Amongst the voluminous coverage, announcements and suchlike from yesterday's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) was the announcement that the state pension age for men and women would be equalised at 66 from 2020, rather than 66 for men from 2016 (as previously suggested by the Coalition Government in Opposition and in power) and 66 for women in 2020 as had been suggested in June's Budget. Equalisation at 65 will take place in November 2018.
This was an increase from the last Government's plans to make the state pension age 66 in 2024 and 65 for both genders in 2020 (are you still following?).
It was due to the sterling work of Parity that we have equalisation at all otherwise the five year sexist gap would still be with us in the future rather than just today.
There are a number of important issues here.
Firstly, this site raised the issue that the move (as did Parity again) would be sexist against men and it looks as though the Government has also realised that if it went ahead it would be subject to legal challenge by increasing the gap between men and women's retirement age from five years to six. Sites like this help raise these issues because anyone researching it would have read the post.
Secondly, when a move like this which has greater implications for women than men, draws all the anti-male sexists out of the woodwork.
Anti-male in that they never complained about the blatant discrimination that has meant men have a retirement age five years shorter than women (even though men lives are shorter) for decades and they never publicly complained when it was mooted that male retirement age should be brought forward to 66 in 2016 without any commensurate change to a women's retirement age.
Step forward our friend Ceri Goddard at the Fawcett Society for a particularly frenzied rant about this and also other issues raised the CSR. The recession, of which the budget cuts are a symptom, decimated male employment in the private sector but not a peep from Goddard about that even though it would have affected wives, partners, daughters etc. A theme we have picked up before. Honestly, if you were a man in Fawcett Towers when George Osborne was speaking yesterday you'd have to run to the hills!
Others came out of the woodwork as well, who glibly 'accepted' that previous plans were more harmful to men as this statement by the Saga Group shows.
Dr Ros Altmann, the director general then astoundingly has the nerve to let fly by stating that "Women ar bearing the brunt of the changes. Pension policy always seems to be made by men for men. Women are being sent a simple message - keep on working. That's what the Government's announcement means."
Since 1948, state pension has been paid to women at 60 and men at 65, it is only in 2018 that this injustice against men will be rectified, some 70 years later. And Altmann says pension policy is always against women. Unbelievable. I wonder what the male members of Saga think of her 'balanced' statement.
A good look at this and other issues about the effect on the genders was produced by Mark Easton of the BBC.
Update - Read this inexplicable and laughable rant in the Daily Mail and then read the comments section. Many men are pointing the that women wanted equality - now theyhave got!!
Well when people talking about women being "losers" from the spending review, technically they are correct.
What they neglect to mention is that women are losing special privileges they had such as an early retirement funded by the men working longer.
You can't lose something you don't have can you? Also I doubt they'll be losing their excessive public sector pensions either.
Posted by: John Kimble | Friday, 22 October 2010 at 06:22
Well said the loss is that of a privilege extended to women on the grounds of their supposed fragility. Surely feminists everywhere should support this acceptance that women can work for as many years men. After all they are. Very keen on women climbing up the seniority ladder now they have more time to do it! Well done those voices pointing out the sexism in the proposals only for men.
Posted by: Groan | Saturday, 23 October 2010 at 12:51