TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Feminists protest against equal retirement age in Switzerland

TheSpaceDuck
September 18, 2021
217 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/unions-contest-pension-reform-plans-with-bern-demonstration/46959184

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Feminists protest against equal retirement age in Switzerland
Author TheSpaceDuck
Upvotes 217
Comments 95
Date September 18, 2021 7:55 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/feminists-protest-against-equal-retirement-age-in.1075708
https://theredarchive.com/post/1075708
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/pqta9x/feminists_protest_against_equal_retirement_age_in/
Red Pill terms in post
feminist
Top posts by TheSpaceDuck

BBC shows 80% homicide victims are male. Tries to spin it around by giving it the title "Women are much more likely to be killed by someone close to them"

2394 upvotes
December 27, 2018
/r/MensRights

Former stay at home dad and son dead, possibly poisoned. Mother had kidnapped kids and disappeared, father had to give 100% of his earnings as alimony. Polish feminist website made an article victim-blaming him with the title "even when a father murders his 4 year old son, women are guilty".

2145 upvotes
December 1, 2018
/r/MensRights

Swiss Man Identifies as a Woman to Retire Early

1198 upvotes
February 14, 2022
/r/MensRights

In Portugal the quality of the Covid vaccine you get depends on your gender.

1117 upvotes
July 12, 2021
/r/MensRights

Portugal: The consequences of deliberately giving men less efficient vaccines.

1003 upvotes
November 5, 2021
/r/MensRights

The Guardian blames men for Ghislane Maxwell's sex trafficking and tries to excuse her actions

986 upvotes
January 1, 2022
/r/MensRights

Bihar woman found living with lover while husband served jail for her ‘murder’ - Another instance of guilty until proven innocent for men accused of attacking women. This was posted in r/nottheonion and deleted by moderation.

868 upvotes
May 8, 2022
/r/MensRights

Feminist argues that extreme poverty and homelessness are female issues. Gets schooled.

726 upvotes
February 4, 2019
/r/MensRights
Comments

[–]Maephia 110 points111 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

When you are so used to privilege yadda yadda..

[–]Mr-X1 17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Iirc Swiss feminists were also against abolishing mandatory military service for males and against including women into said service.

They are just selfish, sexist trash.

[–]figosnypes 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

These are the honest feminists, unlike the ones in the U.S. who try to hide behind a smokecreen of "gender equality." Feminists represent the same mindset and ideology as the archetypal entitled wife, who whines about her husband being too lazy and not making enough money, while she sits at home reading magazines all day.

[–]hottake_toothache 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly.

[–]yaddayadda1347 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes?

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 144 points145 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

A major protest took place in Bern, Switzerland led by union traders and feminist groups. The protest is against a proposal to raise the retirement age of women from 64 to 65, the same as men.

However remember, men being discriminated in retirement age is because of "the patriarchy". /s

[–]helloiseeyou2020 76 points77 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are they suggesting lowering the retirement age of men instead? probably not right

[–]SprinklesFancy5074 60 points61 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Eh, a much better way -- and a way less likely to spark protest -- would be to lower the retirement age of both to 64.

I can see why they're pissed about this. It's worse for them, and it doesn't actually help men any. It's just benefits being rolled back (probably for capitalist gain) under a thin veneer of 'equality' as the justification.

It's much like the disproportionate conviction rates and sentencing in the criminal justice system.

One way to achieve equality would be to increase the punishment of women to match that of men. But that wouldn't actually benefit any of the men -- they'd still be getting the same punishment. All it would do is make women's lives worse.

But a better way to achieve equality would be to reduce the punishment of men until it matches that of women.

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 41 points42 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Trust me, attempting to lower the retirement age for men instead wouldn't have ended any different.

[–]steamedhamjobleft-wing male advocate 25 points26 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This should be its own post. Imo, this is even worse than the original one posted.

(Although, maybe an archived version because of the paywall)

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

(Although, maybe an archived version because of the paywall)

Do you know any way to access those or does it require someone who has paid creating them first?

