Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Goldiegirl

I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes....

saver861 wrote: »

However, that is not what is happening and for many it is just being publicly opinionated rather than any form of action for what they say they believe.

In other words, for many its nothing more than just being loud at the mouth!

A repeated theme of your posts is that it's not enough to have an opinion, people need to take action, rather than just post their opinion on a forum


As you've been very loud on this forum and appear to look positively on the WASPI campaign, I would ask you what action you have been taking to support them, rather than just posting on a forum. You appear to be very passionate - I would think, at the very least, someone with that level of passion, you'll be wearing your purple sash with pride on 29th June and joining the WASPI choir?

saver861 wrote: »

There is a thought consensus that discrimination against women was primarily the fault of men! When in fact, maybe with a little more microscopic inspection, it might be seen that women did not take or make opportunities to reduce that discrimination.

As a slight digression but current news story, Muirfield Golf club continue there ban on having women members. Personally I find that appalling, but it demonstrates where some thought processes still lay.

What actions have you taken to reduce discrimination against women? If you identify this as a problem, surely it's not enough to leave it to women to sort out? Don't you need to take action as well?


What are you intending to do about Muirfield Golf Club? From what you have said previously, it's not acceptable to have an opinion and do nothing about it. Appalled is a strong word - so it follows that you'll be taking strong action?

saver861

colsten wrote: »

You missed the second opportunity to denounce women-only golf clubs.

Just proves the point I made.

The irony is completely lost .... nonetheless, have a nice day.

ManofLeisure_2

colsten wrote: »

Even finding it extremely unkind doesn't make it any less true.

That is a matter of opinion.

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes...

Noooo ..... don't regret ... life is to short ....

Goldiegirl wrote: »

A repeated theme of your posts is that it's not enough to have an opinion, people need to take action, rather than just post their opinion on a forum

So, at least one person reads my posts ... Merci Beaucoup Madame ...

Goldiegirl wrote: »

As you've been very loud on this forum and appear to look positively on the WASPI campaign, I would ask you what action you have been taking to support them, rather than just posting on a forum.

I'm not sure where I stated that I was a supporter of WASPI? Did I really?

However, I have signed the petition, wrote to various dignitaries etc.

Goldiegirl wrote: »

You appear to be very passionate - I would think, at the very least, someone with that level of passion, you'll be wearing your purple sash with pride on 29th June and joining the WASPI choir?

Well sorry to disappoint you on that one, but I shan't be wearing any sash nor will I be singing in any choir. Personally I think I can sing very well but I have been told I could make a lot of money by people paying me to stop signing. I'm sure they are just jealous though!!

Goldiegirl wrote: »

What actions have you taken to reduce discrimination against women? If you identify this as a problem, surely it's not enough to leave it to women to sort out? Don't you need to take action as well?

Sure that's true. I have shortlisted, interviewed and appointed women where I thought they were the best person for the task, absolutely without any question to gender. Not a lot, but it is something that I know did not happen in many cases.

Goldiegirl wrote: »

What are you intending to do about Muirfield Golf Club? From what you have said previously, it's not acceptable to have an opinion and do nothing about it. Appalled is a strong word - so it follows that you'll be taking strong action?

I'm not a golfer myself but I will write to them outlining my perceptions of their decision. I might also CC the letter to the relevant professional golfing authorities.

Out of interest, will you be doing anything yourself?

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

What I do is tell people about the means tested working age benefits that are available and how almost anyone who is needy can in addition get £720 a year of tax free income between age 55 and 75. So can a person who is not needy if they have an income within their personal income tax allowance, others get less after tax.

I do think that further help with claiming working age means tested benefits would be desirable for the group affected by the change but little work and no changes to the law are needed overall to do this because the means tested benefits that help the most needy are already in place.

To help sway the government to take this view I do things like disagreeing here, undertaking to help to fund the election campaigns of those who are opposing WASPI supporters in parliament, and undertaking to help fund legal action against the government if the law is changed in a way that increases gender discrimination, breaching European equality law.

Really???? That helpful? WASPI do seem have stirred up a Hornet's Nest for some, don't they. You are even prepared to bank-roll legal action against any change in law as a result of their campaign? Why such vehemence?

I had fully intended to leave 'you' to your highly prejudiced and entrenched views but I was astounded to spot this little gem - which is very revealing.

