News on 1950s women’s Pension

[Immaculatemisconception]

Women's state pension: Compensation closer for Waspi campaigners www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57900320

[C8H10N4O2]

[quote korawick12345]@Moooooooooooooooooo
Given that elderly prima gravida was coined in the late 50s to refer to first time mothers over 35, you are definitely speaking complete bollocks[/quote]
Elderly prima gravida was used for women in their later 20s in the 1960s. My mother was one of them.

Many women born in the 1950s did check their (small) pension entitlements with DWP and DWP gave them the wrong information. The rules were changed by several years with very little notice, certainly not in the 90s. That generation started work when only a very small percentage of people when to university, a smaller percentage of that was women who then faced discrimination in the workplace (don't bleat about the law - in 2021 pregnancy is still a common cause of dismissal and sex discrimination is rife outside more protected sectors). Girls were often barred from staying on a school beyond 15/16 if their families were struggling or simply didn't believe in education for girls.
If they worked after marriage and paid the "married woman's stamp" they accrued sod all benefits.


Instead of hating women whose access to work was often patchy, lower paid than men,whose opportunities were sandwiched between expectations of family care (older and younger), who disproportionately worked long hours in low paid public sector jobs for modest pensions how about campaigning for women of all ages to have decent opportunities in life? Of course leveling down is so much easier, rather like ageist soundbites..

[MrsClatterbuck]

The company I worked for (joined late seventies) women had to resign when they got married. Before the sex discrimination act. Also Maternity leave was usually 12 weeks. It was paid but you didn't get your pay until you had been back at work for 6 months, Any extra leave would have unpaid. It's business was finance and yes I did get a cheap house loan but because I was a woman I had to take it out for 10 years and not 25 which the the men got to do. Also single women were not encouraged to take out home loans at the staff rate.

[korawick12345]

@C8H10N4O2 I suggest you read the whole thread.

[fallfallfall]

some really nasty posters on here honestly i hope you are not genuine.
@C8H10N4O2 is spot on.
i worked at a maternity nurse in the late 70's and elderly primip was used for those 26 and older.

[Immaculatemisconception]

Government officials were too slow to tell many women they would be affected by the rising state pension age, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has ruled.

[Iamthewombat]

The company I worked for (joined late seventies) women had to resign when they got married

I’m sorry to tell you that this is nonsense. The marriage bar was removed for most jobs by the mid 1950s, and earlier than that for quite a few. The company you worked for could not have forced you to resign because you got married.

Why are we getting these Catherine Cookson stories, as if women born in the 1950s were Victorian drudges? If you were born in 1953, you would have been 30 in 1983, when women were absolutely pouring into the workplace at all levels of seniority and the world was changing to accommodate them doing so.

[Iamthewombat]

@MrsFezziwig

Iamthewombat

MrsFezziwig
Since this thread seems to be rife with generalisations, I’ll join in by imagining that the anti-WASPI campaigners on here are probably the same posters who think that it’s fine for over 60s to die of Covid (or anything else) because they’ve “had their lives”.
Oh dear. That was just an excuse to be spiteful about anyone who doesn’t agree with you, wasn’t it?

Well since you don’t actually know what my opinion is on the subject, I’m not sure how you’ve come to that conclusion.

It’s not hard to guess, is it?

[C8H10N4O2]

@Iamthewombat

The company I worked for (joined late seventies) women had to resign when they got married

I’m sorry to tell you that this is nonsense. The marriage bar was removed for most jobs by the mid 1950s, and earlier than that for quite a few. The company you worked for could not have forced you to resign because you got married.

Why are we getting these Catherine Cookson stories, as if women born in the 1950s were Victorian drudges? If you were born in 1953, you would have been 30 in 1983, when women were absolutely pouring into the workplace at all levels of seniority and the world was changing to accommodate them doing so.

So the poster is lying?

If your career has progressed through companies complying with both the spirit and letter of the equalities law then congratulations on your charmed life.

Women are still sacked for being pregnant, pay a lifelong tarrif for maternity even if they go straight back to work, still don't have equal pay.

I was born in the sixties it was commonplace even in large companies to ask young women about marriage plans, baby plans and demark some jobs as men only. They simply didn't write it down. Large corporates on the whole are more likely to be compliant with the than small organisations. Male dominated unions don't help - many were still opposing equal pay cases for women just in recent years.