[–]steamedhamjobleft-wing male advocate 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, what you're supposed to do is go to archive.is and all you have to do is enter the link, but when I went to test it, it turned out there was already an archive for it https://archive.is/1cDyf

But I don't think it requires paid access to get a full article archived. So there's the archive link for ya!

[–]Deadlocked02 36 points37 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I can see why they're pissed about this. It's worse for them, and it doesn't actually help men any. It's just benefits being rolled back (probably for capitalist gain) under a thin veneer of 'equality' as the justification.

It’s still a step towards equality, though. Usually, the argument that they should fix things for men instead of subjecting women to the same treatment is just a way of maintaining the status quo and the current privileges, just like they do with the draft. Protesting against this doesn’t look good for a group of people who keep talking about equality.

It's much like the disproportionate conviction rates and sentencing in the criminal justice system. One way to achieve equality would be to increase the punishment of women to match that of men.

That’s not really the best comparison, imo.

But a better way to achieve equality would be to reduce the punishment of men until it matches that of women.

Again, I don’t think that’s the best comparison. The draft is a much better one. And if it’s out of the question for the draft to be abolished and the retirement age to be lowered, then how is it fair that one group continues to have privileges over the other?

[–]SprinklesFancy5074 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

And if it’s out of the question for the draft to be abolished and the retirement age to be lowered

Take whoever says it's out of the question, tar them, feather them, and run them out of town on a rail.

[–]Deadlocked02 6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

And in the meantime, while the goal is not achieved, men should continue to get the short end of the stick? Besides, you genuinely believe countries like the US can afford to abolish the conscription, for example? And about the retirement age, well, maybe Switzerland can afford to have men retiring at the same time as women, considering it’s a 1 year difference. I’m not sure. But there are countries where the difference is as big as 3 or 5 years. It seems unrealistic and extremely naive to expect that to change overnight.

[–]SprinklesFancy5074 5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

And in the meantime, while the goal is not achieved, men should continue to get the short end of the stick?

That's the thing. If you just raise the retirement age to 65 for both, men are still getting the short end of the stick.

It's stupid to fight for equality in a way that doesn't help anyone, only hurts people in the other group.

Making women work longer doesn't actually help men at all. Are we 'left wing male advocates' here? Why would we advocate for something that doesn't help men?

This isn't a zero-sum game. It's possible to help men without hurting women, and it's possible to hurt women without helping men. And it's possible to hurt both groups or help both groups at the same time.

Personally, I say that actual material conditions are far more important than 'equality'. We of course shouldn't do something that only hurts a privileged group just because it makes things equally miserable for both groups. We shouldn't allow our 'if they can have it, why can't we' attitude turn into a 'well, if I can't have it, nobody can!' attitude.

you genuinely believe countries like the US can afford to abolish the conscription, for example?

Yes. The US hasn't used conscription in about 50 years, and the way modern wars are fought, the massive numbers of low-training foot soldiers aren't as important anymore anyway. (And even in the time when it was considered necessary, it's still an incredibly barbaric and very morally questionable thing to do. Especially for a shitty adventurist war like Vietnam.)

And about the retirement age, well, maybe Switzerland can afford to have men retiring at the same time as women, considering it’s a 1 year difference. I’m not sure.

They can definitely afford it.

But there are countries where the difference is as big as 3 or 5 years. It seems unrealistic and extremely naive to expect that to change overnight.

Well, then don't change it overnight. Phase it in over the next 10 years or something. I get very annoyed at people saying 'you can't expect that to change overnight' and meaning 'you can't expect that to ever change'. It's quite possible to have slow, carefully thought out change.

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That argument makes little sense, especially when it comes to the draft.

1 - No, a military superpower like the USA will never be able to abolish the draft. Even if they passed a law doing that on paper, the moment there's a war big enough that the standing army does not suffice, they'd bring the draft back as an emergency. And then you know who'd be fighting? Men. This is why it's important for the draft to be gender-neutral in the constitution, even if "abolished".

