Everyday sexism - when will it stop?

[Koalafications]

The headline of this newspaper article, is an example of what I mean. www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11617086/Pension-reforms-loophole-Ex-wives-may-lose-out-in-rule-change-over-shared-pot.html

Why couldn't it be gender neutral? Yes, lots of women could lose out. But, so could men who have married women who have better pensions.

When do you think that the gender gap will close, and newspaper headlines like this will be unacceptable and maybe even shocking?

I feel we are still years away from it.

I think it mentions women specifically, because the "majority of these orders would have been for the benefit of the ex-wife" (Emphasis mine)

So, I think it is alluding to the fact that more women will be affected rather than implying only/ mostly men can be the 'breadwinners'

I predict 7 years, 2 months and 4 days. Give or take 6 hours. Could be wrong though, by weeks maybe.

Well, could you come back when you can be more accurate Yops

The reality is the majority of persons who will be affected will be divorced women, probably those who did not work during child rearing years or did not work full time and do not have pension provisions in their own name.

I don't have any issue with a headline which catches their eye. The article itself makes clear the majority affected will be women and therefore by implication some men.

Yes, but it's not just earmarking orders that will be affected.

The new rules could have have implications for anyone who is going through a divorce. They can withdraw the money before the divorce goes through and hide, spend etc.

And again the reality is non working /part time working/secondary salary earners will be affected which will largely be women. It's an attention grabbing headline. I don't see what the problem is.

I think that when there is a disproportionate impact on a certain group, it is appropriate and important to flag that up.

I can see where you're coming from though, reading the article. For me it would read better with a gender neutral headline, and the flag right at the beginning that it is a massive majority of women who will be disadvantaged thsi way.

It also raises some interesting questions:

• When putting budget plans together I assume there are fairly wide-ranging impact assessments. This was missed (I'm not going to be all conspiracy theory and think they did it on purpose!). So this is the sort of thing where arguably diversity comes in, as different people with different backgrounds and experiences bring different ideas to the table. They should look at how the impact assessment was carried out, who did it, and think about why this was missed and make moves to address that and similar situations, and I would suggest that having a more diverse group might be part of the solution (PS this is a guess I'm making a lot of assumptions there!)

• Now this loophole has been discovered, will the government move to close it in some way? Because to my mind, they REALLY ought to. Like, urgently.