Britain did until quite recently. Then a group of men went to court, I think hoping to get the men's age lowered to that of women. But of course the government raised the women's age to that of men.

[–] Hahah_Montana@lemmy.wtf -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You say that as if it was the men's fault for trying to get equal treatment. Clearly you have no idea how the legal system works.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't see how you got that from what I said.

[–] Hahah_Montana@lemmy.wtf -5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

The "of course" makes it clear you dislike the outcome. The long mention of the men who in your eyes "caused" this also makes it pretty obvious what your stance is about this and who you want the scapegoat to be in the discussion.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

The "of course" makes it clear you dislike the outcome

Only inasmuch as a desirable outcome would have been the lowering of the age of retirement for men to either that of women or meeting both on the middle. The issue is that the government being the government took it as an excuse to effectively cut welfare.

The long mention of the men who in your eyes "caused" this

To be honest it probably just brought it on sooner. The government would have found it as excuse to raise the retirement age without it being highlighted to them.

also makes it pretty obvious what your stance is about this and who you want the scapegoat to be in the discussion.

No, still don't see it.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 4 points 4 months ago

Wow that's some projection. You are reading deeply between the lines to find your take on that one.

I immediately got it as "why would the people in power ever make it easier for those not" but hey why bother with nuanced takes when the Internet will allow you to be angry at your specific beliefs as if they are the only truth, right?

[–] dexa_scantron@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Patriarchy oppresses us all.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Women: get to retire five years earlier than men

Lemmy: Sounds like patriarchal oppression to me!

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

it is though. same with women getting more lenient sentences for the same crimes, custody inequality, etc.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I think a better word might be needed, to be honest.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Kyriarchical oppression.

Kyriarchy refers to the overlap of various inequalities caused by gender, race, sexuallity and disability describing overlaps of cross sectionality. It also refers to the practice of problems created by assumed superiority.

[–] Hahah_Montana@lemmy.wtf 1 points 4 months ago

It already exists and is called misandry.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

why? this is all the results of men being in power, including the odd thing that favors women sometimes, like custody battles being usually easier for women. it comes from the patriarchal view that looking after children is the mother's job and the father barely needs to have anything to do with it.

same here: men are stronger and women are weaker, not to mention women shouldn't be working to begin with but since they do they might as well retire early.

[–] BenchpressMuyDebil@szmer.info 4 points 4 months ago

To me as a layman it immediately brings up a connection to feminism. I don't think that anybody who will want to get men to think different will get very far using the word "patriarchy", given men being more right leaning.

There isn't much substance to my argument than "nuh uh I don't like that word" but it is what it is. There must be some better approach "marketing wise", despite patriarchy being technically correct.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, that sounds about right.

[–] ben_dover@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago

it's the same in many European countries

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah, this seems backwards... Women tend to live longer than men.

[–] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Because women on average live longer. Strange isn't it.

[–] steuls@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why would that mean they get to retire earlier then?

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

Yeah, this person's logic makes no sense. This is a solid argument for men retiring earlier.

Personally, I'd say it's probably best if it's just the same for everyone.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Maybe opposite? Maybe women live lomger because they retire earlier?

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 3 points 4 months ago

No because women also live longer in countries that do not do this.

Edit: lol at whoever downvoted me for pointing out a statistical fact