2 - No it's not something that "doesn't help men". The fact that only men can be drafted means that the pool of citizens to draft from is halved. In other words means that I as a man am twice as likely to be chosen to be sent to war just so that women can avoid being chosen entirely. There's no possible way this is fair or humane.

​

That's the thing. If you just raise the retirement age to 65 for both, men are still getting the short end of the stick.

It's stupid to fight for equality in a way that doesn't help anyone, only hurts people in the other group.

This would make slightly more sense yes, however you're forgetting one thing: this argument is used to keep the sexist status quo enforced. In this particular case they could say "most European countries have a retirement age superior to 64, therefore reducing men's to 64 would be absurd" and get away with it.

However if doing so would require women's retirement age to be raised, then they wouldn't get away with it that easily since anything that affects women negatively (even if it's gender equality) is treated harshly both by politicians and the media. As a result, the problematic "everyone is raised to 65" approach makes it much more likely that a counter-proposal to reduce everyone's age to 64 is both made and successful.

In fact, it's sad that feminists in Switzerland didn't make that counter-proposal themselves since they are so angry at the current one. I guess their aversion to doing something that will benefit men is bigger than their wish to keep the current retirement age.

[–]Deadlocked02 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I get very annoyed at people saying 'you can't expect that to change overnight' and meaning 'you can't expect that to ever change'. It's quite possible to have slow, carefully thought out change.

This idealistic way of thinking fails to take into account the cost of these retirement benefits. This is simply not feasible. I ask again, in the meantime, should one group continue to be privileged over another? Is that fair? Would the groups protesting against making the retirement age of women match the retirement age of men also protest if men were offered benefits that aren’t available to women as a way of compensation for having to work longer? Because the way things are, one group is clearly not equal to the other, so if it’s out of the question to make both equal, they should at the very least lift the group that is getting the short end of the stick in other ways.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Problem is, due to increased lifespan, retirement benefits have become more costly. Governments around the world are "fixing" that by raising the retirement age. This would be a good opportunity to make things more equal.

Of course, it would be better to tax the rich more in order to pay for this, but you know as well as I do that that would be far harder to be implemented.

[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlamleft-wing male advocate 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree that it would be ideal to lower men's retirement age. However, if this is absolutely infeasible, then making the age 65 for both women and men does benefit men by sending the message that men and women are equal under the law, and that men are not second-class citizens who can be mistreated whenever it's convenient for governments to do so.

[–]SprinklesFancy5074 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

making the age 65 for both women and men does benefit men by sending the message that men and women are equal under the law, and that men are not second-class citizens who can be mistreated whenever it's convenient for governments to do so.

Yeah ... that's why I made a point about material conditions.

Messages are worthless.

[–]VincentZ6 37 points38 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Remember, they don't want actual equality just the good parts that society traditionally compensated men with.

[–]botfiddler 86 points87 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

Hmm, women live longer on average... So maybe they should retire later?

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 55 points56 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

That's a tough one to be honest. Which would be more equal? Same age under the law or same amount of retirement years enjoyed? It's not an easy matter to discuss.

However I find it rather disgusting that the same groups who claim to be "fighting for equality" are the ones actively opposing either option.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the most straightforward and equal under the law would be the same retirement age for everyone.

[–]earthdweller11 10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

More equal is same age under the law because each individual is different and there are plenty of women who die earlier and men who live a really long time. Also average age of death can change over time as can average difference of age of death between sexes.

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 12 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

That is a very good point. To be fair a much more equal solution would be for men and women to have the same age and raise the funding for men's health to the same that women's health get, have better (and non-feminist) mental healthcare for men and reinforce working conditions in dangerous jobs.

That would do a much better job at removing the life expectancy gap.

[–]alphamsh 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe working yourself to death means you don't live so long and since more men do just that than women on average (with more being SAHM's) that might be part of the issue.

