Starmer's vision quest

[Psamathe]

I thought your comment insulting to women. It reminds of the household dynamics prevalent at the time, wife and daughters skivvying around men and boys while they inhabit the sofa endlessly watching football. Any complaint was met with, ''but I bought you a twin tub love''. That was the ''real world'' for women in that era. Times might have changed for the better. Let's hope so.

Back "at that time" I was working for the Gov. and having compulsory salary deductions for "Widow's Pension Contribution" just because I was male. Female employees had no "Widower's Pension Contribution" dedications, nothing similar/comparable. Fair? I argued the issue and only justification I could get was "it's the rules". Never got any justification for that, just my money taken where had I been born ♀ I'd have been getting more money each month.

Ian

 

[secretsqirrel]

Back "at that time" I was working for the Gov. and having compulsory salary deductions for "Widow's Pension Contribution" just because I was male. Female employees had no "Widower's Pension Contribution" dedications, nothing similar/comparable. Fair? I argued the issue and only justification I could get was "it's the rules". Never got any justification for that, just my money taken where had I been born ♀ I'd have been getting more money each month.

Ian

Are you not taking into account a historical gender pay gap.*

 

[monkers]

Back "at that time" I was working for the Gov. and having compulsory salary deductions for "Widow's Pension Contribution" just because I was male. Female employees had no "Widower's Pension Contribution" dedications, nothing similar/comparable. Fair? I argued the issue and only justification I could get was "it's the rules". Never got any justification for that, just my money taken where had I been born ♀ I'd have been getting more money each month.

Ian

You probably were.

 

[monkers]

Are you not taking into account a historical gender pay gap.*

Beat me to it. I was looking up graphs.

 

[Psamathe]

Are you not taking into account a historical gender pay gap.*

You probably were.

The organisation I worked for pay was determined by grade level and years in grade. So moving eg SO to HSO my salary would be identical to a woman moving SO to HSO same cycle. Same HSO to SSO, etc.

nb the promotion mechanism was very strictly controlled, unbelievable checks and balances, processes must have cost a fortune in resources but it was massively controlled.

Ian

 

[monkers]

The organisation I worked for pay was determined by grade level and years in grade. So moving eg SO to HSO my salary would be identical to a woman moving SO to HSO same cycle. Same HSO to SSO, etc.

Ian

The rules were not built around you so you shouldn't take it personally. The UK is a welfare state - responsibility for each other is collective.

The Civil Service implemented equal pay in 1961 which was about 10 years ahead of the rest of the UK. The gender pay gap still exists, but it is decreasing.

 

[Psamathe]

That simply is not true. It was around in the 1990s as a basic google search will confirm, and was downloadable by 2003

?

View attachment 9457

I can't remember dates and mechanisms but I was certainly checking on my pension entitlement several years before 2003 ('cos I retired in 2003 so had been doing the maths for some time before that). What I do remember is that despite all the grief dealing with Government, dealing with the pensions was always very easy and quick, trouble free .

Ian

 

[Psamathe]

Authoritarianism, oppression, lack of Freedom of Speech in UK is beginning to get scary now

A protester who was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act for holding a Palestinian flag and having signs saying “Free Gaza” and “Israel is committing genocide” is taking legal action against the police force involved.

Armed police told Laura Murton, 42, that her demonstration in Canterbury, Kent, last month expressed views supportive of Palestine Action, which had been banned under terrorism legislation earlier in July.

Murton said neither of her signs mentioned Palestine Action. When asked directly whether she supported any proscribed organisations, she replied: “I do not.”
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...arrest-takes-legal-action-against-kent-police)

So police trying to shut down protect arguing unfounded accusations under the Terrorism laws!

Something going wrong in UK.

Ian

 

[Psamathe]

The rules were not built around you so you shouldn't take it personally. The UK is a welfare state - responsibility for each other is collective.

The Civil Service implemented equal pay in 1961 which was about 10 years ahead of the rest of the UK. The gender pay gap still exists, but it is decreasing.

In my case it was collective for men but women didn't contribute. Trying to justify men being forced to contribute whilst women are exempt isn't "collective responsibility" it's gender discrimination.

I wasn't Civil Service and my response was in relation to you and others suggesting pension discriminatory pension contributions were being used to offset a gender pay gap. The body I worked for was very gender neutral with respect to promotion and salaries strictly determined by grade and annual increments within grade range.

I don't for one moment deny gender pay gaps but throughout my career companies I've worked for seem very gender neutral (one had far more senior female employees than male employees). That said I have done contracts with companies I have a strong suspicion had significant gender bias.

Ian

 

[monkers]

In my case it was collective for men but women didn't contribute. Trying to justify men being forced to contribute whilst women are exempt isn't "collective responsibility" it's gender discrimination.

