Why don't men complain?

Afraid_of_Kittens

xylophone wrote: »

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm



Are you referring to the Barber case?

Barber claimed against his employer, Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_v_Guardian_Royal_Exchange_Assurance_Group

And the Govt did not (and has not) changed GMP age - this disadvantaged women receiving age 60 contracted out private sector occupational pensions which did not compensate for the change - the schemes did not have to index link Pre 88 GMP or post 88 GMP in excess of 3% for women over age 60 as this was expected to be achieved through the mechanism of the old state pension.

Those women had to wait until they reached SPA to receive indexation as appropriate on the GMP.

Just shows how trying to remember something from 28 years ago blurs ones memory.

zagfles

fred246 wrote: »

Since 1940 men have had to work until they were 65 to get their state pension while women have received it at 60. I don't remember hearing any protests at all. When the government finally end the injustice we get a massive protest from women. They want the injustice to continue a bit longer because it's in their favour. Men just don't seem to be able to get their act together at all.

Some men do, but the media generally ignore them. Just look at the publicity given to the likes of WASPE and BackTo60 compared with groups like Families Need Fathers and Fathers for Justice.

zagfles

xylophone wrote: »

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm



Are you referring to the Barber case?

Barber claimed against his employer, Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_v_Guardian_Royal_Exchange_Assurance_Group

And the Govt did not (and has not) changed GMP age - this disadvantaged women receiving age 60 contracted out private sector occupational pensions which did not compensate for the change - the schemes did not have to index link Pre 88 GMP or post 88 GMP in excess of 3% for women over age 60 as this was expected to be achieved through the mechanism of the old state pension.

Those women had to wait until they reached SPA to receive indexation as appropriate on the GMP.

The thing you're missing is that unequal GMP ages disadvantages men too, sometimes more depending on the scheme, inflation/fixed revalution rates etc. The reason is a woman can take GMP at 60, and if she doesn't take it, a "late payment" increase is applied at around 7.4% a year - this applies to both pre and post 88 GMP - and this is on top of the in payment CPI capped at 3% on the post 88 part.

So a man's GMP would almost always revalue less between the ages of 60 and 65.

I've just done a calculation for a deferred DB pension my wife has, and she's definitely going to be better off than a man in exactly the same position.

ETA: to expand on this:
In the scheme my wife is in, her deferred GMP revalues at 6.25% pa fixed up till she's 60. The NPA of the scheme is 65, as she doesn't intend to take it early.

So up to 60 it revalues at 6.25%, between 60 and 65 it will revalue at 7.4% plus CPI (3% cap) on the post 88 part, which is most of it. Once in payment at 65, it revalues the same as a man's would, ie CPI capped at 3% on the post 88 part.

So even if CPI is zero, she will be better off than a man in the same position, as for a man it would revalue at only 6.25% right up to 65. She'll be at least 6% better off than a man, and with a reasonable assumption of inflation, about 10-15% better off.

bostonerimus

zagfles wrote: »

Oh really? Try looking at life expectancy, the prison population, suicide rates, child custody cases, cancer screening programmes, health spending in general, risk of death or serious injury in the workplace, homelessness (real homelessness, as in sleeping on the streets, not in a B&B), maternity/paternity leave/pay.

The idea that only women are victims of inequality is a narrative continually propagated by the media, particuarly the BBC, and of course there is a lot of inequality that affects women, but the idea it's only women or even mainly is frankly clueless.

State pension ages is just the start of real equality. Hopefully.

Men certainly face discrimination, but it’s rarely because of their gonads.

DairyQueen

zagfles wrote: »

Oh really? Try looking at life expectancy, the prison population, suicide rates, child custody cases, cancer screening programmes, health spending in general, risk of death or serious injury in the workplace, homelessness (real homelessness, as in sleeping on the streets, not in a B&B), maternity/paternity leave/pay.

The idea that only women are victims of inequality is a narrative continually propagated by the media, particuarly the BBC, and of course there is a lot of inequality that affects women, but the idea it's only women or even mainly is frankly clueless.

State pension ages is just the start of real equality. Hopefully.

Of course gender inequalities exist outside of the sphere of pensions. However, pensions are the issue under discussion. The stats speak for themselves. All research reveals that females total pension income is significantly lower than that of age-equivalent males. Every report demonstrates that female pay is significant lower than that of age-equivalent males.

This is a socially constructed injustice. It's the legacy of a paternalistic society that has existed for centuries. It still exists.

You could add that men are more likely to lose limbs as the result of accidents (as they are the gender that dominates the cohort of motor bike users). You could also add that males are far more likely to be murder victims. Infant mortality is higher amongst males. Males are more likely to suffer alcoholism and alcoholism is the primary cause of homelessness. Males are more likely to be addicted to gambling.... and so on.

