- Gender privilege
Anyone else watching Inside Out at the moment with the Women from WASPI ?
What did we want ?
When do we want it ?
At a time when it won’t financially inconvenience us and with proper transitional arrangements in place so that we get money from the state until we are 67 unlike those men we want to be equal to.Posted 1 year agoNorthwindSubscriber
cranberry – Member
Equality is not having to work 7 years longer because you were born with a winky rather than a hooha.
You don’t have to work to retirement age and a man earns on average £300000 more than a woman over 52 years which could be used to retire earlier.Posted 1 year agomattsccmMember
Providing equality can’t mean specially treatment. Its all about being fair. Put in cyclists terms: Chris Hoy and you/me/ fat average cyclist both on the track. Is fair us both starting together and me getting to 100 metres when Sir Chris does the 250 or me being given a flying start and him being pushed away when I have 100 to go thus putting us over the lines at the same time. To me the former is fair, not the latter. If I object to, say, employees because they miss the bogs because they are a man or get grumpy once a month then that’s my prerogative. To say its unfair is unfair on me surely? When a group wants equality it should be true equality. Eg same pensions and age. Equal!Posted 1 year ago
Yes, but the wage gap is due to career gaps and choices of which industries/careers to go into, so that “average woman earns less” argument is due to lifestyle and career choices.
You can work as long as you want, but women shouldn’t be legally entitled to a pension far younger than men. It is shocking sexism and there is simply no excuse for it.Posted 1 year agoNorthwindSubscriber
Sustaining the human race isn’t a “lifestyle choice”. And it’s not exclusively down to that either, earnings are not directly equivalent even where a woman has worked a career without gaps.
mattsccm – Member
Providing equality can’t mean specially treatment. Its all about being fair.
But if you say no special treatment, let’s be fair, you’ll never correct an existing unfairness. Just getting a level playing field isn’t enough when up til now you’ve been playing on a slope.Posted 1 year agoDrJMember
legend – Member
*walts for geetee’s arrival*
I assumed this thread was an attempt to wear out his keyboard.
Or else to make him explode with frustration being unable to join in knowing the pasting he’ll take.
Anyway – Chris Hoy set off up the road 10 minutes before me, but now we’re both pedalling so it’s fair.Posted 1 year ago
There is a group of women – MRs tj is one who had their retirement age raised by 7 years with 5 years notice. Men had their retirement age raised by two years. If you cannot understand why this is unfair then I pity you. Phased in over a longer time – fair. to make someone in their mid 50s approaching retirement work another 7 years for their pension is simply wrong.Posted 1 year agoScotRoutes wrote:
Yep. The aim of equalizing it is fair. Suddenly changing it with little notice is not. A more phased approach would have been better.
Agreed but they are separate issues and we were discussing whether both genders should retire at the same age – well it what i thought we were.
If you cannot understand why this is unfair then I pity you
Whatever we did would have been unfair if we raised them both 2 years she still get to retire earlier and if you cannot understand why this is unfair then I pity you
Getting to equality is uncomfortable for those who lose their privilege.Posted 1 year agoorangespydermanSubscriber
I don’t know how to ‘do’ images on an ipad, so someone will have to help me out with the equality vs equity image that’s probably due about now…
[img]https://image.slidesharecdn.com/analysesysteduc4-egalite-equite-inegalites-160310201035/95/analyse-syst-educ4egaliteequiteinegalites-4-638.jpg?cb=1457640654[/img]This one?Posted 1 year agogonefishinMember
There is a group of women – MRs tj is one who had their retirement age raised by 7 years with 5 years notice.
No there isn’t. The rise in the age at which women can claim the State Pension to be the same as men, i.e. 65 was passed into law in the late 1990s and it was well advertised at the time. Thats almost twenty years and was deliberately phased to be as slow as possible to ease the change. It is wrong to state that it was done over a period of seven years. Claiming ignorance of this fact is laughable too. This is a change that didn’t affect me but I and many others were well aware of it.Posted 1 year agomattsccmMember
Why is ignorance laughable. I had no idea but why should I?Posted 1 year ago
Face it. Currently if you are in anyway “thought” to be a minority you at favoured.
As a white, married, heterosexual, employed, married, non child owning, working, motorcycling , shooting, fit and able male I am in the most discriminated class there is. I get nothing. Now that’s not fair. Need means bugger all.gonefishinMember
The claim that it “wasn’t well advertised” and “we didnae know” is laughable. Not knowing is I’m afraid not an excuse that is accepted in any other part of life so I don’t see why it should be accepted here.
Oh and too be clear as a straight white male I do not think of myself as either a minority or discriminated against.Posted 1 year ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.