Douglas
Established Member

Background

In the UK at the moment there is a lot of justified rage at the way men are continuing to be discriminated against on state pension. Since 1946, there has been deliberate discrimination that set the age that men get a pension from the state at five years higher (65) than women (60) even though women have always lived longer. The gender death gap has increased since 1946, largely due to unequal gender health expenditure that now enables women to have an average life six years longer than men.

The UK government currently have a 'plan' to equalise the ages by 2018 but they have already shown a willingness to back-peddle on this date and have allowed the equalisation of retirement ages to be later and later.

The mathematics of discrimination

I'm now going to explain why women having the same retirement age as men is NOT equality. My proof for this is based on the United Kingdom but I believe much the same result would come from looking at any other country's data.

Working from government statistics (197Kb - Xls) for the year 2008 (the latest year that nationwide statistics are available) it can be calculated that the average age of adult male death is 74 years and six weeks. Similarly, the average age of adult female death is 80 years and four weeks. So, for all but two weeks, the difference is that women outlive men by six years. (If we look at the difference based on average age of death of child and adult, the gap widens to over six years.)

The voting age; the ages of compulsory education; the age when people must start paying taxes and National Insurance (supposedly, state pension fund): all of these have affected the genders the same way for almost everyone alive today.

At a retirement age of 66, the average life expectancy after retirement is:
Males: 8.1 years
Females: 14.1 years

This means that the proportion of adult life spent in retirement is:
Males: 10.9%
Females: 17.6%

Proposal for equality

For equality between the genders to be achieved, there obviously has to be parity on retirement time. Without that, men are paying into a state pension fund where the vast majority of that fund is going to women. To correct this, the genders must have the same chance at retirement. I suggest that to work on absolute time in retirement is not equitable as that could mean men effectively paying in less for the amount they draw; instead the proportion of adult life (not total life) is the way to achieve equality.

Assuming males retire at 66 this gives us:
Males: retire age 66 years, to get 10.9% of adult life in retirement
Females: retire age 71 years, 19 weeks, to get 10.9% of adult life in retirement.

Clearly, the idea of retiring at the same age to get "equality" is very attractive to women and once the United Kingdom accepts this point, it will be hard to move from it. I therefore propose that the only time to campaign for gender equality in retirement age is before 2018, while there is still time to legislate for a continuing increase in women's retirement age until there is equality between the genders.

In a previous blog, I wrote about the distinction between feminism and women and why many women think they are feminists but are wrong. Here I address those who want to use the feminist label for meaning something good, often re-defining feminism in the process to something like "radical feminism" even though hardly anyone self-identifies as a radical feminist - they just call themselves a feminist.

I believe it is both incorrect and unhelpful for the plight of men to group females and feminists together and blame all women for feminism (and, by implication, not blame any men). That said, I encourage anyone - male and female - to distance themselves from concepts like "feminism" and "feminist" as much as possible unless you believe in female supremacy and have a distaste of men and masculinity.

I encourage you not to call yourself any kind of "feminist" unless you believe in the social illness that is feminism. Claiming that not all feminists are like that (NAFALT) may be true in specific cases but the reality of feminism is seen by its overall actions, not by any one individual.

Among the reasons to avoid the feminist label unless you are an unqualified feminist are:

1) To achieve balance and fairness/egalitarianism in society, we have to undo all that feminism has brought upon our society (note: that is not undoing suffrage, nor equal pay, nor...). To be able to quickly undo everything that can be associated with feminism, it is important not to muddy what feminism is by using the same word for any other purpose.

2) To those aware of the misandry and social damage caused by feminist ideology, there is a psychological effect on someone saying they are feminist. This can be seen all over forums such as Anti-misandry and Stand Your Ground when people say they are a "feminist but..." or a "moderate feminist" or an "ifeminist". It's not that people can't read, nor that they consciously ignore the qualification of feminism. But the emotional effect and the mental association with a damaging policy is made first, before any consideration of what might be before or after "feminist."

3) If someone doesn't believe in at least some of the reality of feminism they have no need to associate with it at all. It is not in any way important that they believe in what feminists have sometimes claimed about feminism: if someone really is aware of what feminism is and disagrees with it, then they should also be aware that it has achieved its ends by lying.