Thank you Saver for being one of the very few here without prejudice or a closed mind. :T

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

Well I'm not going to individualise any comments to you and Jem - clearly you make your own decisions.

In general however, had there been no campaigns against discrimination then we would still be in the same place now as we were many years ago. Many women thought Mrs Thatcher would move the situation on greatly as being the first woman prime minister. However, many women were left disappointed by her drive to help remove discrimination and indeed, she surrounded herself with male cabinet members totally disproportionately.

There is a thought consensus that discrimination against women was primarily the fault of men! When in fact, maybe with a little more microscopic inspection, it might be seen that women did not take or make opportunities to reduce that discrimination.

I did say 'women such as me & jem' meaning women who did not experience sexual discrimination in the workplace. Not me & jem personally - but if that's how you chose to interpret my question.......

But not to worry if you can't come up with any suggestions of things that jane public could have done.

It seems there were women in much more critical positions who couldn have done more but didn't, so I doubt I'll feel bad about my non-action.

saver861 wrote: »

I would not have chosen the same thing.

And that's absolutley fine with me.

I did not expect you to agree with me.
And I'm not going to accuse you of bullying because you have a different opinion to mine.
Nor am I going to throw my toys out of the pram and take my bat & ball home.

Goldiegirl

saver861 wrote: »

I'm not a golfer myself but I will write to them outlining my perceptions of their decision. I might also CC the letter to the relevant professional golfing authorities.

Out of interest, will you be doing anything yourself?

No, I won't be doing anything, as Muirfield Golf Club and it's members (or non members) are something I don't have an opinion on one way or the other.

saver861

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Thank you Saver for being one of the very few here without prejudice or a closed mind. :T

No worries, its all good. Personally, I say it like I see it.

Pollycat wrote: »

It seems there were women in much more critical positions who couldn have done more but didn't, so I doubt I'll feel bad about my non-action.

No point in feeling bad about your non-action of the past. However, if there are future opportunities which you might choose to ignore then, you might have justification for feeling bad!

Goldiegirl wrote: »

No, I won't be doing anything, as Muirfield Golf Club and it's members (or non members) are something I don't have an opinion on one way or the other.

That's fine. Many do have an opinion, including those responsible for the Open stating that they would not hold the championship at a club which bans women members. So some are stating their disagreement which might help break down further barriers. As stated previously, some 'do', some 'talk'.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I had fully intended to leave 'you' to your highly prejudiced and entrenched views but I was astounded to spot this little gem - which is very revealing.

I've had various discussions with jamesd over the many years we've both been forum members here. I have never found him to be highly prejudiced nor entrenched in any view he holds.

He's not who you appear to think he is. :rotfl:

Thank you Saver for being one of the very few here without prejudice or a closed mind.

This seems to be the typical WASPI attitude unfortunately. You must agree with us or you're prejudiced, have a closed mind, or just plain simply wrong.

You just cannot accept that we have looked at all the facts, and not just how it impacts one very small group out of the whole UK population, and come to the conclusion that what WASPI want is wrong.

bowlhead99

Goldiegirl wrote: »

No, I won't be doing anything, as Muirfield Golf Club and it's members (or non members) are something I don't have an opinion on one way or the other.

Personally, if there's a club, society or group of friends who don't want to admit certain types of people to join their number, I wouldn't think it any more a breach of human rights for the people who aren't invited to the party, than it would be a breach of human rights for the people who by law or convention were forced to invite people to their party whom they didn't want to invite.

Obviously it is a different matter if the party organisers not only don't invite certain people but also actively go out into society and carry out hate crimes or incite people to violence against those certain people. Not aware of that being the case for the golf club in question but I've only heard scant details about it. Maybe their crimes have been excessively filtered by male-dominated media?

If I applied to be a permanent presenter on Loose Women and wasn't accepted because I didn't fit the profile, I would perhaps just think, "fair enough I don't want to go somewhere I'm not wanted" - whether the reason for rejection was that I was a bloke, or just, shock horror, not a very endearing personality.

I imagine everyone is probably better off if Muirfield preserve the status quo. The guys in the bar can keep talking about the most excellent breasts of their wives' circle of friends, without risk of offending them, and the ladies can go out to lunch among themselves and tut to each other about how the men are all at the golf club again and are probably talking about their most excellent breasts.