In England women get a state pension at 60, men have to wait until 65. Is this sexist?

Answer 1

Considering that UK women on average live 5 years longer than men (81 as opposed to 76), women are able to enjoy their retirement for 21 years instead of the average 11 years of a man.

Remember that it is the poorest people in society that tend to work the longest, and die the earliest. However 'fair' the retirement age is to women, it is certainly unfair on the majority of Britain (the working class).

As the judgement to let women retire earlier ignores this, so the answer is Yes. There is no fact to support any reasoning behind this law.

Answer 2

Interesting, I would have expected a man to raise this one. Feminists have been suspiciously quiet about this one for years. Although it is, I suppose, 'sexist', I prefer the term, "grossly unfair". The effects of this are greater than you would first imagine. For five years, not only do men continue to pay contributions, but they also don't receive any pension during that period. So, it is a double whammy. It gets worse, women live about eight years longer than men, on average, so, they miss out on about thirteen years pension on average and have to pay five years longer. Men, in effect, are having to pay through the nose to subsidise female pensions. It gets worse, for all employer and other non government pension schemes, women will draw pensions for another eight years longer, on average. It would be considerably better for men to have a separate pension schemes of their own.

What is interesting, is that you are the first person, male or female, to raise this issue. If it had been the other way round, not only would feminists been jumping up and down, but they would have tried to insist on separate funds for men and women. This, for me, underlines very powerfully, the difference between men and women, particularly in their respective attitudes toward each other. Sorry to say this, but men are much more magnanimous in their attitude toward women than vice versa. That is true across the board where our respective interests are at stake, and probably explains why, particularly in the past, men have been in control outside the home. Women tend to personalise things toward their own interest, and seem to be devoid of consience in caring about the affects of this on men.

Answer 3

It's changing now coz of the stingy govt and equalisation is being implemented which will mean by 2020 men and women will both have to retire at 65.

Answer 4

Yes, which is why it's changing, women will be retiring at 65, but not for quite a few years yet!

Answer 5

This began in the Victorian era when working class women lived a shorter life than men. In this day and age women live longer and retiring sooner is not nessecary.

Answer 6

Consieing that women tend to have worse jobs...... due to child rearing, I don't think so. Women generally give up a lot to have a family, and it takes a lot out of you. 5 years earlier than men isn't much considering the sacrifice of 16 - 20 years for children.

Answer 7

Because of the war I think there are more elderly woman than men at the moment. Therefore I am very tired because of the lateness of the day and can't finish answering the question. Damn.

Answer 8

the law has been changed and gradually the retirement age for women is being bought up to 65, but do women ever retire they still wash , cook, clean, shop,

Answer 9

women are weak and they tend to become very very very lazy when they reach 60 in performances in the bedroom and working related matters so the should sit on their ***'s and do nothing because thats all their god for.

Answer 10

Personally I don't give a damn, the world was a better place before Political Correctness became a disease