Kirstein Rummery, ‘professor’ of Social Policy and co-director of the Centre for Gender and Feminist Studies at the University of Stirling, strikes again

Our thanks to Martin for this, an article titled, ‘Women face pension crisis as savings gap set to widen’. The bottom line? Compared with men, women:

– are less interested in pensions, so they…
– save a great deal less towards their pensions, so they…
– will get smaller pensions on retirement

It’s not exactly rocket science, is it?

The cause of the manufactured pension ‘crisis’ is, of course, that many women expect others – partners, taxpayers, ideally both – to look after them financially, an expectation of few men. The ‘crisis’ would of course be solved by women as a class taking more responsibility for themselves, taking an interest in pensions, and saving the same as men as a class, but obviously this isn’t an option seriously considered in the article, which starts:

Women face working well past retirement age or becoming increasingly dependent on their partner’s finances as research reveals men have three times more in pensions savings – a difference of nearly £50,000.

On average, women are saving about £24,900 for their pension compared to £73,600 saved by men, according to findings from Edinburgh- based insurance firm Aegon.

Cue the first genius cited in the piece:

Kate Smith, head of pensions at Aegon, said a number of reasons contributed to the “stark” difference.

She said an auto-enrolment policy had successfully introduced 7.6 million people to workplace pensions, but the gender pay gap, which is currently 13.9 per cent, meant that men were effectively saving more “without even thinking about it”.

Yes, the ‘gender pay gap’ of 13.9 per cent accounts in large measure for men saving nearly three times more on average than women towards their pensions. Give me strength. What other applicants were there for her position? Chimpanzees? Her contribution ends with this:

She added that both the industry and employers had an important role in making pensions more accessible for women.

Why, that damned patriarchy, making pensions less accessible to women than to men!

For sheer knuckle-grazing, eye-rolling, tongue-lolling stupidity, we turn to the taxpayer-funded parasite quoted at the end of the piece:

However, Kirstein Rummery, professor of Social Policy and co-director of the Centre For Gender and Feminist Studies at the University of Stirling, said there was a “collective responsibility” to make up the economic shortfall, rather than place the burden on women themselves.

So there we have it, an archetypal feminist ‘solution’ to a ‘problem’.

As well as saving for their own private pensions, men should pay for women’s private pensions, too. Despite the fact that state pensions are paid for not from historic tax collection, but from current tax collection, and men in the UK pay almost 75 per cent of the income tax collected by the government. The ‘professor’ appears to have nothing to say on the income tax gender gap.

How I loathe taxpayer-funded feminist parasites like Kirstein Rummery. I’m going to recommend at the next meeting of the Patriarchy Council that her lamentable department is de-funded. Then she could apply for jobs in the disciplines in which feminists are woefully under-represented, such as bomb disposal.

In May 2015 the ‘professor’ won our Gormless Feminist of the Month award for a comment she made in relation to the false claim that appointing more women onto corporate boards leads to improved financial performance. Her certificate is here. It includes a link to an excellent riposte from Herbert Purdy. An extract from his piece:

When you first read your cited work, did it not cause you immediately to question its obvious bias and screamingly obvious correlation/causation error? If one of my students had come up with a comment like yours, I would have been having a very serious word with her, suggesting firmly that she revisit some of the principles of the philosophy of research. Your thinking is puerile. It would never pass even at undergraduate level, let alone doctoral/professorial level, and it ill-befits the title of professor.

You are a typical example of the low-grade people who are now gaining academic chairs in what we used to call universities – centres of the pursuit of learning and truth – but are now little more than madrassas of the now threadbare, wholly discredited Marxist ideology of feminism. You are a promoter of feminism.

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.
  • Slowcoach

    There was a young ‘lady’ called Rummery,
    whose opinions were trite and summary.
    On going to Uni,
    her thesis was puny,
    resulting in all tosh and flummery.

    ….Just thought I’d mention it.

  • Groan

    “that many women expect others – partners, taxpayers, ideally both – to look after them financially, an expectation of few men ” I suspect this is the reason for a host of differences. From choices in jobs, part time working (or very short full time), taking out loans specially student loans presuming that there will be shared responsibility to pay, building up credit /store card bills, tendencies to presume “what’s yours is also mine, and what’s mine is mine” in relationships as well as the well researched (courtesy of Fawcett Society) high female dependency levels on all forms of welfare.
    Curious isn’t it that there isn’t much research into who it is who contributes resources to our society and families etc.?
    If feminists were serious the answer would be women “walking the walk”, taking responsibility, instead it is again for something, “the state” – male taxpayers, mainly – to look after women. One cannot support equity and do anything other than reduce the tax burden, including for nonsense “research” etc. which supports such nonsense in Unis.

  • Elizabeth Smith

    Welcome back! Personally I would have hired that chimpanzee. They are intelligent creatures.

  • wisemanner

    And the labour party jumping on the feminist bandwagon again.

  • Peter L

    Well, the only issue I’d say Mike is that a lot of women take time out to care for children and older people…..

    • Mike Buchanan

      And a lot don’t (and a lot of men care for older people). These factors don’t come within a country mile of explaining why women save only a third of what men do towards their private pensions.