the last moment and they are special and that they therefore can't be held responsible and provisions must be made so it doesn't impact them is pure bunkum.

It was always sexist. The affected women went to work everyday planning to benefit from sexist laws. They were informed in the 90's. I didn't expect them to protest for an immediate end to sexism, but they can't complain when their sexist benefits are ended with far more gentleness and consideration from the government than other perpetrators of sexist injustice got.

Sexism was bad and had to stop with immediate effect.

Indeed. Replace sexism with racism and imagine someone arguing that because they benefited from the racist law it should be gradually phased out rather than changed ASAP.

Can you remember this next time you are 100% sure you are in the right and prepared to argue to the death about it

It is not helpful and makes the thing you object to more likely to happen

Indeed. Replace sexism with racism and imagine someone arguing that because they benefited from the racist law it should be gradually phased out rather than changed ASAP.

I always understood that slave owners were compensated when slavery was abolished back in the day. Pretty sure white South Africans had some sort of arrangement when Aparthied was removed too...

Though FWIW I'm not sure these are comparable anyway, it doesn't take into account the relative positions of the powerful/powerless in society and the myriad of other factors involved (one or two of which have been mentioned within this very thread).

Indeed. Replace sexism with racism and imagine someone arguing that because they benefited from the racist law it should be gradually phased out rather than changed ASAP.

I always understood that slave owners were compensated when slavery was abolished back in the day. Pretty sure white South Africans had some sort of arrangement when Aparthied was removed too... Though FWIW I'm not sure these are comparable anyway,

I would assume so, and yes they're not comparable. In both cases some kind of accomodation was required just to get the change to happen at all. In this case you could change the law today and all that would have to happen would be a few people would have to get a job to earn the equivalent of their pension, which would probably mean 2 days a week on the tills at Tescos.

As you say, not comparable.

If things have been so bad and unequal for women all these years (in this country at least) then why still haven't they mobilised and really done something about it? If we start with the assumption that women are just as able as men, then why haven't half the population organised themselves politically into something they could have voted for to get into power? Or maybe some tried and the rest weren't actually bothered enough to do something about it. Maybe they just didn't want to put in the effort, much easier to demand that those who did, do something about it on their behalf. The tools have been available for a long time now for women as a group to achieve all the things they want. The fact that they haven't done so yet suggests either they arent capable or aren't really that bothered with their current situation.

It is not helpful and makes the thing you object to more likely to happen

It does indeed 8)

The fact that they haven't done so yet suggests either they arent capable or aren't really that bothered with their current situation.

why still haven't they mobilised and really done something about it?

It does seem a bit odd that in a democracy 51pc of the population are being discriminated against by 49pc.

Women take joy in disadvantageing themselves and then complaining about being disadvantaged. (Like emptying the dishwasher and then complaining that they emptied the dishwasher, rather than letting someone else empty the dishwasher.)

Maybe it's that on a national scale?

"What do we want?"
"Inequality we can complain about!"
"When do we want it?"....

Well, I suppose it depends on how much weight you put on societal expectations.

The tools to make change exist, but behaviour change takes a lot longer. Women have legal equality now, but the judiciary, the Police, society (juries) and the system is still weighted against them. Likewise in employment and even down to leisure activities.

If you believe they really do have equality across the board and just aren't that bothered about changing things, then the views of the women who have spoken up about their injustices aren't going to change your views.

In the meantime, I'm quite happy to listen to the feminist arguments and support them as I can, because it seems to me that there are significant discrepancies in the way women and men are treated, and there is very little difference between what men and women are capable of (disregarding the obvious).

In the meantime, I'm quite happy to listen to the feminist arguments and support them as I can, because it seems to me that there are significant discrepancies in the way women and men are treated, and there is very little difference between what men and women are capable of (disregarding the obvious).

why haven't half the population organised themselves politically into something they could have voted for to get into power?

http://www.womensequality.org.uk/

The Women’s Equality Party contested seven seats in the general election:

In Shipley Sophie Walker won 1.9% of vote share

In Tunbridge Wells Celine Thomas won 1.3% of vote share

In Vauxhall Harini Iyengar won 1% of vote share

In Hornsey & Wood Green Nimco Ali won 0.9% of vote share

In Stirling Kirstein Rummery 0.7% of vote share

In Manchester Withington Sally Carr won 0.4% of vote share

In Vale of Glamorgan Sharon Lovell won 0.3% of vote share

So who amoungst you have joined/will join and vote for them?

So who amougst you have joined/will join and vote for them?

There's a few out there trying to make the situation better:

http://www.5050parliament.co.uk/

is another one. A quick Google suggests there are others. I start to get a bit lost when it comes to the Transactivists involvement (see Green Party equality for loads on this) though. Must try and understand the opposing arguments on that...

the acceleration in the change of retirement date meant the increase to 67 was 3 years notice for some women that their retirement date would be 67

The Pensions Act 2014 brought the increase in the State Pension age from 66 to 67 forward by eight years. The State Pension age for men and women will now increase to 67 between 2026 and 2028.

So how does that equate to 3 years notice?

Did you know that according to data from the ONS, the difference in total earnings between all men and all women only emerges in workers over the age of 40.

Before this, all men and all women in full time employment earn the same; i.e there is no evidence of discrimination at all in what companies pay men and women. (There is some variance but it is well within the margin of error and not always in men's favour. Also note that this is all workers, not just like for like roles).

