News on 1950s women’s Pension

[Immaculatemisconception]

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

@korawick12345 The post I was replying to said this "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."

So it was entirely relevant to the post I was replying to.

If you look at the Cathy Come Home link that is the world we saw as teenagers, it wasn't particularly different over the next few years as we became adults.

The idea that women or their daughters were all living the life of riley in the 1950s is ridiculous.

I was born in 1954. When I started work at 17 the expectation was that I would retire at 60. I worked all the way through, never having had children.

I received a letter saying that, due to levelling up with mens' pensions, I would now not get my pension until 62 and I think 3 months. Fair enough they had to start somewhere.

Some time later I was notified that I would now not be getting my pension until 65 and 5 months. So I would be waiting 5 years and 5 months extra, now I thought that was taking the piss I was lucky that because I had worked full time throughout (43 years) I had 2 works pensions which start at 60 so that when I was made redundant at 60 I didn't have to look for another job, but many, many women would not be in that position.

In about 1975 I had taken on a lot of extra work and my lovely boss applied for a salary increase for me. It was turned down because would have been earning more than the lowest paid man there. Today's women really don't know what the workplace was like in the 70s and 80s.

Growing up I didn't know any women who went to uni, most were married by 19/20 and anyway, it was only for the male members of the family. My friend was desparate to go but was told that if her two brothers were going, which they did, she would have to go to work to help the family finances.

I don’t think any history book can quite get over the restrictive life you led as a female (rich, middle class or poor)
There were things you just couldn’t do. It wasn’t about getting credit cards or mortgages or being paid the same as the guy at the next machine in the factory but the more social expectations and restrictions that aren’t covered by laws and legislation and were like a straight jacket.

The social expectations and restriction that came with being a 1950s housewife were enormous.
Even if you had a nice husband your day was a monotonous round of shopping, cooking, cleaning and making yourself nice for when your Dh returned.
There was no where to go, nothing to do. Just sitting in your house looking at 4 walls.

I think those that didn’t live it cannot get how utterly mind numbingly boring and grindingly hard life was or how long things took to do and if you needed to know something then it was a trip to the library or if you wanted to just see what was on at the local cinema then it was a trip to the newsagents.

If being a 1950s house wife was so great then why were so many on happy pills

There are so many things women take for granted and try to look at the 1950s through today’s freedoms
Saying we had free university places is not taking into account that as a woman you stood little to no chance of getting to A levels let alone being allowed or being able to afford to go to university.

Today's women really don't know what the workplace was like in the 70s and 80s

No, no they don’t. I was told age 24 in 1988 in my then workplace that women weren’t included in their workplace pension schemes. I was offered that job on the proviso that ‘l didn’t go off to get married and have children’ It was an expected add on to my job that l made tea/coffee for the ‘important’ men in the company, even though l was better qualified than most of them.

How many times? The WASPI women were not 50s housewives they were 70s/80s/90s housewives/mothers/workers!

korawick12345 but they were born in the 1950s and that sort of lifestyle didn’t really change. The only difference was instead of just doing the cooking,cleaning,shopping and everything else to do with the house they also had to have a f/t job as well.

@Willowkins is right those women were forced to give up work when they got married.
Many of them would have started work at 15 rather than 20 something after college / uni. For that generation Uni although free wasn't an option for many of them. A pay packet and money into the household kitty was more important.

Honestly, korawick, what's your beef with this, exactly?

And this table proves it.

Look how many women went to university in1970. Compared to now. Opportunities for women were still so limited.

Photo included!

[quote Lockdownbear]@Willowkins is right those women were forced to give up work when they got married.
Many of them would have started work at 15 rather than 20 something after college / uni. For that generation Uni although free wasn't an option for many of them. A pay packet and money into the household kitty was more important.[/quote]
I started work in 1968, I never knew a woman of my age who had to give up work when they married. My gran was told she had to in about 1920, it wasn't her employer but her husband's (my grandfather). Apparently the Monday after the wedding he was eating breakfast and said words more or less You can have anything you want, you only have to ask.

She went to her old employer and got her job back. When grandfather got home she said, I can have anything i want without asking because I've got my job back. It didn't last long as she was soon pregnant but was a sign of things to come as eventually she threw him out.

@Willowkins is right those women were forced to give up work when they got married.

Absolute rubbish. Loads of married women had full time jobs. Some women chose not to work. Where on earth are people getting their information from?

ancientgran

I knew people who gave up work when they had married in the 60s and some who gave up work on finding out they were pregnant in the 70s
I think it depended where you lived. Around our area it was looked on as a really bad thing if you went to work once you were married. I do remember one woman who did carry on working after her wedding and the neighbours almost needed smelling salts with the shock of this couple moving in and the woman going to work.
I worked with a woman in the 80s who was pregnant with her 3rd and absolutely grateful that the company had allowed her to stay working

Yes some people in some areas carried on working and in other areas it was definitely not something you did

@GreyhoundG1rl

Honestly, korawick, what's your beef with this, exactly?

My issue is that I don’t think these women have a leg to stand on. They mainly seem to want to claim because changes were made to the pension age and shared very publically but they chose to remain ignorant, that the public purse should somehow compensate them. Yes it’s tough that the pension age was raised but as I said I have no doubt it will be raised again before I retire or in fact disappear completely.

