A shameless petition for the state pension age for women to be reduced from 66 to 60

Our thanks to Kevin for pointing us to an utterly shameless petition launched 7 months ago. It’s attracted 318,000+ votes.

At the recent Tory party conference the loudest protest was by a group of women protesting against the equalisation of the state pension age, apparently totally the wrong sort of gender equality. I spoke to one of the (middle-aged) harpies, who defended the historically low state pension age for women (60) compared with the pension age for men (65). She said it had historically been lower for women so they could care for elderly parents. I asked her:

Do you agree men are more likely than women to be employed doing physically onerous work, so a relatively higher pension age is disproportionately unfair to men?

Should men’s lower life expectancy mean they should retire earlier than women?

Should women who didn’t look after elderly parents still have got the state pension at 60?

Should men who were looking after elderly parents have been able to get the state pension at 60?

She had no intelligent responses to any of these questions, and shrieked that I was a misogynist. Women are relentlessly privileged, yet ‘feel’ oppressed. It doesn’t say much for women as a class. My firm prediction is Theresa ‘this is what a feminist looks like’ May will cave into women’s demands for a longer period to introduce state pension age equalisation. Because heaven forbid any woman should ever suffer from gender equalisation.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • How many of these women now petitioning for preferential treatment over state pensions would have been, when in their twenties in the 1970s, clamouring for ‘equality’?

  • cheannaich

    You knew you were going to be called a misogynist didn’t you?
    May I suggest next time you take a leaf out of the feminist book. You take results from a skewed survey, extrapolate it and present it as truth.
    e.g. You ask your mate; “Do you reckon that the increasing burden on the welfare bill arising from unemployment, people living longer, support for ‘child migrants etc etc means we are broke”?

    your mate; “yeah”

    you; “Do you reckon that to allow women to retire at 60, men should work until 70, bearing in mind the longer life expectancy nowadays”?

    your mate; “yeah”

    You then invent a fancy title for the production of this survey e.g. “The institute of social and financial expenditure in the public sector”

    Congratulations! You have developed a survey by an institute, no less factual than the survey about 1 in 3 women will be/wil need/feel/ **** ****** ****(insert whatever)

    You can then ask your target audience the same questions couched in terms of supporting aspirational and emotional needs of women (they aspire to retire at 60 and their need to do so is because they are worn out etc). When they agree men should work until they are 70, publish that. Name and shame

  • Obviously, women are exploiting the gentleman tradition/mindset of western men to the very limit. Because there is not a single other reason why something like this could even be suggested, let alone implemented.
    At this point in time, in every woman’s mind, the word gentleman undoubtedly translates to something like an an ignorant fool, if not an outright idiot.. And they do have a point, don’t they ?.

  • Just another excuse for a wealth transfer to women.