Fairness and Gendered Retirement

[WorriedBetty]

It occurs to me that now work is also seen as 'career' rather than 'punishment' that gendered retirement age in many professions would aid equality at the top - and by that I mean retirement gendered so that women retire later.

If men retired at 60 and women retired at 65, positions at the top would open up earlier, and women could have 5 more years progression OR 5 years maternity/childcare career plateau compensation (ie allowing a real choice rather than an enforced choice re children and career).

I know this would be a struggle to get through equality legisislation but there is no doubt that maternity is used as an excuse for lower pay, slower career growth etc - wouldn't it be interesting if that excuse was taken away??

I don't see how that could work.

Also, it doesn't solve the problem of childrearing being such a gendered activity - it'd shut down questions about why it's women who were losing five years, instead of both men and women getting equal opportunity/responsibility to care for their children.

I don't really see how that's fair. Women have to do all the childcare and work for 5 years longer .

Well for a start you'd be looking at men 65 women 70, or men 70 and women 75

for a second the current way things go at work (coincidentally read an article on this the other day as well) the rapid career progression happens around 35-40 and then slows down again. so with your idea you would end up with the same dynamic of different earnings and levels between men and women, but the women would be working 5 years longer on the lower pay. Your idea only works if career progression and salary jumps happen in a linear way as a person ages - they don't. So your idea is flawed, sorry.

You also seem to be saying that women who choose not to have children will be able to have 5 more years doing their career so their earnings can catch up with men. That to me seems like a dismal solution to the gender pay gap. (Although I'm not sure there is that much disparity in earnings with women who don't have children anyway).

the idea that work is 'career' is only going to apply to a minority of women anyway.

AFAIK the basic problem is not that women take 5 years out and aren't back for long enough afterwards, it's that they take 5 years out and that has a disproportionate effect on their careers, because they can't get back into their old field at a level that does anything like reflect their skills. Taking a 5 year hit if you've been out for 5 years (with maybe an extra year hit to let you catch up) would be fine and reasonable, but that's not what happens.
It is because of prejudice. You can't change one thing and go 'Now you've got no excuse!' because the prejudice will still be there.

It's not even that women take 5 years off (though I disagree taking a give year hit in those circumstances is 'reasonable' - we all need reproduction and child-rearing to happen, even those people who don't have children).

It's the expectation that even women who take no time of at all are somehow not really quite as trustworthy as men because they could always get some crazy idea about running off to cuddle their children instead of concentrating on the job, like what men do.

I can't really see an argument to maintain the current situation (as in, I think the retirement age should be the same for men and women) but I don't buy your argument for all the reasons others have mentioned.

Also, retirement isnt mandatory at any age- the retirement age should really be called the pensionable age. Many people my parents know have carried on working (albeit mostly part time/ self-employed) and still scoop their state pension. Similarly you dont have to stop work to get a private pension- once you hit the agreed retirement age (usually 55) it's yours.

also childless women might be pretty pissed off that they were being made to work 5 years longer due to the gendered presumption that they'd lost career time to having children.

I can't really see an argument to maintain the current situation (as in, I think the retirement age should be the same for men and women)

*Retirement age is the same for men and women - or at least it will be. Women can no longer claim the state pension at 60. I think it's 62 or 63 now and is being upped to 65 so they're both the same. (And then 67 or 68 but that's another discussion.)

What about men who take time out to look after children? Would they also have to work for 5 more years? How would it be monitored? What if you haven't taken 5 years out but feel your career suffered? Or what if you took no time out and were really successful? How do you define career? Should someone have to work 5 more years in Tesco because they had children? It all sounds a bit complicated.

rosy Ah, ok. I didn't know that. I knew the ages were moving up, but didn't know they were bringing them together