The other stuff is mainly a distraction as it is nothing to do with the WASPI case. But if people will insist on making out that women born in the 50s were handcuffed to a mangle and were all giving birth in their teens then people will call them out on it because it is simply not true. I ,for one, have no doubt that there were lots of challenges for women born in the 50s but some of the claims made on this thread are simply ludicrous

@Bythemillpond

ancientgran

I knew people who gave up work when they had married in the 60s and some who gave up work on finding out they were pregnant in the 70s
I think it depended where you lived. Around our area it was looked on as a really bad thing if you went to work once you were married. I do remember one woman who did carry on working after her wedding and the neighbours almost needed smelling salts with the shock of this couple moving in and the woman going to work.
I worked with a woman in the 80s who was pregnant with her 3rd and absolutely grateful that the company had allowed her to stay working

Yes some people in some areas carried on working and in other areas it was definitely not something you did

Massive difference between women choosing to give up work when they married or had children and women being barred from work because they were married or mothers. You could easily turn your post on its head and say how fortunate many women were that they could afford not to work once they were married or mothers.

[quote ufucoffee]@Willowkins is right those women were forced to give up work when they got married.

Absolute rubbish. Loads of married women had full time jobs. Some women chose not to work. Where on earth are people getting their information from?[/quote]
Women with children didn't work because there wasn't any childcare available.

Do you realise how absurd that claim is?

@Immaculatemisconception are you actually trying to claim that women with children just didn't work in the 70s 80s and 90s?

My issue is that I don’t think these women have a leg to stand on. They mainly seem to want to claim because changes were made to the pension age and shared very publically but they chose to remain ignorant, that the public purse should somehow compensate them. Yes it’s tough that the pension age was raised but as I said I have no doubt it will be raised again before I retire or in fact disappear completely.

You ought to educate yourself, then you'd be entitled to an opinion on this.

The other stuff is mainly a distraction as it is nothing to do with the WASPI case. But if people will insist on making out that women born in the 50s were handcuffed to a mangle and were all giving birth in their teens then people will call them out on it because it is simply not true. I ,for one, have no doubt that there were lots of challenges for women born in the 50s but some of the claims made on this thread are simply ludicrous.

The other "stuff" as you call it, is relevant as it's part of the problem. Yes I agree there are some claims on here that muddy the waters but the truth is, the vast majority of 1950s women did give up work when they had children because there wasn't any childcare available. Their DHs on the other hand, were able to have careers and build up work pensions. Some women returned to the workplace as their children grew up but most earned substantially less then men. Many of the part-time jobs were done by women and any caring of older relatives fell onto the shoulders of women. Quite simply, women were disadvantaged in the workplace and were unable to build up any sort of decent work pension. Therefore, their state pension was their lifeline.

I have no idea why your gripe is with 1950s women but you'd be much more compassionate if you educated yourself.

Many women worked part-time because they still did all the housework and childcare. Even when children started school, there was the school run to do, school holidays to manage and sick children off school to care for. We didn't have holiday clubs and DHs did not do the school run. They never took time off in the school holidays or when a child was sick. This was the way it was back then.

Some of these claims just makes no sense at all.

My mum is one of this generation. I was born in the early 80s when she was 30. All of her friends had children about the same age. I went to a childminder while she worked. There were lots of childminders & nurseries around in the 80s!

There were holiday clubs - I went to them!

@Immaculatemisconception

Many women worked part-time because they still did all the housework and childcare. Even when children started school, there was the school run to do, school holidays to manage and sick children off school to care for. We didn't have holiday clubs and DHs did not do the school run. They never took time off in the school holidays or when a child was sick. This was the way it was back then.

Who the hell do you think does those things now? Try reading a few mumsnet threads!

@Immaculatemisconception

My issue is that I don’t think these women have a leg to stand on. They mainly seem to want to claim because changes were made to the pension age and shared very publically but they chose to remain ignorant, that the public purse should somehow compensate them. Yes it’s tough that the pension age was raised but as I said I have no doubt it will be raised again before I retire or in fact disappear completely.

You ought to educate yourself, then you'd be entitled to an opinion on this.

The other stuff is mainly a distraction as it is nothing to do with the WASPI case. But if people will insist on making out that women born in the 50s were handcuffed to a mangle and were all giving birth in their teens then people will call them out on it because it is simply not true. I ,for one, have no doubt that there were lots of challenges for women born in the 50s but some of the claims made on this thread are simply ludicrous.

The other "stuff" as you call it, is relevant as it's part of the problem. Yes I agree there are some claims on here that muddy the waters but the truth is, the vast majority of 1950s women did give up work when they had children because there wasn't any childcare available. Their DHs on the other hand, were able to have careers and build up work pensions. Some women returned to the workplace as their children grew up but most earned substantially less then men. Many of the part-time jobs were done by women and any caring of older relatives fell onto the shoulders of women. Quite simply, women were disadvantaged in the workplace and were unable to build up any sort of decent work pension. Therefore, their state pension was their lifeline.

I have no idea why your gripe is with 1950s women but you'd be much more compassionate if you educated yourself.

Yet there are women on this thread of exactly that generation who have managed to accrue multiple workplace pensions. I don't think trying to make out that the baby boomers have the worst deal with pensions is going to get you anywhere. And no one is denying them their pension it's just that they like other generations is getting it slightly later.

@DistrictCommissioner

Some of these claims just makes no sense at all.

My mum is one of this generation. I was born in the early 80s when she was 30. All of her friends had children about the same age. I went to a childminder while she worked. There were lots of childminders & nurseries around in the 80s!

Exactly - some of the claims on here are simply nonsensical. I can count on one hand my friends who had mothers who NEVER worked and that is because they were very wealthy! ll