4) I've yet to find any variant of feminism that doesn't centre around the claim of "looking after women's interests." It's true that caring for women is important but why not also for men? Why is a woman's suffering more or less important than a man's? (If people on this site, in campaigning for men's rights and fairness for men, completely ignore women's suffering and do not care about suffering regardless of gender, they will fall into the feminist-conceived gender war.) While being aware of the gender inequalities around us, our campaigns should always focus on the rights of everyone in society, regardless of race, creed, colour or gender. It is gynocentric activities that lead to matters like disaster relief only giving food to women and letting men starve. Only in matters only pertaining to women - such as childbirth - can there be a real reason to concentrate only on women's issues.

In conclusion, unless you really are suffering from having feminist beliefs, don't call yourself any kind of a feminist. If you're not sure, or you think that maybe you are suffering from feminism and are seeking help, then places like the Anti-Misandry web site can be a good place to help you understand about feminism and may be a first step to the cure. In the meantime, if you call yourself a feminist of any colour, you'll have to accept the natural and automatic "anti" levelled on any kind of feminist.

I have prepared a draft letter for anyone who wants to use it to find out what their local council is doing about shelters. Such shelters are needed for victims of domestic violence and yet there are very few available for men.

Shelters for domestic violence are primarily provided under requirements to care for the homeless (which do not require someone to not to have a home). Although the homeless laws differ in Scotland, the need for men to be included in the help for domestic violence is probably greater there for action than anywhere else and I have made efforts to ensure this letter is applicable there. As far as I know, this letter is appropriate anywhere in the United Kingdom.

As we are not a formal member-based organisation, it is up to you to decide if care about this issue and whether you are willing to find out what your council is doing. For those unfamiliar with the processes involved in such dealings with your local civil servants, this could be useful but if you want to amend the request, or add to it, that is obviously entirely in your hands.

Please note

Before using this letter for your local council, please check the comments - there is no point sending lots of the same letters to the same council if one person writing is willing to share the result. If you are willing to share the result, please provide the name of the council in a comment.

Guidance

This is a draft letter applying for information under the Freedom of Information Act that you can use to try finding out what your council is doing. It specifically seeks information that could reveal gender discrimination and victim gagging. Only send ONE request and only to your own local council. If you don't hear back in about 28 days, send a chasing letter including your original correspondence but still only as a single request.

This is not a political letter. You are not addressing a politician. You do not have a right to anything which is not recorded, such as opinion or 'common knowledge.'

This is not a campaign letter. It is a request for information. Once you have the information, you can then go on to campaign to a politician if appropriate.

Using the draft

Once amended to suit your needs, the letter should be sent to your primary local authority. That's your County Council or Unitary Authority - the people who charge you for Council Tax.

I've laid the draft out as a postal letter. If you want to send it as an e-mail, that is perfectly acceptable so long as you can find an address (you can try an Internet search on "<your council name> FOI", or simply phone and ask for the e-mail address for the "Freedom of Information Officer"); it is best to make the subject of an e-mail something like "Freedom of Information Act 2000 request [ Ref: AM/Shelter/20101208 ]". Whichever route you take, make sure to include your postal and e-mail address if you are asking for both paper and electronic information - see the text.

Follow up

You might get an acknowledgement, even a delaying letter; don't worry about those until or unless either your or their deadline has passed. When you get a quantitative response, post the response (or a summary of it, if it is on paper) here. If you get an exemption or denial notice and don't feel up to handling it yourself, e-mail me through my profile here.

Editing the Draft

The simplest way to use this letter is to read it through, then copy it into your e-mail program or word processor. You could use all black text exactly as-is. Change or delete all the blue text as appropriate. If sending by post, it should be signed.

.