Males are far more likely to succumb to behaviours associated with risk. This perhaps explains why they dominate the prison population. The difference between male and female testosterone levels isn't a social construct.

However, I agree that gender bias in the realm of child custody is just that.

I find it abhorrent that a male must effectively 'prove' that his spouse is an 'unfit mother' in order to gain/share custody of his children. A bar that's so high that he is destined to fail.

I also abhor the way that so many women exploit gender bias to exploit their former spouses financially. I have seen far too many cases where children are used as pawns for financial gain by their mothers. The self-justification that these women fabricate is truly breathtaking.

However, these are not the issues under discussion.

Until such time as women are able to accrue the same pension provision as men throughout their working lives we can expect to witness seemingly irrational protests against specific issues like SP equality. Do you really believe that, if these women had experienced the same opportunity to accrue retirement income at the level of their male equivalents, that they would be protesting?

ffacoffipawb

DairyQueen wrote: »

Of course gender inequalities exist outside of the sphere of pensions. However, pensions are the issue under discussion. The stats speak for themselves. All research reveals that females total pension income is significantly lower than that of age-equivalent males. Every report demonstrates that female pay is significant lower than that of age-equivalent males.

This is a socially constructed injustice. It's the legacy of a paternalistic society that has existed for centuries. It still exists.

You could add that men are more likely to lose limbs as the result of accidents (as they are the gender that dominates the cohort of motor bike users). You could also add that males are far more likely to be murder victims. Infant mortality is higher amongst males. Males are more likely to suffer alcoholism and alcoholism is the primary cause of homelessness. Males are more likely to be addicted to gambling.... and so on.

Males are far more likely to succumb to behaviours associated with risk. This perhaps explains why they dominate the prison population. The difference between male and female testosterone levels isn't a social construct.

However, I agree that gender bias in the realm of child custody is just that.

I find it abhorrent that a male must effectively 'prove' that his spouse is an 'unfit mother' in order to gain/share custody of his children. A bar that's so high that he is destined to fail.

I also abhor the way that so many women exploit gender bias to exploit their former spouses financially. I have seen far too many cases where children are used as pawns for financial gain by their mothers. The self-justification that these women fabricate is truly breathtaking.

However, these are not the issues under discussion.

Until such time as women are able to accrue the same pension provision as men throughout their working lives we can expect to witness seemingly irrational protests against specific issues like SP equality. Do you really believe that, if these women had experienced the same opportunity to accrue retirement income at the level of their male equivalents, that they would be protesting?

Yes, the WASPE lot are just greedy.

And stupid.

Even their initials are wrong.

zagfles

DairyQueen wrote: »

Of course gender inequalities exist outside of the sphere of pensions. However, pensions are the issue under discussion.

I know. I was just responding to the assertion that "Men generally don't complain because they live in a patriarchy, why rock the boat when things are almost always stacked in your favour." which seemed to be aimed at more than just pensions. But let's get back to pensions...

The stats speak for themselves. All research reveals that females total pension income is significantly lower than that of age-equivalent males. Every report demonstrates that female pay is significant lower than that of age-equivalent males.

Age-equivalent pay isn't significantly lower amongst younger women. Older women, yes. And the overall gender pay gap, which business now have to report, isn't age adjusted which makes the figures look worse than they actually are.

This is a socially constructed injustice. It's the legacy of a paternalistic society that has existed for centuries. It still exists.

Yet you then say...

You could add that men are more likely to lose limbs as the result of accidents (as they are the gender that dominates the cohort of motor bike users). You could also add that males are far more likely to be murder victims. Infant mortality is higher amongst males. Males are more likely to suffer alcoholism and alcoholism is the primary cause of homelessness. Males are more likely to be addicted to gambling.... and so on.

Males are far more likely to succumb to behaviours associated with risk. This perhaps explains why they dominate the prison population. The difference between male and female testosterone levels isn't a social construct.

So you blame testosterone for causing behavioural differences in men, resulting in men taking more risk, men more likely to end up in prison, on the streets, etc, ie all the disadvantages men face, yet not for any of the advantages?

You reckon that behavioural differences, possibily caused by hormones, don't result in men taking more risks in their professional lives, being more assertive when it comes to applying for that highly paid job, asking their boss for a rise, being more focused on their career etc?

But of course even that isn't the main factor, which is that women are more likely to focus on things other than their career, such as childcare. Hormones will play a part there too, as well as societal expectations which are certainly part of it.

And of course taking career breaks is a major factor in the gender pay gap amongst older women, and a factor which also feeds into pension inequality as pensions are of course deferred pay.
So if we can blame hormones for a 2000% higher male prison population, we can certainly blame them for a 10-15% or so age-adjusted pay gap.

However, I agree that gender bias in the realm of child custody is just that.

