MSE News: ’Women's state pension petition secures second Parliamentary debate

Goldiegirl

purplecarSJP wrote: »

I stand by what I say and am not a liar as implied by some on here. The expectations, patterns of legislative change and Pay Gap (including Occupational Pension Gap) are all real. Anyone saying otherwise must be unreal as published evidence supports what I say. Facts are facts. It is not about claiming (falsely as implied) that 1950's women have always been downtrodden - what a strange interpretation. Anyone born in early 1960 cannot be in a school age group with 1950's born, with the exception of 1959, so sounds daft - and yes, things changed for you; my year were not even allowed into the metal work room, never mind study such subjects - entering the room in the basement was a punishable offence in my school. Pass rates for Grammar schools were shown in a documentary years later and I was shocked to discover I had to get more than a boy to pass. Inequity is well evidenced - just because your personal circumstances were optimal does not make it so for everyone - evidence cannot be denied.

Firstly - I'm a real person.

Secondly, I didn't spend my schooldays in a bubble. I knew older girls who lived in my road, and the daughters of my mums friends, so I was commenting on their experiences at grammar school. I don't think it's me who is sounding daft!:rotfl:

I know other women may have had other experiences, but I can't accept the apparent view of WASPI that ALL 50's women have spent their whole lives being disadvantaged , first at school, then only having menial jobs, and looking after children and aged relatives.

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I know other women may have had other experiences, but I can't accept the apparent view of WASPI that ALL 50's women have spent their whole lives being disadvantaged

Whats apparent to some might be less so to others.

I do believe though you are seeing things too much through your own experience.

Over the decades if you look at the changes, for each decade you would see greater and greater disadvantage to women. It has come a long way but some still exists. There is still glass ceilings - you may have gone through it or not reached it but that does not mean it is not there.

Goldiegirl

jem16 wrote: »

There are questions which we would like to put to you, as members of the WASPI campaign. So far Scotswimmen has not answered but perhaps both of you would think of doing so.

1. WASPI's main ask is to put all women born in the 50s after April 1951, back in the same financial position as if born before 1950. This effectively means that WASPI wish all 1950s women to have their state pension at age 60. Do you support this aim? Do you feel that this should apply to all 1950s women regardless of personal circumstances?

2. If you do not agree with the above aim, what do you feel should happen?

I think this is a key point.

I would welcome any WASPI supporter who is willing to rationally and calmly answer these questions, and comment on things like how other groups of people would feel adversely affected if WASPI achieved their main 'ask'.

I've tried on Facebook, but any question that I've asked has been immediately deleted.

I want to understand more about their thinking and reasoning, but what we tend to get are emotional statements about unfairness and being robbed, and women in their 50's and '60's being described as elderly and all of them having deprived and narrow lives.

Then, when these views are challenged, there's flouncing and accusations.

Please, WASPI supporters, can you answer genuine questions calmly, and debate your views rationally? It would be very interesting

mumps

jem16 wrote: »

Common myth;

Originally Posted by purplecarSJP
Girls had achieve higher score than boys to pass for Grammar School (coz too many girls passed otherwise), so impacted on Opps to Achieve Income, aspirations were squashed too as boys were considered much more important

It wasn't a myth that girls had to achieve a higher mark to get a grammar school place, at least not in the city I grew up in. This wasn't a plot and had nothing to do with standardisation. It was because there were roughly the same number of places at girls' grammar schools as there were at boys' grammar schools but at 11 the girls achieved higher marks so some girls would not get a place while a boy with the same or lower mark would, the only way to change this would have been to have had more girls's schools than boys' or to let the girls go to the boys school.

When my sons took the exam in the 1970s, in the same city, there were twice as many boys grammar schools as girls. Most grammar schools had gone comprehensive and a handful didn't, it just so happened that more boys schools remained than girls and so it was well known, and documented, that the girls needed to get a higher mark to get a place.

The standardisation by birth date did happen in the 1970s, I worked in local government and researched it well with colleagues in the relevant department before my son took the exam. It was only marginal when it came to the last few places where you might have a number of children with the same mark and not enough places for all of them, they then looked at age, head teachers recommendations, siblings at the school and distance. I don't remember what order they came in but say you are down to the last 10 places and you have 40 children with the same mark you might say the five with siblings get a place, so then you have 5 places and 35 children, 10 of them were already 11 when they took the exam so lets eliminate them, you now have 25 children and 5 places, so lets choose the three who live within a mile of the school and you now have 22 children and only two places and they go to the two with the strongest recommendations.

That was basically what happened in my city, might be very different elsewhere.

Goldiegirl

saver861 wrote: »

Whats apparent to some might be less so to others.

I do believe though you are seeing things too much through your own experience.

Over the decades if you look at the changes, for each decade you would see greater and greater disadvantage to women. It has come a long way but some still exists. There is still glass ceilings - you may have gone through it or not reached it but that does not mean it is not there.

I've already said that I'm not engaging with you again - but as you quoted my post, I did say that other women may have had other experiences - so I acknowledged that my experiences were not the only ones.

What I find disappointing is that WASPI seem to be choosing to imply that most, if not all 50's women have had poor education, menial jobs and a narrow life.

