MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

What about equality in retirement?

Filed under: Law & Courts,Men's Health — Vman @ 4:51 pm Mon 7th June 2010

If feminism is about equality then why don’t feminists ever talk about retirement issues?

For example males in NZ used to have a life expectancy 7 years less than women until very recently. The gap is now down to 4 or 5 years. Even so this is significantly less. In addition males in retirement tend to have a lower quality of life for several reasons.

All of this matters because the population is ageing.

What I propose is that males and females should get government pensions and the option to retire 20 years before the average life expectancy of their sex.
For example it has just been announced that a girl born today has a life expectancy of 81.9 years, and a newborn boy 77.9 years. I propose that males should start receiving a pension at 57.9 years and females at 61.9 years.

And don’t even get me started on woman alone and widows only benefits.

I am sure all the feminists out there will embrace this idea and promote it strongly – being how they are all about equality and all.


  1. Good thinking Dave, fairness would dictate that men get retirement pensions earlier.

    As for your expectation that feminists will embrace the idea, good joke! I have yet to read any feminist material that calls for change to any of the many inequalities on which men are at the losing end. If anyone has come across any such thing, it would be great to know about; please prove me wrong.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 8th June 2010 @ 12:14 pm

  2. NZ Government old age pension is charity from the Government, not a formal investment plan with payouts based on contributions and investment returns.

    In offering charity to citizens, the Government isn’t under any obligation about “fairness”, other than its ongoing desire for re-election and the electorate’s need to believe that they are being taken care of, better than they could do it for themselves ie all wacky smoke and mirrors.

    The Bill of Rights stops independant charities from giving out charity, on the basis of illegally prejudiced selection criteria, but this legislation does not bind the Government.

    It is assumed that Government would not pass inappropriate legislation.

    I guess that the Building Act, the Social Security Act (DPB), the Child [and spousal] Support Act, Sink Big Projects all go to prove this!!??

    If pensions were to be based on criteria such as taking care of children, instead of paying tax, then childless women should be treated similar to men?
    What if they tried to have children but couldn’t?
    What if it was their husband’s “””fault”””?

    What about immigrants and emigrants?

    How then should men who have taken care of children be treated?
    Back up a bit, I took day to day care of my children for 3 months and paid $960 a month child support for the priviledge, so how should I be treated? (Dammit, I was paying tax and working 40 + hours a weeks too, how does that fit in?) I guess if I worked nights, they must have suspected I wasn’t paying tax?

    Its all too hard…..

    Sorry, I just forgot to take my moaners pills, I will soon be alright again….

    Just remember these issues when you walk into the room with the ballot boxes, or when pollsters ask you invasive questions.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 9th June 2010 @ 9:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar