The government changed women's pension age and called it progress. Did anyone actually ask you?

Plevey08

I agree Norah Hayes. But I think the brilliant representatives who have spent years fighting and managed to get it to court have been ignored. Before the last GE ministers always imply they are going to sort it. Andy Burnham has previously said he agreed with WASPI women. Now I hear he has said he didn't say anything about payouts or recognition. They all con the electorate until they get into power. I think this has been discussed on here before and many say they were informed in good time prior to the new women's retirement age. And many say they weren't informed in a timely manner. The DWP have apologised for not sending the info to all affected. But that's it. I don't think they will pay out as it's too costly and time consuming. And a blanket payout to all who potentially were affected would be even more costly. So I don't think it will happen. I know I wasn't informed and it has cost me.

I am not discussing the Waspi women. Even though l am one of them. I have posted at length on this thread in the past. Especially about the original legislation and the birth dates it actually covered

Just to say whatever Andy Burnham and other Labour MP's have said then reneged on about Waspi Women.

Really tells you all you need to know about them and Politicians in general. They will say anything to get where they want to be.

Low life.

It wasnt progress it was equality. Which was fair, it was the fact that it wasnt priperly communicated that was the WASPI claim that was substantiated. Any further increases in Pension Age have been explainable but still not really fair as in some cases they change eligibility and not everyone can physically work to 68-70.

I think it would have been more acceptable if it had been phased in more gradually. In some cases a woman with a birthday a couple of days after her friend was made to work for months longer which seemed very unfais.

Here’s another side of the coin, rarely expressed. I once worked as an editor in a Bloomsbury publishing house, Lovely. I was 22. There were women there made to leave if they were married, therefore single, who had devoted their lives to their career. The firm didn’t have a pension scheme. At sixty they were made to retire. I remember one (head of Rights, in her professional prime) locking herself in the lavatory and decline to be kindly toasted away.
I was shocked. I then got pregnant, there was no maternity leave other than the state payment of £5 a week for six weeks. I sadly left.
The expectation for both cases was that you had a husband who looked after you, no provision for women that didn’t fit in.
That’s what a patriarchy is that’s why women fought for equal rights with men, not because they were the same but because they were different and still deserved equal rights!
Anti feminists and men’s rights activists and transactivists try to attack women for fighting for sameness.. destroying their sexual safety or their biological differences in sport. The same patriarchy. The women always bear the brunt.
That was 1971. Not that long ago.

phantom12

I think it would have been more acceptable if it had been phased in more gradually. In some cases a woman with a birthday a couple of days after her friend was made to work for months longer which seemed very unfais.

Being born 11 months later for a 1953-born woman meant you'd be 2.5 years older when you got your pension, than someone born at the start of 1953