{Your address and e-mail address}

Freedom of Information Officer
{Name and address of public authority}

Date {date}

Dear FOI Officer,

Subject: Freedom of Information Act request [ Ref: {your reference or have none} ]

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Could you please supply me with the following information:

1) The most currently available numbers or financial outlay (as available) for sheltered (temporary/hostel/refuge) accommodations for the homeless broken down by:
1a) fully-financed shelters for women;
1b) fully-financed shelters for men;
1c) part-financed (e.g. charity supported) shelters for women;
1d) part-financed (e.g. charity supported) shelters for men;
1e) fully-financed shelters for women with children;
1f) fully-financed shelters for men with children;
1g) part-financed (e.g. charity supported) shelters for women with children;
1h) part-financed (e.g. charity supported) shelters for men with children.
Please state the time-frame that the supplied figures are for.

2) The same data as for 1 but for victims of domestic violence only.

3) Do the Council have a policy under the

Read More

Conflicting statements

It is not unusual to encounter a woman who will say "I'm a feminist" or "I believe in feminism" even when she then declares that she:
♦ believes equality is a good thing to aim for;
♦ disagrees with 'extremist' feminists;
♦ thinks men get a hard deal in some areas;
♦ wants to be a mother and perhaps even be given the choice to be a housewife;
♦ actually likes men.

As people trying to get a fair deal for men and stop society's increasing misandrist leanings, we should not alienate such women. I will show here that mostly they are not feminists and they need to understand that there is a greater divide between ordinary women and feminists than there is between ordinary women and non-misogynistic men.

I believe the pool of women that could be on the side of the anti-misandrist is far greater than the total number of women and men who are misandrist.

So, why do so many women think they are feminist?

For a start, they are female. The root word to female, feminine, and feminist is the Latin fēmella. They all have the same kind of sound. They are all connected. If one thinks of oneself as female then by default one associates feminine with oneself. If one thinks of oneself as female then by default one associates feminist with oneself.

Most of us were taught in school that "the suffragettes" achieved equal voting rights for women. As an overall impression, most people hold that the suffragettes are (pretty much) synonymous with the feminist movement and that the suffragettes got women the vote. So therefore, from a gut reaction, to be against feminism is to be against equal voting rights for women and all other forms of equality.

Lastly, there is the simple belief that feminism has done some good for women. There are now equal pay laws; there's maternity pay; there is recognition of and support for battered women; and so much more. How can any woman turn her back on that? To reject feminism, it seems, is to want to turn the clock back and not have those advantages. Women would be daft not to want to keep the legal protection. Most women (by no means all) would think themselves daft not to want to keep the improvements she perceives for her gender.

Most women, on the sidelines of the feminist agenda, will hold onto feminism rather than reject the advantages they think it has brought to women.

And who can blame them, until they realise the damage it does?

Let's take a look at some of the common misconceptions that keep women believing they are feminists

Suffrage and feminism

As historical evidence confirms, the suffragettes were about suffrage, not about feminism nor equality. That is to say, the main campaign thrust was to get suffrage (voting rights) at a time when few people had it.

United Kingdom
In the UK, there was a greater public swell at the time to increase the household-based voting to include more households (gender was not an issue). In order to keep the more well-off households with the greater political influence that they were used to, there was a personal suffrage movement that those households paying more for the government should have a greater say in it .. by having a vote each for both the man and the woman in the household. (It almost worked but the household restrictions on women were much less than most suffragette activators campaigned for.) The differences in gender treatment in the UK 1918 Act was intended to achieve equality but of a different definition. It was to make the number of female voters roughly equal to the number of male voters (under a household-based voting system this effectively had been the historic case) but in fact only 40% of the vote was women's. From 1928, the number of eligible female voters in Britain has outstripped the eligible male voters. At the time, the voting age was 21, so hardly anyone is alive now who was affected by conditions prior to 1928 (they need to be well over 100 years old).
New Zealand
In 1879, broadly universal suffrage was attained for men and in 1893, suffrage was equalised between male and female. Some races were still excluded.
[New Zealand is often erroneously stated as being the first country where females had the vote. It was the first self-governing country in modern times, whose parliamentary system still exists, where women and men were specifically granted equal voting rights. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, had women voting before this time but not specifically on an equal basis with men. The Corsican Republic, no longer existing, gave men and women universal suffrage in 1755 and Franceville, also no longer existing, gave suffrage to both genders in 1889. Non-self governing countries such as Pitcaim Island (1838) and

Read More