The law is irrelevant to women who lack the resources and means to fight malpractice by employers.

[Iamthewombat]

So the poster is lying?

She’s either confused or not telling the truth.

If your career has progressed through companies complying with both the spirit and letter of the equalities law then congratulations on your charmed life.

“The spirit and letter”? You’re hedging now because you know that your argument isn’t backed up by evidence.

Women are still sacked for being pregnant

Name ten women who have been fired in 2021 “for being pregnant”, and for that reason alone. Or in 2019 or 2020.

pay a lifelong tarrif for maternity even if they go straight back to work, still don't have equal pay.

If you are arguing that women are still suffering these injustices, why are you not fighting for young women’s rights rather than women born in the 1950s? After all, it’s the young women who will have to pay for the compensation the WASPI women are still demanding.

I was born in the sixties it was commonplace even in large companies to ask young women about marriage plans, baby plans and demark some jobs as men only. They simply didn't write it down. Large corporates on the whole are more likely to be compliant with the than small organisations. Male dominated unions don't help - many were still opposing equal pay cases for women just in recent years.

Well, we’ve had your views on the woes of women but you still haven’t explained why they are unique to the 1950s women.

The law is irrelevant to women who lack the resources and means to fight malpractice by employers.

As above, and that is your view only. Do you think that the law is relevant to men who similarly lack resources and means? Because it sounds like you’re throwing in every complaint about the world of work that you can dredge up and assigning ownership to 1950s women.

[Immaculatemisconception]

It’s terribly sad, that it’s women on here that aren’t supporting 1950s women.

It’s known that 1950s women were discriminated against, so I don’t understand why posters are arguing against the facts. I was one of those women. My father said repeatedly that a woman’s place was in the home and that’s all women wanted. He never encouraged us at school, we both failed the ridiculous 11+ which was completely flawed and we both went into disastrous marriages at 19 and 21, with babies soon after.

When my marriage ended I had three small children and couldn’t get a mortgage. There was no child care back then, and I left school without any qualifications, so couldn’t get a decent job. On the other hand ExDH, had a good job with prospects and could get a mortgage.

1950s women were discriminated against and it’s still happening.

[C8H10N4O2]

“The spirit and letter”? You’re hedging now because you know that your argument isn’t backed up by evidence

No.

I'm saying the law could well say that I'm entitled to green cheese every Friday but laws that are not enforced or enforceable are meaningless. Much equality law still is not enforced, in the 1980s when I entered the workforce discrimination was still widespread, they were just more careful about the words they used.

Its an interesting style of debate you have though - people are talking about their experiences and if you don't like them we are lying or "confused".

When you want an honest debate which doesn't require telling women their experiences are made up then come back.

[Iamthewombat]

@Immaculatemisconception

It’s terribly sad, that it’s women on here that aren’t supporting 1950s women.

It’s known that 1950s women were discriminated against, so I don’t understand why posters are arguing against the facts. I was one of those women. My father said repeatedly that a woman’s place was in the home and that’s all women wanted. He never encouraged us at school, we both failed the ridiculous 11+ which was completely flawed and we both went into disastrous marriages at 19 and 21, with babies soon after.

When my marriage ended I had three small children and couldn’t get a mortgage. There was no child care back then, and I left school without any qualifications, so couldn’t get a decent job. On the other hand ExDH, had a good job with prospects and could get a mortgage.

1950s women were discriminated against and it’s still happening.

Your personal experience, and your father’s views on a woman’s place (which you could have disagreed with!), and your views on the 11+, do not add up to an evidence base to support your statement that 1950s women were discriminated against.

If you are arguing that discrimination against women is still happening, which nobody would dispute, why do you think that only the 1950s born women should be compensated? How about the women born in the 1930s and 1940s? Aren’t you bothered about them?

Stop trying to present it as a feminist crusade. It really is not.

[Iamthewombat]

@C8H10N4O2

“The spirit and letter”? You’re hedging now because you know that your argument isn’t backed up by evidence

No.

I'm saying the law could well say that I'm entitled to green cheese every Friday but laws that are not enforced or enforceable are meaningless. Much equality law still is not enforced, in the 1980s when I entered the workforce discrimination was still widespread, they were just more careful about the words they used.