[–]fraktalMaus -32 points-31 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Depends on why men don’t live as long. If it’s from risky behaviors or not taking care of their health I don’t know why anything should be expected of women.

[–]MelissaMiranti 46 points47 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

One could easily point out that men don't live as long because of the harder working life they have.

[–]SprinklesFancy5074 23 points24 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And far more likely to be employed in jobs that put their lives at risk.

[–]fraktalMaus -16 points-15 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Then men who work physically demanding jobs should retire early.

[–]MelissaMiranti 22 points23 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Jobs that aren't "physically demanding" can still wear people down with long hours and stress, destroying heart health. Men work more hours on average.

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Removed as gatekeeping. Leave that to the mods.

[–]alphamsh 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks. I was just asking a question

[–]Carkudo 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t know why anything should be expected of women

We both know you wouldn't agree with policies that harm women with the same type of justifications. So you have no leg to stand - you're against equality because you want benefits for your preferred group.

[–]SamaelET 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You mean a government, academics and health systems tailored for women's need and investing far more money for women's health than men's ? Without forgetting that we live in a society that take care of women better than men in every way possible (justice system, economic safety, etc.)

What we can expect from women ? Stop asking men to take all the financial responsibility and start working hard to be able to take half of it ?

[–]fraktalMaus 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Could be estrogen also. Anyway, I don’t see why making women retire later than men because they live longer makes any sense. Have them retire the same age. Then if there is any unfairness, such as men working more physically demanding jobs, let them retire earlier.

And then actually address the issues you are bringing up.

[–]Emevete 17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

im glad equal retirement age is finally discussedin some places.. in my country it something you cant even mention it in a normal chat as you would be labeled as an anti feminist opressor AND a lazy bastard

[–]Robble93 31 points32 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - George Orwell (Animal Farm).

[–]Daemonicus 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Save this for when any time someone mentions how Feminism helps men. Or how they don't actively protest against equality.

[–]Threwaway42 18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is so dumb, weren’t there years of warning? Also women live longer so it’s extra systemically sexist to give it to women earlier

[–]f4z3ultr1xleft-wing male advocate 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

it should not have been increased. mens retirement age should have been decreased

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Removed as rule 6 violation.

[–]griii2right-wing guest 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What feminist groups backed the demonstration specifically? Anyone has any info?

[–]Sewblon 17 points18 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

as for making women work a year longer, this is a non-runner, it says,
given the years of part-time and unpaid work they do during their active
lives.

Women do generally do more unpaid work than men. But men put in more paid work than women, including both part time and full time work together. So the part-time work is a red-herring. Plus, this ignores that women live longer than men in Switzerland, as in most countries. So even with equal retirement ages, they get to benefit from those pensions for longer than men do. So them getting to retire earlier, isn't something that I see an argument for. If they want to lower the retirement age for men to equal that of women, that would be a different story, but then what about the structural deficits that this is supposed to solve?

[–]humandepths 25 points26 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I fail to see the logic of women behind this “women do more of the unpaid work at home so they should retire early”. How about you negotiate with your husband who does what and when before getting into a serious relationship? If something is to blame for the unbalanced amount of unpaid work, it’s the lack of assertiveness of women. And please don’t blame patriarchy for that. If your man gets away with less chores, you should call him out on that - don’t lash out at your government. That would be misplaced aggression.

[–]Deadlocked02 20 points21 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Nah, men should be collectively punished and women collectively rewarded because some women are incapable of choosing partners that help them with domestic chores. /s

That if we accept their flawed logic, of course. If we operate in the realm of reality, though, they just fail to take into account how men work longer hours and have longer commutes. And that paying most (or all) of the bills is as much of a contribution as doing domestic chores is.

[–]Sewblon 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah about that, are there actual scientific studies that show that when you take commuting into account, the unpaid work gap disappears or reverses? How do we know that when you add in commuting time, men do as much or more unpaid work as women?