I wasn't Civil Service and my response was in relation to you and others suggesting pension discriminatory pension contributions were being used to offset a gender pay gap. The body I worked for was very gender neutral with respect to promotion and salaries strictly determined by grade and annual increments within grade range.

I don't for one moment deny gender pay gaps but throughout my career companies I've worked for seem very gender neutral (one had far more senior female employees than male employees). That said I have done contracts with companies I have a strong suspicion had significant gender bias.

Ian

Again. It's not all about you. You received two responses concerning the gender pay gap - in neither case was it suggested that men should have to pay and not women because of the gender pay gap. What was glaring was that you resented that you had to pay a contribution to something, saying you could have taken home more, while being oblivious to the fact that you were likely earning considerably more than women at that time. Also married men received the married man's personal tax allowance. Did you? Or was that something else you raised with bosses?

The social structure of the day was that it was acceptable and justifiable to pay women less so that men could be paid more. Women were dismissed from their jobs if they married or became pregnant. However you think you were hard done by?

🕰️ Historical Context​

• Marriage Bars: Until the 1970s, many professions (especially teaching, civil service, and banking) had "marriage bars" that required women to resign upon getting married or becoming pregnant.
• Social Expectations: Pregnancy was seen as incompatible with professional life. Women were expected to focus solely on domestic responsibilities.
• Lack of Legal Protections: Before the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and later the Equality Act 2010, there were few legal safeguards against dismissal due to pregnancy.

📉 Present-Day Reality​

Despite legal protections, pregnancy discrimination remains alarmingly prevalent:

• Up to 74,000 women are pushed out of their jobs each year in the UK for being pregnant or taking maternity leave2.
• This includes being sacked, constructively dismissed, or made redundant.
• Only 2% of affected women pursue tribunal claims, often due to fear, cost, or lack of support.

 

[Psamathe]

saying you could have taken home more, while being oblivious to the fact that you were likely earning considerably more than women at that time.

I wasn't oblivious to it. It wasn't the case for my employment.

Ian

 

[monkers]

I wasn't oblivious to it. It wasn't the case for my employment.

Ian

Again, it isn't just about you Ian. The graph I posted showed you the societal position in the country. The Welfare State is a system of collective responsibility - in the UK people, are losing the sense of it, thinking instead about themselves. You are collecting state pension - who is paying for it? Using extended logic of your position, I could simply say that I am, but that does not reflect my thoughts or the systemic requirement.

 

[Psamathe]

Again, it isn't just about you Ian. The graph I posted showed you the societal position in the country. The Welfare State is a system of collective responsibility - in the UK people, are losing the sense of it, thinking instead about themselves.

a. I was responding to men having to contribute and women not having to contribute. Saying discrimination against women is unfair (it is wrong/unfair) but then saying discrimination against men is "collective responsibility" - I don't see how that's justified.

b. Collective responsibility: responsibility should apply to both genders, not men having to pay and not women

c. I posted a comment about people (applying equally to all genders) and you started turning it into "Are you saying that women aren't in the real world?".

 

[monkers]

a. I was responding to men having to contribute and women not having to contribute. Saying discrimination against women is unfair (it is wrong/unfair) but then saying discrimination against men is "collective responsibility" - I don't see how that's justified.

b. Collective responsibility: responsibility should apply to both genders, not men having to pay and not women

c. I posted a comment about people (applying equally to all genders) and you started turning it into "Are you saying that women aren't in the real world?".

With regard to WASPI women, you said this ...

In the real world who retires without first checking what their pension system will provide them?

My question was "Are you saying that women aren't in the real world?". You had the chance for a considered reply.

Instead you replied by talking about yourself. You said something about resenting being required to contribute to something that benefitted women.

I pointed out that the pay and conditions for women are not that of today.

You've continued replying by talking about yourself, with no acknowledgement that women ''in the real world'' were paid significantly less for the same work, had to leave their work if they married or became pregnant. If they were widowed, they'd not have the means to support themselves or the child.

You've also overlooked that women were not just working, but also running the family household and raised children, while men went to the pub or watched football. Not all of them, and maybe you weren't one of them, but typically that was the life for women ''in the real world''.

In the real world, women were exhausted at that time, and often still are.

 

[Psamathe]

With regard to WASPI women, you said this ...

In the real world who retires without first checking what their pension system will provide them?

My question was "Are you saying that women aren't in the real world?". You had the chance for a considered reply.

My comment was gender neutral considering everybody pre-retirement planning.

Not going to bother arguing with you any more. You rightly state that workplace discrimination against women is wrong but against me in "collective responsibility". Sorry not interested and as you are not "monkers" I'm growing my ignore list (doubling it).

Bye