WASPI -Women Against State Pension Inequality

[xfox3x 10]

Women were the subject of preferential treatment which they had no moral entitlement to. That preferential treatment has been removed. And about damn time.

There's a case to be made for a softer landing in terms of removing the preferential treatment of women in terms of retirement, but not a very strong one.

In any case, the false nature of the organisation's name undermines anything they might have to say on the matter as it immediately identifies them as dishonest, or at least highly disingenuous.

 

Oh for heaven's sake. Read the history of SPA and you'll see why men's retirement age was higher than that of women. No-one has ever said they agreed with it.

I didn't choose the name or start the group - why not go on their page and have a moan about it?

[unbeliever 10]

Oh for heaven's sake. Read the history of SPA and you'll see why men's retirement age was higher than that of women. No-one has ever said they agreed with it.

I didn't choose the name or start the group - why not go on their page and have a moan about it?

 

Shan't.

An organisation which uses a lie in its name is to be rejected without further consideration. I shall give them no further attention.

[xfox3x 10]

Presumably because it affects exclusively women?

 

Putting the inequality argument aside for one moment, then I can see why they might wnat to protest about the way its been implemented. Im not really invested in it one wat or the other, just observing and read some stuff to find out what the OP was about.

 

I am bemused slightly about what the OP expects to achieve considering what the forums are like.

 

I wanted to let people know about the campaign and let them look (if they were interested ) and either support or ignore. Unfortunately some people are unable to grasp that because they just love being obnoxious.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 13:12 ----------

 

Shan't.

An organisation which uses a lie in its name is to be rejected without further consideration. I shall give them no further attention.

 

That's the way!

[runningman1 12]

I wanted to let people know about the campaign and let them look (if they were interested ) and either support or ignore. Unfortunately some people are unable to grasp that because they just love being obnoxious.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 13:12 ----------

 

 

That's the way!

 

For someone who claims to not be bothered, you seem awfully, well bothered.

 

If you want inequality restored just be honest and say it. People have more respect for honest folk.

 

If anything, the retirement age for women should be higher than for men, as they tend to live longer so the average woman still has a longer retirement than the average man, despite having worked for less years. I will settle for an equal age though, as I believe in equality.

[xfox3x 10]

For someone who claims to not be bothered, you seem awfully, well bothered.

 

If you want inequality restored just be honest and say it. People have more respect for honest folk.

 

If anything, the retirement age for women should be higher than for men, as they tend to live longer so the average woman still has a longer retirement than the average man, despite having worked for less years. I will settle for an equal age though, as I believe in equality.

 

What part of 'it's not about restoring women's pension age back to 60' are you struggling with?

Love the fact that my signature 'bothers' you.

[999tigger 10]

For someone who claims to not be bothered, you seem awfully, well bothered.

 

If you want inequality restored just be honest and say it. People have more respect for honest folk.

 

If anything, the retirement age for women should be higher than for men, as they tend to live longer so the average woman still has a longer retirement than the average man, despite having worked for less years. I will settle for an equal age though, as I believe in equality.

 

Except if you had bothered to learn what the issue was about they arent asking for anything to be restored.

[runningman1 12]

Except if you had bothered to learn what the issue was about they arent asking for anything to be restored.

 

Have you read their Facebook page?

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 13:29 ----------

 

What part of 'it's not about restoring women's pension age back to 60' are you struggling with?

Love the fact that my signature 'bothers' you.

 

It doesn't bother me at all, I find it humerous that someone like you would use it. There is no inequality at all, you have failed to point out the inequality and so does the Facebook page.

[xfox3x 10]

Here is the petition started by WASPI. I'd say it states pretty clearly that they agree with equality in SPA

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110776

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 13:38 ----------

 

Have you read their Facebook page?

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 13:29 ----------

 

 

It doesn't bother me at all, I find it humerous that someone like you would use it. There is no inequality at all, you have failed to point out the inequality and so does the Facebook page.

 

It obviously bothers you because you keep harping on about it. Glad you find it humorous though because that is what it is meant to be.

Edited November 6, 2015 by xfox3x

[Hogg 10]

Anything to do with women's rights is always a red rag to the misogynists.

[999tigger 10]

Have you read their Facebook page?

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 13:29 ----------

 

 

It doesn't bother me at all, I find it humerous that someone like you would use it. There is no inequality at all, you have failed to point out the inequality and so does the Facebook page.

 

I actually read a more detailed explanation of what their concern was.

The facebook pahe makes no reference to restoration of the previous position it talks about fair transitional arrangements.

 

The inequaliity is that it affects exclusively women in an unfair way. If you bothered to read up on the matter then you might understand what you are talking about.

[runningman1 12]

I actually read a more detailed explanation of what their concern was.

The facebook pahe makes no reference to restoration of the previous position it talks about fair transitional arrangements.

 

The inequaliity is that it affects exclusively women in an unfair way. If you bothered to read up on the matter then you might understand what you are talking about.

 

I have read the Facebook page, which is what she linked on this post. I have read the same thing as you and have formed a different opinion. Please don't be so bigoted as to dismiss my view.

[unbeliever 10]

I actually read a more detailed explanation of what their concern was.

The facebook pahe makes no reference to restoration of the previous position it talks about fair transitional arrangements.

 

The inequaliity is that it affects exclusively women in an unfair way. If you bothered to read up on the matter then you might understand what you are talking about.

 

That's a contrived and completely bogus definition of equality.

You could just as easily say that when women were given the vote a century ago it was an act of inequality because men didn't get a second vote at the same time.