I find it abhorrent that a male must effectively 'prove' that his spouse is an 'unfit mother' in order to gain/share custody of his children. A bar that's so high that he is destined to fail.

I also abhor the way that so many women exploit gender bias to exploit their former spouses financially. I have seen far too many cases where children are used as pawns for financial gain by their mothers. The self-justification that these women fabricate is truly breathtaking.

This is another manifestation of the "socially constructed injustice" by the patriarchy. The view that it's not a man's place to care for children, that his function is to provide financial support, ie be the "breadwinner", not the "carer".

This also of course feeds the gender pay gap - if men's role is seen as the breadwinner and women's as the carer, this will naturally lead to men earning more and women caring more.

More equality in the field of child custody, maternity/paternity leave etc will naturally lead to more equality in pay, and hence pensions.

However, these are not the issues under discussion.

But as above - they are relavent. Looking after children is probably the main reason for the gender pay and hence the pension gap. If there were more equality there, then there'd be more equality in pay and pensions.

Until such time as women are able to accrue the same pension provision as men throughout their working lives we can expect to witness seemingly irrational protests against specific issues like SP equality. Do you really believe that, if these women had experienced the same opportunity to accrue retirement income at the level of their male equivalents, that they would be protesting?

Yes. As has been shown, it's not that they're on the breadline, they reject any sort of means tested compensation, in fact if they really were destitute they'd likely get means tested benefits of more than the state pension anyway!

They're protesting because the privilege they thought they had is being removed. It was the same when the first case of a court awarding custody to a househusband whose wife wasn't a serial killer. There was uproar amongst those who thought women should have the automatic right to custody of the children on divorce unless she is proved a danger to them. It's "waaah my privilege is being removed". Men do it too of course, in other contexts.

The idea that legislation should directly discriminate to somehow compensate for societal discrimination or even behavioural differences caused by hormones or whatever is ridiculous. The same argument could be used for men having lower pension ages as they are likely to die younger, due in part to societal discrimination, as well as to hormones and biology.

hyubh

xylophone wrote: »

And the Govt did not (and has not) changed GMP age - this disadvantaged women receiving age 60 contracted out private sector occupational pensions which did not compensate for the change - the schemes did not have to index link Pre 88 GMP or post 88 GMP in excess of 3% for women over age 60 as this was expected to be achieved through the mechanism of the old state pension.

GMP equalisation is more complicated than that, and overall, it will involve either roughly 50/50 male/female benefiting, or more men benefiting than women. Women accrued GMP at a faster rate than men, and anti-franking rules (once anti-franking was a thing) involved protections for women who ceased pensionable service after age 60. Put everything into the mix, and whether it is better to be a man or a women for GMP purposes can also change over time...

zagfles

hyubh wrote: »

GMP equalisation is more complicated than that, and overall, it will involve either roughly 50/50 male/female benefiting, or more men benefiting than women. Women accrued GMP at a faster rate than men, and anti-franking rules (once anti-franking was a thing) involved protections for women who ceased pensionable service after age 60. Put everything into the mix, and whether it is better to be a man or a women for GMP purposes can also change over time...

This gives an overview of where men and women benefit, although it assumes schemes with no pre 97 excess revaluation which I don't think is the norm:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220482/methodology-document-2012.pdf
Although I've now become confused, I assumed it was possible for a woman in a scheme with a NPD of 65 who wants to take the pension at 65 to defer the GMP to 65 along with the rest of the pension, and that example 5 above would apply to my wife's scheme I mentioned earlier.

However looking example 4, and what it says here and in other places like the LGPS GMP guide:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/provide-a-pension-for-your-scheme-member

It would seem that deferring the GMP past 60 for a woman is only possible if she's still "in employment". Is this really the case? So if she's retired, the scheme which has a NPD of 65 would have to start paying her GMP only at 60 (ie example 4) rather than allowing her to defer the GMP along with the rest of the pension?

If so what does "in employment" mean, would 1 hour a week do?

jamesd

DairyQueen wrote: »

Until such time as women are able to accrue the same pension provision as men throughout their working lives we can expect to witness seemingly irrational protests

Three years ago, then, at the latest, for the state pension. Since 6 April 2016 accrual has been at 1/35th of the single tier pension for each year paid or credited with no earnings-related component.

Earlier for those relying on means tested benefit or other credits since that changed to single tier accrual at 1/30th of the basic state pension. Some might consider the faster BSP benefit-based accrual for women than men under the preceding system to be enough to think that one operated to favour disadvantaged women.

DairyQueen wrote: »

Do you really believe that, if these women had experienced the same opportunity to accrue retirement income at the level of their male equivalents, that they would be protesting?

Yes. Many spent male-pattern working lives in the public sector that relatively rapidly sought equal things. It seems particularly common for campaign leaders who oppose approaches based on need that they wouldn't benefit from.