Link for this data is: [url= https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/adhocs/006411annualsurveyofhoursandearningsasheestimatesofthegenderpaygapformediangrosshourlyearningsexcludingovertimebyageukapril2015to2016/gpgbyage20002016.xls ]here[/url]

So something happens around the age of 40 that changes this it could be related to having children and the pressures associated with balancing careers and childcare. It's interesting to see that the gap became quite prevalent in the age range of 30-39 as recently as eight years ago but this has shifted over time to the 40+ category. This might be related to the increase in average age that a woman has her first child, but actually, although women are having children later, the shift is only about four years, so this is unlikelty to be the reason.

The data shows that the reason men's earnings pull so far ahead (it's about 12-15% difference in the age range of 40-49 and widens more beyond that) is because they end up in higher paying roles. But why is this; why do men's careers carry on the same trajectory but women's don’t?

The most common response to that is 'discrimination' which has been received wisdom for some time now and I have no doubt that this plays at least a part in the issue. But it is odd that there is no evidence of discrimination below the age of 40; why is that? Why would a company suddenly start acting in a discriminatory way with 100% of its female employees over the age of 40 but not below that? That would be very odd behaviour indeed.

Similarly, the idea that the difference is the result of a coerced decision by women to leave because working full time doesn't make sense when offset against childcare is also strange. It is commonly argued that women are the ones to step back because they earn less; discrimination in pay means men earn more and therefore they are the ones to remain in full time employment. But the ONS data disproves this, there is no difference in pay at about the time when couples decide to have children; it shows there is no pay gap below 40. So what is going on?

Vickypea suggested in another thread that it was a hangover from past years of discrimination and the shift in the gap appearing from 30-39 to 40-49 does seem to bear this out. It will be interesting to see if the gap moves another decade of so in the future.

Otherwise, the other most likely explanation is life choice. One thing we kow is that women tend to select someone of equal or higher social standing (usually equated to earning potential). If you have two people earning a good salary, the option to deselect yourself out of a challenging/demanding job in order to achieve better work like balance is both available and quite tempting. It has been suggested that doing so is the smarter decision!

So women who have children have less potential to earn, and then have little chance of making that up in income/pensions so will by default be behind from that point. They are then lead to

select someone of equal or higher social standing

In many ways it depends how you think society should function. Sounds like a bad deal to me.

A new mother wants to give up work to care for her child full time. Her partner, the new father, wants her to return to work part time so he himself can cut back to part time in order to provide care on a 50/50 basis.

I wonder which side equality sits on.

I wonder which side equality sits on.

society as it stands does not reward or compensate women for having children

Nor should it. The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

It does seem a bit odd that in a democracy 51pc of the population are being discriminated against by 49pc.

To make societal change quickly (in a reasonable timescale) one needs to be elected and the major parties have that controlled with a system that prefers the 49% over the 51%.

Starting from a new body to effect change will take a very long time as the established organisations will close ranks to keep out the interloper seeking to remove their advantage/privilege.

Nor should it. The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

If you have two people earning a good salary, the option to deselect yourself out of a challenging/demanding job in order to achieve better work like balance is both available and quite tempting.

In my peer group without exception this is what's happened. Women have Children and immediately reduce work, switching to part time work or a hobby-job.

It's well accepted that's what happens in the financial industry - I wasn't allowed to take Mrs OOB's earnings into account for a mortgage application when she was on Maternity leave and when I questioned the female about the sense of that policy she said "Women often prefer not to return to work after maternity leave.".

Perfectly reasonable - I'd expect most blokes would do that if their wives let them - but let's not pretend it doesn't happen.

Nor should it. The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

but you do need some kids born

Since too many kids are being born without financical incentive, incentivising it would be a mistake.

Someone needs to prop up the whole ponzi scheme of house prices and pensions.

Funny, because it's true.

The rate of domestic violence and the numbers who stay in dangerous situations could be related to the fact that society as it stands does not reward or compensate women for having children and instead locks them into a relationship they may find hard to leave

I think that's very true though I think there are also other reasons that people remain in abussive relationships and they are probably the same reasons why men also remain in abussive relationships where these happen (and let's not argue that they don't because I just won't agree with you).

For those with children and no partner it must be a lot worse.

Well it is indeed a lot worse and the data shows the impact of that unequivocally; children in familes where one parent, usually the father, is not [in some instance but not all, allowed to be] involved do far worse in life than those where both parents are actively engaged.

We should really do something about that. We could start by examining just how much society really values fathers and take steps to redress that inequality. But that is just one thing that needs fixing, there are others.

In many ways it depends how you think society should function. Sounds like a bad deal to me.

Again I agree.

Nor should it. The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

So who is going to pay your pension and contribute to the tax take if we don't have children? If I raise a productive and contributing member of society to full adulthood, can I send you the bill when it comes to retirement?

Nor should it. The world is over-populated, the UK is especially over-populated. Having Children should not be encouraged.

So who is going to pay your pension and contribute to the tax take if we don't have children?

When any ponzi scheme ends the last guys in get kicked in the goolies. That doesn't mean ponzi schemes should be encouraged.

...but my post wasn't advocating reducing the birthrate. Merely not accelerating it.

Women often prefer not to return to work after maternity leave.".

Perfectly reasonable - I'd expect most blokes would do that if their wives let them - but lets not pretend it doesn't happen.

This.

All my 'couply' friends are in good jobs and in a few of them the woman earns more than the man....hasn't stopped any of them (without exception) from grinning smugly once pregnant and declaring that they won't be going back to work...much to the horror of the male partner as that sinks in, going from being comfortable as a couple on two good salaries to having three of you and only one bread winner.

Notice the woman can make this choice unilaterally without needing consent from her male partner, a couple of my mates have planned to have children with their wives at pre agreed later dates, only for the woman to decide it's now time and to take herself off the pill without telling her partner....yey for equality!

Yeah, 'cos that's what literally all women are like - sneakily having babies so they can sit around all day while their partner goes off to work.