Why was the state pension age lower for women?

Or if he'd been asking in the UK not the US.

And he was asking about the weekends. We didn't hear much evidence of sharing tasks in the evening.

The role of women has changed so much since the 60 /70s and before .Mum told me that her Cousin, had to wear her wedding ring round her neck on a chain, as women were not really able to work on getting married in the 1930s! Even when Mum worked in the 60s she was told hours of 9am/4pm were "part time".In truth she worked 8 to 5 including travelling .Nurseries were often State Run and over subscribed . My Nan looked after me a lot .Women were often unable to work as expected to be at home due to DC "coming home for Lunch".They earnt their "retirement" early. However they would often be busy with DGC and elderly parents as well!

They do now but I don't think they always did - repeated childbirth etc

My FIL was born in the early 30s and he changed nappies, cooked, took the kids out for the day, made them toys/activities and he worked full time as well.

Hmmph. This reminds me of the time my DH said "I've tidied up for you." I pointed out to him that since everything he had put away was his own, tidying up after himself would have been more correct

^^

I'll go out on a limb and say the 30's FIL was the exception not the rule

My dad did too! Born 1931. He also ironed extremely well and cleaned and polished all our shoes every evening. National Service for you.

I miss him.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g yes, the effects that so-called slum clearance had on working class community cohesion is well-documented - it was almost as bad as the loss of traditional industries. If you go to Hull people rank the clearance of Hessle Road as being as devastating as the cod wars.

It’ll be some sexist logic like women need to retire earlier than their husbands because they’re weaker and can’t work as long… or they need to get their homes ready for 5 years before their husband retires. There is lots of sexism on pensions.

I work in the industry and there’s a tranche of pension called pre 88 GMP and male member’s have a 50% spouse pension and female member’s have no spouse pension because obviously if a women is working and accruing a pension she can’t possibly be married as well!!!

My parents were part of the exodus from the East end in the late sixties and we were allocated a council house a long way from family but everyone else was in the same boat so people did look after each others children and additionally we were pretty self sufficient from about age 9 so looked after ourselves.

Yes, I'm sure you're right, but also there were far less extended families living close enough to each other to help out in that way. It's a long time since I read Family and Kinship in East London, but that explained very clearly what a devastating effect housing policy had on working class communities and what a problem it was for parents with young children that they were allocated a new council house a long, long way from anyone else they knew from the old neighbourhood. In previous times they'd have stayed with one set of parents or another relative after the wedding and waited till a flat or house came up nearby. All the relatives and family friends would have been putting in a word for them with the rent collector. When children came along, there would have been lots of help and support.

We never had any of that because my parents lived a long way from family for most of my childhood and then I moved a long way from them to go to university and didn't go back. My parents-in-law died before we had children. We managed, but I'd have liked my children to see more of their wider family.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

"This is a very good point. Who looked after the children, as a matter of interest?"

Extended family, neighbours, or they just played out until parents got home (on bombsites in my experience as a 70s child...). The idea that it was just the parents who had responsibility for their own children would have been considered bizarre - children were the joint responsibility of a community. I think the whole idea of the 'nuclear family' being solely responsible for their own children only really started to take place in the 1970s and accelerated in the 1980s with the demise of traditional working class communities and the rise of the culture of individualism.

I bet it was something like that!

Yes, I'm sure the official line was it was so that couples with an average age gap could 'enjoy retirement together' - but I think we can all read between the lines!

^ This.

Many women didn't qualify for a full pension in their own right anyway, as they had been paying 'reduced stamp' national insurance contributions all their working lives, and were expected to rely on their husband's pension.

I bet it was something like that!

Yes, my mum was born in the mid fifties and I know from how she's described her childhood that her dad definitely did jobs round the house, and also all the outdoor jobs (and my grandparents had a decent sized and meticulously maintained garden so there was a lot to do outdoors). He never cooked, but then my gran was so protective of her kitchen that neither did my mum - she left home not knowing how to cook.

Because a 7 year jump for women and only a 2 year jump for men also wasn't fair.

Do you also think it was unfair when the Equal Pay Act came in, that women got a considerable increase in their wages whilst men got no increase at all?

Considering that men generally live four years fewer than women on average, I don't think this argument can really be construed as in any way fair.

Yes! This used to annoy me immensely. A man's income and tax affairs could be his secret, but his wife's had to be reported to him for his tax return.

This is a very good point. Who looked after the children, as a matter of interest?

I do think that white collar and professional jobs were treated differently, probably because women doing those jobs were in direct competition with men, whereas the kind of jobs you describe were women's jobs and very low paid. My mother-in-law went into the Civil Service straight from school in the 1930s, doing routine clerical work, and didn't marry until she was in her 30s. In spite of her long service, she had to leave the job as soon as she married, because that was the rule. She was able to get another job in an office in the City of London, which she gave up when pregnant. Much, much later the Civil Service did a special recruitment drive trying to get some of these women back, and she returned part-time until she retired.

Meanwhile, my mother trained as a primary school teacher and was able to stay in the job after she married, but again had to give up when pregnant. There was no maternity pay back then and no maternity leave - those didn't come in until the 1970s. She might have been able to negotiate some unpaid leave from her job so she could have gone back soon after I was born, but a substantial chunk of her salary would then have had to be spent on a childminder, and those were in short supply and totally unregulated. Day nurseries were mostly unknown outside the big cities, and thin on the ground there. She started supply teaching a few years later, then part-time teaching, then full-time, then redundancy/early retirement in her mid 50s (mid 1980s).

A woman with a husband was expected to be supported by her husband. This was double-edged - not only did it mean some women were unable to build a career, but it made life very tough for the valiant few women who did battle on (who would have included widows, divorcees and women whose husbands were unable to work). Men got promotions and pay increases because they needed to support their families. Women were assumed to be working for pin money.

Not really surprising that the sex discrimination extended to a different pension age as well.

@Appleofmyeye2023
Missingthesea · Today 11:54

Apparently it was because women were typically a few years younger than their husbands, so a younger retirement age for women meant they could retire at around the same time as their husbands and were therefore likely to be available to "look after" them 😬🙄
This is exacltyvright

Sorry that is nonsense
The contributory pension was introduced in 1925. A higher rate was paid for couples if both were 65. As most men typically had younger wives it meant hardship for them until the wife reached 65. As a result the age for women was amended in 1940 to 60.
http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm

My FIL was born in the early 30s and he changed nappies, cooked, took the kids out for the day, made them toys/activities and he worked full time as well.

Hmmph. This reminds me of the time my DH said "I've tidied up for you." I pointed out to him that since everything he had put away was his own, tidying up after himself would have been more correct.

They were jointly taxed and HE would be require to sign the tax return.

Not quite. The husband signed the tax return because his wife's income was regarded as his for ta purposes. It changed some time in the 1980s I think.

@Coffeerum

Because a 7 year jump for women and only a 2 year jump for men also wasn't fair.

Similar - my dh retired last year at 66. I'm 59 and have to wait until I'm 67. It's not fun!

My FIL was born in the early 30s and he changed nappies, cooked, took the kids out for the day, made them toys/activities and he worked full time as well.

Re the video being a case of ‘unreliable witness’……So true! Ime not at all unusual for men to think they’ve done tons around the house, if they’ve moved their plate off the table and put it in the sink, and maybe made a cup of tea not just for themselves.

@EmpressSoleil I think 65 for women and 67 for men would have been perhaps fairer, at least for a while.

In what way would that be more fair?