LHW99

Pass rates for Grammar schools were shown in a documentary years later and I was shocked to discover I had to get more than a boy to pass.

To upset you further Purplecar - those of us in the 1950's of both sexes who took GCE exams ("O-levels") were also 'disadvantaged' as the pass bands were adjusted so that no matter how well you did marks-wise, if you were'nt in the top x% of your co-hort you wouldn't get a Grade 1 pass. It happened (happens?) in other exams too. The aim was to ensure that even if one year they set a fiendishly difficult paper that no-one could answer there would still be approximately the same number of people passing at each grade as in previous years.
Was that also 'unfair'? In my opinion not - the exams had a purpose in determining whether you could cope with a highly academic, paper-based training. If you could, then you would be directed towards university. If not, there were better paths to travel - apprentiveships, HNC / HND, job-based training (banks, M&S etc).
Personally I have never felt that was a problem, it was how it worked

On pensions I don't agree with many WASPI aims - the 1995 changes gave plenty of notice. I did have less than 3 years notice of the 2011 change, which I found somewhat annoying (I still have my letter from DWP, by the way).
None the less I feel that the reason for the changes was just, and there should not be a blanket 'roll-back' of them.
I do think it is reasonable for parliament to look at the impact of the 2011 changes, and see if there are groups (disabled, sick etc) who have been disadvantaged, and see if anything can be done to mitigate that.

mumps

LHW99 wrote: »

To upset you further Purplecar - those of us in the 1950's of both sexes who took GCE exams ("O-levels") were also 'disadvantaged' as the pass bands were adjusted so that no matter how well you did marks-wise, if you were'nt in the top x% of your co-hort you wouldn't get a Grade 1 pass. It happened (happens?) in other exams too. The aim was to ensure that even if one year they set a fiendishly difficult paper that no-one could answer there would still be approximately the same number of people passing at each grade as in previous years.
Was that also 'unfair'? In my opinion not - the exams had a purpose in determining whether you could cope with a highly academic, paper-based training. If you could, then you would be directed towards university. If not, there were better paths to travel - apprentiveships, HNC / HND, job-based training (banks, M&S etc).
Personally I have never felt that was a problem, it was how it worked

On pensions I don't agree with many WASPI aims - the 1995 changes gave plenty of notice. I did have less than 3 years notice of the 2011 change, which I found somewhat annoying (I still have my letter from DWP, by the way).
None the less I feel that the reason for the changes was just, and there should not be a blanket 'roll-back' of them.
I do think it is reasonable for parliament to look at the impact of the 2011 changes, and see if there are groups (disabled, sick etc) who have been disadvantaged, and see if anything can be done to mitigate that.

I thought the 2011 changes came into effect in 2016 so how did you have less than 3 years notice?

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I've already said that I'm not engaging with you again - but as you quoted my post,

That's fine if you prefer not to respond but that would not restrict me to replying to posts where I feel there is a different opinion. The posts are read by all regardless of replies or not.

Goldiegirl wrote: »

What I find disappointing is that WASPI seem to be choosing to imply that most, if not all 50's women have had poor education, menial jobs and a narrow life.

Are they though? Or is that the perception?

In the same vein, the perception is that this site was against the WASPI petition when in fact there are around 30 or so posters making their objections. The petition rose by 30,000 the week that Martin Lewis and MSE gave their support in December. In fact, the total nearly doubled. So the few posters on threads is not necessarily reflective of the overall view and indeed with those numbers I would say it is far from it.

So, by the same token, do you then think that those who signed, which must be nearly 140,000, are all thinking that ALL women have been downtrodden. I would suggest not but equally I would suggest that an open viewpoint is necessary and not limited by personal experience.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Are they though? Or is that the perception?

They are and its no perception. You only have to look at Facebook, Twitter ( especially ) and media articles to realise that's exactly the public face they are putting on. It's going to get them much more sympathy than the fact that many of them are doctors, teachers, psychologists and owners of their own businesses.

In the same vein, the perception is that this site was against the WASPI petition when in fact there are around 30 or so posters making their objections.

Most posting on the Pensions board threads are against the main WASPI aim which became apparent after the petition had been already signed.

The petition rose by 30,000 the week that Martin Lewis and MSE gave their support in December. In fact, the total nearly doubled. So the few posters on threads is not necessarily reflective of the overall view and indeed with those numbers I would say it is far from it.

I would not be so naive as to think that Martin Lewis lending his support accounted for anywhere near 30,000 signatures.

Daniel54

saver861 wrote: »

Over the decades if you look at the changes, for each decade you would see greater and greater disadvantage to women. It has come a long way but some still exists. There is still glass ceilings - you may have gone through it or not reached it but that does not mean it is not there.

The inequality referred to in the petition concerns the respective state retirement dates of women born in the 1950s.Interesting though it might be,past (or present) actual or perceived male/female inequalities are not germane to the progressive equalisation of retirement dates ,which is a principle accepted by the writers of the petition .

All of us born in the 1950s benefited from huge changes such as the end of rationing ( meat and bacon were the last to go in 1954),availability of antibiotics ,the first polio vaccine (1952) and a reduction in infant and child mortality (NHS)

I don't see how what we have done with our lives in adulthood should impact on the equalisation of SPA

If any age group was going to move towards equalisation,surely it should be ours?