[–]Deadlocked02 5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Commute is only one aspect. My point is that punishing men for failing to help women in their unpaid labor is nonsense, because it fails to take into account that men also perform unpaid labor, on top of being expected to be the ones doing extra paid labor.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/to-bring-attention-to-the-23-gender-commute-time-gap-i-introduce-the-new-equal-commute-day-on-april-14/

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-myth-of-the-lazy-father

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/eordqt/as_a_conservative_estimate_men_lose_an_extra_156/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have so many issues with the claims being made about "unpaid labour" and how saddled women supposedly are with it. There are so many feminist claims about how even if you add paid labour to the mix women still work more than men, OMG. Poor women, made slaves by their lazy husbands.

Firstly, I don't even think looking at "hours worked" is a good measure of productivity. Just because someone takes more time to do something doesn't mean that they've contributed more or done more, nor does it mean that they should be praised for the extra time they've taken to do it. There is no set time for unpaid work activities. If he finishes in 15 minutes and she decides to take 4 hours, she may write up 4 hours of "unpaid work" despite it arguably being her own inefficiency.

So providing a simple "hours spent on X activity per day" figure really doesn't mean much. Even if for the sake of argument I accept that women spend more hours working than men after all "unpaid labour" is taken into account, it doesn't mean they pull more weight than men. It could simply just mean they take more time than men to do things.

Secondly, time use surveys, which are what these claims about "unpaid labour" etc are all based around also have an issue with what they categorise as work. Things such as talking with and reading to and playing with children is considered work. I don't know about you, but I don't think playing board games or hide-and-seek or "the floor is lava" with your children sounds much like work to me, sorry. Nor does talking to them sound like work. It sounds a lot like leisure time. It sounds like fun. Yet the hours spent doing that get counted as work under the category "child care". This is especially weird because socialising and participating in sports, exercise, and recreation are all considered leisure time under the definitions of most time use surveys, but if you do these things with your own children it suddenly gets classified as work.

Shopping can be work, but it can also be leisure. Imagine if a woman spends 5 hours every week looking for dresses in fancy clothing stores. Should she be counted as having done work purchasing consumer goods? I'd argue that would be better classified as her leisure time. And honestly, looking at my personal experience I think men spend a larger proportion of their time shopping for necessary things whereas women spend a larger proportion of their time shopping for unnecessary things that they want.

Time use surveys, however, fail to make any such distinction between shopping which is necessary, and shopping which is merely indulgent. Many of these categories are very grey-zoned, where there is a clear part of "time that must be invested", and a whole lot of "time that I don't really need to invest buuuuut..."

Then there are activities such as minding your children which would also get considered as unpaid labour. It's really not. Passively minding them while doing something else in the meantime is not, IMO, involved enough to be considered as "work".

There are far more issues with the way they categorise things, but I won't get into that.

Thirdly, another issue is that a whole lot of time use surveys also generally rely on self-reporting, IIRC, in order to assess how much time people spend on certain things. There's obviously an issue with estimation there, and this is especially pronounced when it comes to "unpaid work"-type activities. With regards to paid labour, it's easy to quantify the amount of time spent there because you generally know when you arrive and when you leave. When it comes to things such as "unpaid labour" one's not regulated in the way that someone doing paid labour is. They generally space out said work throughout their day and intersperse it with "relaxation" activities and ultimately it is more difficult to estimate properly the amount of time spent on it. Though of course methodologies differ from survey to survey and some of them are going to have more issues with estimation and some less, and this is just a generalised critique of the issues surrounding estimation of "time spent" which isn't specific to any one time use survey.

Finally, said surveys also don't take into account the harshness of the work done. To them, 5 hours spent doing X activity is the same as 5 hours spent doing Y activity. However, taking care of a child is not as difficult a task as, say, logging, and less hours spent doing logging is still more exertion than more hours spent doing childcare.