Its an interesting style of debate you have though - people are talking about their experiences and if you don't like them we are lying or "confused".

When you want an honest debate which doesn't require telling women their experiences are made up then come back.

Can’t name any of the droves of women you allege are still being sacked for getting pregnant, then?

Re the poster claiming that in the late seventies women ‘had to’ leave their jobs on marriage: people weren’t daft in the 1970s you know. Anybody could have challenged such a statement made by a woman’s line manager, and even in the 1970s contracts of employment had to conform to certain standards. It wasn’t the 1870s.

When we get these fanciful arguments (I’ve seen a few on different threads: women claiming that their mothers were forced by law to leave teaching in the 1970s on having children, where posters who were actually teaching at that time, and had children, and were absolutely not forced to leave their jobs contradict the statement and are told that they are WRONG), they undermine the position the poster is trying to argue for because it makes the person arguing it look irrational.

The only chance you have of successfully arguing that the 1950s women were uniquely disadvantaged and hence somehow deserve a free wad of cash is to prove that the information was insufficient to enable you to make plans to work for longer.

That the ombudsman has ruled that the DWP were a bit slow notifying the second change (the acceleration of the age increase for the WASPI women, which was 18 months on average) changes very little. The information was there. Dredging up the sorrows of women in the 20th century to bolster your argument isn’t going to help, and referencing the problems of 21st century women detracts from your argument.

[ArseInTheCoOpWindow]

1983, when women were absolutely pouring into the workplace at all levels of seniority and the world was changing to accommodate them doing so

We were still treated like shit though.

‘Why are you working? Don’t you have a husband?
‘We don’t employ single women, they just leave and have children’
‘Do you intend to have children?’
‘Making the drinks is women’s work’
‘Give is a cuddle beautiful’

Etc etc

[ArseInTheCoOpWindow]

I was given a mortgage in 1994 as a single parent working part time. No second signature or husband needed. There must have been another reason why you didn't get one

There wasn’t. But obviously l made it up🙄

[LindyLou2020]

@CarrieBlue

The generation that voted for Brexit, who took no notice of information about pension changes. They had it all and consistently pulled the ladder up behind them.

@CarrieBlue........
You don't speak for me I didn't vote for Brexit, ignore info about pension changes, nor pull any ladder up behind me.
Nor did any of my relatives, friends, colleagues.
Grow up and stop stereotyping whole generations of people into one humongous mass who all behave the same.
Women should be supporting each other, not infighting.
"Divide and Conquer" attitudes benefit nobody.

[korawick12345]

@fallfallfall

some really nasty posters on here honestly i hope you are not genuine.
*@C8H10N4O2* is spot on.
i worked at a maternity nurse in the late 70's and elderly primip was used for those 26 and older.

So not 20 years olds then which is what was being contested.

[ArseInTheCoOpWindow]

@CarrieBlue........
You don't speak for me I didn't vote for Brexit, ignore info about pension changes, nor pull any ladder up behind me.
Nor did any of my relatives, friends, colleagues.
Grow up and stop stereotyping whole generations of people into one humongous mass who all behave the same.
Women should be supporting each other, not infighting.
"Divide and Conquer" attitudes benefit nobody

This^

To think that the generation that fought for equality and freedom for women are being sneered at by their younger counterparts. These women take for granted that freedoms that were achieved by their precedents. They have no understanding of what life was like in the 50’s-80’s.

All the legislation in the world didn’t change attitudes at the time. The change in attitudes took 30 years despite legal reforms.

Really nasty posts on here.

[ancientgran]

@Nat6999

ancientgran I'm not talking about the married man's allowance, I mean you actual tax file held by HMRC, the husband held responsibility for his wife's tax record, if a married woman had anything that triggered a tax return the return was sent to her husband & he had to fill it in. A married woman's tax records were attached to her husband's just like if he had a second job. The Independent taxation rules came in 1988, before then a married man knew by law exactly how much his wife earned because all income tax communications came to him, women had no right to be dealt with separately.

How did they know? I always dealt with my own tax, we never informed them we were married, I didn't change my name. Do you think they had tax inspectors standing outside churches collecting wedding details?

If you didn't inform them, didn't change your NI category life carried on just like it did for anyone else.

[Viviennemary]

A lot of women had the life of riley in the 1950s. Plenty of time for doing what they wanted and not obliged to go to work because one wage was enough to keep the family.

