In article <email@example.com>, ***@gmail.com
Post by Incubus Post by Yellow
whatever, it does not alter the core fact that women's retirement age
being earlier than men's was not to men's disadvantage when it was
brought in and of course was brought in by men.
Being 'brought in by men' has the reek of chippiness to it, and you are now
aware that the Spinsters' Association made that request. In any event, no one
disputed that it didn't disadvantage men at the time; that came later.
Then you misunderstand my meaning which is simply that women were not
behind their retirement age being 60 and men's being 65.
And I mentioned it as a point of interest to counter you claim that men
were being discrimination against by the differential and that is all
there was to it.
The differential existed for a reason, agree with it or not, but that
reason was not intended to be a disadvantage to men.
This is however quite interesting, although of course as they did not
get what they wanted -
"Women who did not marry did not fare better. Marriage rates at any time
up to World War Two were lower than later in the century: in 1931 only
about three-quarters of women aged 35-44 had ever married. Unmarried
women generally had more restricted job opportunities, lower pay and
less opportunities for saving than men, even when they had equivalent
qualifications. They were less likely to be in pensionable employment.
Many were carers for ageing relatives.
To highlight these problems, in 1935 the National Spinsters' Pensions
Association was formed to demand state pensions for unmarried women at
55. They argued that, in addition to their other disadvantages, women
were often forced into involuntary retirement at earlier ages than men,
for various reasons: women's poorer health; discrimination by employers
against post-menopausal women; and the fact that many unmarried women
gave up work in middle life to care for ageing parents and could not,
thereafter, find employment."