So, these surveys as well as the conclusions drawn from these surveys have serious issues and I wouldn't rely on them as being a very accurate estimate of who does more or who pulls more weight.

[–]Sewblon 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

But those time use surveys that people use to claim that women do more work than men take paid work into account, including commutes. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/its-official-women-work-nearly-an-hour-longer-than-men-every-day/ OECD_1564_TUSupdatePortal.xlsx So I don't see how that defeats the unpaid work argument.

[–]Deadlocked02 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, the OECD graph has a format that makes it impossible for me to read it properly on mobile. But a quick glance at some of the details takes us to the problem exposed by u/problem_redditor in his comment . Some of the things categorized as unpaid work are very broad. Shopping (which includes shopping for clothes, for example), child caring, which can include things like playing and, gasp, talking to a child. I have something in the oven right now, but I’m here laying down in bed and texting you. Would it be fair to count the time it takes until the food is baked and even to compare it to paid work or commute, even though I’m not doing any effort right now? I guess the most shocking part is how they see bonding with your own children as “work”. And apparently there are researches out there using even fishier methods to deliberately inflate women’s efforts while diminishing the efforts of men.

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess the most shocking part is how they see bonding with your own children as “work”.

Given how feminists constantly blather on about the "burden of childcare", I'm not shocked by it at all. They see family life as an unfair and time-consuming imposition, whereas most people see it as one of the biggest things that gives their life meaning.

And apparently there are researches out there using even fishier methods to deliberately inflate women’s efforts while diminishing the efforts of men.

And here I thought I couldn't see time use surveys and the conclusions drawn from them as being any dumber than I currently think they are.

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Reminder everyone - Don't brigade the crossposted sub. It's against Reddit rules.

To document instances of misandry, consider these options:

1) take screenshots and upload them to Imgur
2) archive the page using a site like https://archive.vn/
3) crosspost the link to a dedicated subreddit like /r/everydaymisandry

You can also report misandry directly to the admins here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Sewblon 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Among married couples with Children, its the husbands who do the most work, not the wives. So I don't think that husbands slacking off is what is driving women doing more unpaid work. I think that what is driving it, is women being more likely to be single parents.

[–]MathematicianNo4277 -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As a gay guys this seems perfectly fair to me, as lesbian couples often come and make my laundry for me.

[–]RockmanXX 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women do generally do more unpaid work than men.

I know most people on Reddit don't agree with this but i'm dying on this hill. Cleaning your own house, cooking your own food and taking care of your own children isn't "unpaid work" its your duty.

[–]dath_bane 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The different retirement age was originally introduced so that men who had usually a younger wife could retire at (more or less) the same time as their wife. I think a few years ago, women in Switzerland could even retire at 63.

Demografical change hits Switzerland hard and we have a hole in our retirement system. At the same time many of the wealthiest people are retired people. Also many voters are over 60, so no party wants to scare away old ppl.

We need more solidarity among the old people, but instead we reform an unsustainable system on the back of the younger generation.

[–]dungeonmonkey69 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

🤦‍♂️

[–]SamaelET 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men really need to grow a male consciousness. How could they see their fathers retire one year later than their mother, their sisters, wife/girlfriend and female friends retire before them, and say nothing. We need to aware of our situation as males.

[–]alialahmad1997 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is more ofvan issue of left vs right rather than men vs women

[–]matrixislife -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think everyone would be pissed to be told they had to work another year before they could retire, not just feminists.

[–]StarZax -1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

The title is kinda deceptive. It's because they age retirement is going up. I mean, sure they don't care if it matches the retirement age of men.

Tho the title would be accurate if they were protesting against men's retirement age going down to 64

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The reason for raising it is making it equal to men.

[–]StarZax 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

So why shouldn't it be the other way around ? Lowering the retirement age for men for it to be equal ?

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nobody is saying it shouldn't. You have to ask the Swiss government that.

My guess is because of increasing life expectancy and most European countries having a 65+ retirement age they didn't consider making it 64 for everyone in the first place.

