Women SPA this week

POPPYOSCAR

Malthusian wrote: »

It's very anti-feminist of you to make other women look bad and question their life choices. Where's your solidarity?

That is basically what this side of the argument amounts to.

No it does not.

Life choices were limited.

Most women were not encouraged then like they are now to go for high profile jobs and they were not paid the same when they did.

It is about equality.

We have come a long way since then but there is still a way to go.

Even in this day and age my husband gets letters addressed to him about matters that concern us both.Even when I put my name first his name is put before mine.

One example,our accountant puts my husband's name on our partnership accounts as signatory even though I deal with all administration relating to our business.

Pollycat

DairyQueen wrote: »

And precious few options compared to those available to men.

I agree with this - thinking about pits, engineering works etc.

But I guess you had to be a gutsy women to see past the 'housewife & babies' future.

DairyQueen wrote: »

I popped back here to check whether anyone (other than a notable few) were interested in debating the bigger picture. I am not surprised to hear the same old voices saying the same old things. Apparently, any debate on pension inequality, that doesn't address the one gender injustice that has discriminated against men, is marginalised into oblivion.

I grant that I should have started a new thread. I deliberately didn't do so on the off-chance that the forum was at last ready to park the WASPI issue. Apparently not. It remains a subject on which the same people air the same views - ad nauseam.

It's a thread about WASPI/Backto60.
What did you expect?
Really?
It's possibly no surprise that the people who air their views on WASPI/Backto60 are those women who knew about state pension age changes.

DairyQueen wrote: »

I am a supporter of gender equality but am far more concerned about the unaddressed causes of the large disparity between male and female pension income, than I am about a headline figure of £30/k£40k/ or whatever is claimed by the WASPIs. That represents a small proportion of the gender difference in total income throughout retirement.

And that's perfectly fine.
Just as it's perfectly fine for other posters (or at least me) to want to stick to the thread topic.

DairyQueen wrote: »

As for 'netiquette' (how quaint). I am reliably informed by those better-placed than I to judge that the polite form of emphasis is italics and that CAPITALS ARE INDEED CONSIDERED SHOUTING. I was politely and gently rebuked by my solicitor for this very breach in an email exchange. As she says: "italics are far more effective".

"quaint"? :rotfl:
You've never heard the term 'netiquette'?
How quaint.

I didn't read lisyloo's post where she used capitals and was accused of being 'loud'. I think it may have been edited.
lisyloo has apologised for the use of capitals.

I would indeed consider the bib 'shouting'.
I think you'll find that I said:

Pollycat wrote: »

I thought that it was all capitals that indicated shouting.
On fora that doesn't have the facility to put text in bold (or even in texts I send) I use capitals for the odd word that I wish to emphasise.

DairyQueen wrote: »

But I digress. To stay on-topic I should return to that most important of all pensions' issues - the WASPIs. Problem is that I'm tired of hearing about it. I am passed the point of caring. I have consigned it to the same metaphoric bin as Brexit so I shall politely and without shouting bow out.

Me too.
But as long as people keep bringing the subject up, I'll keep posting my opinion.
Especially in connection with those women I refer to in my post #114 who misrepresent their financial circumstances to garner sympathy.

Gers

Pollycat wrote: »

I didn't read lisyloo's post where she used capitals and was accused of being 'loud'. I think it may have been edited.
lisyloo has apologised for the use of capitals.

I didn't 'accuse' lisyloo, I pointed out that she was, in fact, shouting which is being loud.

Yes, she gave a qualified apology whilst blaming predictive text and dyslexia! Not the same thing at all. And yes, she has edited most of that post though not all.

Anyway... back to the topic. Not.

jimi_man

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Even in this day and age my husband gets letters addressed to him about matters that concern us both.Even when I put my name first his name is put before mine.

A certain amount of that is to do with letter writing etiquette - as I'm sure you know. It's still customary not to split up the man's first and surname, hence Mr and Mrs (His firstname) Poppyoscar is still the correct way to address formal letters. Obviously informally the reverse is still true, your first name would go first.

If they are just addressed to him and you are not included, then that's down to something that you must have filled in. My wife gets numerous letters addressed to her, which is effectively for both of us, but hers was the name used to set it up.

fred246

Well according to this article
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/11/womens-retirement-age-rising-faster-than-mens-in-uk
The average retirement for age for men is now 65.1 and 63.9 for women. The recent reforms seemed to have been good at making things a little more equal. With men living shorter lives though, they should probably be retiring younger than women for fairness.

Pollycat

Gers wrote: »

I didn't 'accuse' lisyloo, I pointed out that she was, in fact, shouting which is being loud.

verb

[with object]often accuse someone of

• 1Charge (someone) with an offence or crime.
  ‘he was accused of murdering his wife's lover’

1.1 Claim that (someone) has done something wrong. ‘he was accused of favouritism’

Gers wrote: »

No idea what you're on about - again!

You're the one who was talking about why shouldn't women have an equal pension date and bleating on about poor men who had to work five years more and lecturing us IN A LOUD VOICE about having choices despite being a woman! Nothing about lack of commumication.

Gers wrote: »

My argument is not with you.

Says it all.


As for getting back on topic, I hope there will be relevant news about the judicial review soon.

Gers

Pollycat wrote: »

Says it all.


As for getting back on topic, I hope there will be relevant news about the judicial review soon.

Don't get your point at all - I wasn't charging her with an offence! And as she seemed to think that she wasn't being loud I illustrated my response appropriately. Demonstration being more effective and all that.


Now if you are finished nit-picking with me then it would make for a better on topic thread for you.

Now ignoring my own exhortation here's another one for lisyloo and her assertation that gender has never stopped women from a career ( I hesitate to use her rather more tasteless phrase)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48531699

And another for her https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/pin-money-fat-cats-pay-inequality-ftse-100

I doubt there is anyone who feels that the equalisation of pensions is inherently a bad thing but lets make sure that women are equal in all things. Only fair.

Silvertabby

Pollycat wrote: »

As for getting back on topic, I hope there will be relevant news about the judicial review soon.

Not sure what they hope to achieve in just 2 days. I'd have thought that it would have taken much longer than that to address/rebut the claims that insufficient notice of the changes had been given.

I just hope that some women haven't already booked cruises, in the mistaken belief that this review was set up to overturn all of the pensions changes, right back to the 1995 Pensions Act.

Gers

Silvertabby wrote: »

Not sure what they hope to achieve in just 2 days. I'd have thought that it would have taken longer than that to address/rebut the claims that insufficient notice of the changes was given.

I just hope that some women haven't already booked cruises, in the mistaken belief that this review was set up to overturn all of the pensions changes, right back to the 1995 Pensions Act.

The expectation is that the judgement will be reserved for months to allow for consideration.

I too don't think that anything will come of a review of the 1995 changes, there's perhaps a slight / remote chance of the later changes though I deep down doubt it. Whilst it would be nice it's not really a possiblitly.

Pollycat

Gers wrote: »

Don't get your point at all - I wasn't charging her with an offence! And as she seemed to think that she wasn't being loud I illustrated my response appropriately. Demonstration being more effective and all that.

I'm not surprised you didn't get my point.
You didn't read the bit in bold - bold text is often used for emphasis or to bring someone's notice to a specific point.
I didn't say you charged anyone with an offence.

The part I emboldened was 1.1 which says:

verb

[with object]often accuse someone of

• 1Charge (someone) with an offence or crime.
  ‘he was accused of murdering his wife's lover’

1.1 Claim that (someone) has done something wrong. ‘he was accused of favouritism’

Now we've cleared that up and you've continued your 'argument' with lisyloo, we can get back on topic.