[ArseInTheCoOpWindow]

And those who weren’t married earned a lower wage, had no real rights, and were discriminated against left, right and centre.

Those who were married were unable to have the freedom to leave abusive relationships as there was no where for them to go and little chance of earning enough to support their family.

Life of Riley🙄

[ancientgran]

@Viviennemary

A lot of women had the life of riley in the 1950s. Plenty of time for doing what they wanted and not obliged to go to work because one wage was enough to keep the family.

Hilarious. I remember my mum and aunts in the 1950s. Fear of pregnancy was the thing I remember most, the whispering in corners and getting £10 together for a trip to the herbalist for Women's Gold Tablets. None of them had washing machines so everything hand washed and remember no disposable nappies, no convenience foods to speak of, no supermarkets, I remember the excitement of getting a TV in 1956 and I think we got a fridge in about 1959 or 1960 so the drudge of daily shopping was eased. Mum got up early to sort out the fire and make sure there was some hot water. For the first few years of my life we lived at grans, 2 bed terrace with an attic and 7 of us living there. The washing was done in the wash house in the shared yard, the women worked out a rota and there were two toilets at the top of the yard which were shared, in our yard we were lucky only 3 houses but some yards hard six houses.

Many families lived in appalling conditions, the housing crisis in post war Britain was terrible and cities like mine that were heavily bombed really struggled. The fear of polio was also a big thing.

Yes it was a life of riley.

By the way most of the women I knew worked, no nice careers but cleaning jobs, child minding, sewing at home. They earned pennies but it helped.

Obviously if you had a well paid job life could be great but lots of us grew up in poorer houses. Going to grammar school in the early 60s was an eye opener for me when I visited the homes of other girls and saw that there was a huge divide.

Have a look at Cathy Come Home, it was set in the mid 60s but for those of us born in the 50s that was the world we saw as children.

[Immaculatemisconception]

Your personal experience, and your father’s views on a woman’s place (which you could have disagreed with!), and your views on the 11+, do not add up to an evidence base to support your statement that 1950s women were discriminated against.

Saying I could have disagreed with my father, shows me that you have zero understanding on the effects of socialisation from your family, so I can't take that point seriously. My views on the 11+ are founded on very sound data. The exam itself was flawed. Burt, the man who designed it was subsequently discredited because he made up his figures. Areas of the country were also discriminated against, purely due to how many Grammar school places there were. Girls didn't do as well as boys in education back then, due mainly to parental and societal expectations.

Researchers look at all types of evidence, including anecdotal evidence. My information fits into this category. Anecdotal evidence can be useful for suggesting areas for more research. There is plenty of hard evidence that women have been discriminated against for years, with this issue concerning 1950s women's pensions, being just one example. Why you want to be goady about this, isn't clear.

If you are arguing that discrimination against women is still happening, which nobody would dispute, why do you think that only the 1950s born women should be compensated? How about the women born in the 1930s and 1940s? Aren’t you bothered about them? I don't think it's only 1950s women but the Ombudsman's Report is addressing the issue of 1950s women's pensions. I haven't said anywhere that I'm only bothered about 1950s women. Why are you being goady?

Stop trying to present it as a feminist crusade. It really is not. I'm not.

[ArseInTheCoOpWindow]

+If you are arguing that discrimination against women is still happening, which nobody would dispute, why do you think that only the 1950s born women should be compensated? How about the women born in the 1930s and 1940s? Aren’t you bothered about them?*

The issue is about 1950’s women. The ones born in the 30’s and 40’s got their pensions.

Reading through this thread. I can only think that those who actually lived through the eras know what it was actually like!

1970’s at school.
Girls did needlework boys did woodwork.
Girls were meant to be ‘feminine’ to charm boys🤮
Girls were told boys were more important.
Girls did typing to be secretaries

The who equality thing was just not there!

I always think 2 records sum the 70’s up for me.

Boys keep swinging by David Bowie and Typical Girls by the Slits.

[korawick12345]

@ancientgran you are talking about women who were adults in the 1950s so born in the 1920s and 30s, that is a completely different cohort of women and completely irrelevant to this thread. Fear of pregnancy was definitely a huge thing for that generation but with the pill and legalised abortion in the 60s it was not in any way comparable for women born in the uk in the 1950s.