Question we should be asking here is: Why didn't feminists propose that instead? Are they more interested in men not getting equality than they are in a lower retirement age?

[–]StarZax 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Obviously they are, that's not even a surprise, but even in the article I don't see how equality between men and women is used as a reason to raise their retirement age.

I had to read some french articles about the subject to be sure that it was made because the gvnt needed money + align it to men's. But the first reason is money, otherwise they would have lowered instead of raising. But yeah, the average in Europe is 65, tho saying it's not because of money is still wrong.

Also, the protests talk about inequality in pay and stuff, which in their words, would make up for it. Obviously this is wrong, but it's still their view of equality. What we need is education about how the gender pay gap isn't a real thing, that women are mostly correctly paid (I mean I guess some bosses would pay women lower if they are really misogynists but that's still very uncommon)

So the title is still kinda clickbaity to me. I first thought that they were protesting against men getting the same retirement age as women (ie, men retirement lowering to theirs) but it's the opposite and equality isn't even the main reason called to do that (but I guess they know that « it's more equal to give women less privilege » would blow up some people's mind). If they knew that they were getting paid the same, Idk if they would have protested or at least used the gender pay gap as a reason to keep it that way.

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I first thought that they were protesting against men getting the same retirement age as women

They are. Money and equality aren't mutually exclusive. The fact that they're raising and not lowering is about money. The fact that they're only raising for women is about equality.

Why do you think feminist groups in particular were protesting? Because this is being done only for women. If the proposal was e.g. to raise women's age to 65 and men's to 70 you wouldn't see feminists among the protesting groups.

[–]StarZax 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not mutually exclusive but one is surpassing the other. To me, the « equality » thing of this story is just a way to make them swallow this a little bit better tho obviously the feminists just won't no matter what

Obviously, if they were raising women's age to 65 ans men to 70, you would see a lot more people protesting because raising that much is stupid, people wouldn't talk too much about feminism because it's not about feminism then, it's also about men. I guess feminists could protest but not as feminists. I mean, feminists can also protest for other reasons.

I just give them the benefit of the doubt. I mean, it sucks for them cuz they have to lower their privilege for once (even if they don't know/don't want to understand), but in the end, yes, it's equal. Tho it really, REALLY does sucks to see that the swiss leftwing is really battling that. They really don't want any of that, that sucks, again it makes the equality between men and women a rightwing thing and I've seen too many rightwingers having so many bad takes about women and equality

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tho it really, REALLY does sucks to see that the swiss leftwing is really battling that. They really don't want any of that, that sucks, again it makes the equality between men and women a rightwing thing and I've seen too many rightwingers having so many bad takes about women and equality

You nailed it on this bit. The most frustrating part (not just in this issue but in general) is that men really have nowhere to go.

Left-wing parties tend to reinforce sexist stereotypes such as men being violent/dangerous (sometimes to ridiculous extents), defend female quotas and "guilty until proven innocent" legal approaches towards men, push male domestic violence victims under the bus and attempt to further increase the already huge gender sentence gap. They also tend to not only ignore the gender education gap but insist on further widening it with more programs and benefit for women who are statistically at a major (and increasing) advantage in education.

On the other hand right-wing parties tend to be pro-draft and in favour of strict and unrestricted police (which very disproportionately harms men), defend traditional gender roles that put men at a disadvantage and are harsher on the most disadvantaged classes such as homeless people which tend to be mostly men.

No left-wing or right-wing party will even touch topics such as domestic violence against men (with very few exceptions who are not supported by the rest of the party), male genital mutilation, father's rights or the gender sentence gap and education gap. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you are in, men are getting the short end of the stick.

[–]Threwaway42 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

As we live longer it doesn’t make sense to lower any retirement age though

[–]StarZax 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not sure it's the only parameter that we should consider, or else men would have lower retirement age since women live longer than us

[–]Ausiwandilaz 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They are protesting over 1 year....really?

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter