A New Thing to Blame Men for--Retiring at Retirement Age
January 16th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
USA Today financial columnist Sandra Block's column below all but comes right out and says that men are selfish for retiring at retirement age. Instead, men should continue to work, work, work while--guess what?--women should retire earlier.
According to Block, by working well past retirement age, men can "make up for all the times you came home with beer on your breath, left your socks on the bathroom floor or gave your wife a DustBuster for Valentine's Day."
I guess 40 years of working longer hours than your wife at a job more demanding and hazardous than hers--as most men do--isn't enough.
The article is below. To write a Letter to the Editor of USA Today, email letters@usatoday.com. To contact Block, email sblock@usatoday.com.
Thanks to Nancy, a reader, for sending the article to me. Nancy says she fears that this type of article will lead to a law that "does not allow men to collect social security without their wives' approval or signature." Nancy, please don't give them ideas...
Husbands should consider delaying Social Security benefits
USA Today, 1/15/08
Here's some advice for married men who will turn 62 this year: If you want to make up for all the times you came home with beer on your breath, left your socks on the bathroom floor or gave your wife a DustBuster for Valentine's Day, hold off on filing for your Social Security benefits.
Many men who are eager to retire may chafe at this suggestion. This year, the oldest baby boomers are turning 62, making them eligible for Social Security. About half of those boomers are expected to claim their benefits as soon as they're eligible, even though that means a permanent 25% reduction in benefits.
TURNING 62: Early retirees try to fill gap in health coverage
Retirement experts warn that this strategy could result in significantly lower benefits for boomers who live for a long time. Maybe that's a risk you're willing to take. But if you're the primary breadwinner, claiming benefits early could also jeopardize your spouse's financial security.
Here's why: If one member of a married couple dies, the surviving spouse can continue to receive her own Social Security benefit, or 100% of the deceased spouse's benefit, whichever is more. If your wife earned less over her lifetime than you did, and she outlives you, she'll start receiving your benefits. If you file at 62, she'll inherit a reduced amount of benefits for the rest of her life, says Ron Gebhardtsbauer, senior pension fellow at the American Academy of Actuaries.
Most "break-even" calculators don't address survivor benefits, says James Mahaney, retirement specialist for Prudential Financial. Suppose, for example, that a break-even calculator shows that your break-even age is 77 (you can find a break-even calculator at www.ssa.gov). Based on your benefits alone, that would suggest that you should delay filing if you think you'll live past 77, and file early if you think you'll die before then.
But that calculation doesn't address what happens if your wife outlives you. And there's a good chance that will happen. According to the American Academy of Actuaries, the average 62-year-old man will live an additional 21.9 years, while the average 62-year-old woman will live 25.5 more years.
A women's issue
Some women are the primary breadwinners, of course, but in the majority of couples, husbands retire with higher lifetime earnings than their wives. Women are more likely to leave the workplace to care for children or elderly parents. Median wages for women continue to lag behind wages for men. Women are also more likely than men to become widowed — and not only because they typically live longer. Most married women are younger than their husbands.
More than 40% of elderly women depend on Social Security for more than 90% of their income, compared with 28% of elderly men, according to the American Academy of Actuaries. More than 20% of unmarried women over 65 are poor, but only 5% of married couples over 65 are poor.
Given the high rate of poverty among elderly women, the tendency among married men to claim benefits early "is a major social problem," according to a recent research paper by the Center for Retirement Research.
"Most older women have major reductions in their standard of living when their husbands die," says Steven Sass, associate director for research at the center.
A 1999 Center for Retirement Research study found a dramatic difference in incomes for widows over 90, based on when their husbands claimed Social Security benefits.
When their husbands claimed benefits at their full retirement age or later, the widows' average benefits were 19% above the federal poverty level. But when their husbands claimed benefits before they reached full retirement age, the average benefits for widows were 1% below the poverty line.
Break-even calculators encourage retirees to regard the timing of their benefits as a gamble, which is a "terrible way to think," Sass says. Instead, retirees should view Social Security as an insurance policy. By delaying benefits, Sass says, husbands can reduce the risk that their widows will spend their final years in poverty.
An early start?
While married men should delay claiming Social Security benefits, married women might receive higher lifetime benefits by filing for Social Security at 62, Gebhardtsbauer says, because these women don't get locked into a reduced benefit. If they outlive their husbands, they can "trade up" to their husbands' higher Social Security payout, he says. (If the wife dies first, the lower benefit will die with her.)
But to get the most from their combined benefits, husbands should wait to file. "When you make your retirement plans, you've got to consider how you're going to have a good stable income for you and your spouse for the rest of your lives," Sass says. For married men, he says, delaying Social Security "is by far the best thing you can do."
"));
19 queries. 0.499 seconds.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:07 am
So as a punishment for living shorter lives and spending more of those lives working, men should have even less time to retire?
In the UK, women retire earlier. Despite men living 7 years less, and so having less retirement time to enjoy, men actually have to work an extra 5 years of their lives, along with the work they've already done.
The worst thing is, this isn't a feminist inspired law, it's years old. Of course the Fawcett society (Britain's largest feminist group) does nothing about it because equality means only focussing on women. Yes, this law is year's old, I guess we can blame the patriarchy for it then?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Having read the article, what she's essentially saying is that men should base their life choices on what is best for women. Men have no innate worth, only their value to women.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Delaying retirement to protect the standard of living of a surviving spouse is something that a married person should consider. A married person should also consider retiring early or finding alternate work, if he or she is no longer capable of working safely or risking injury in a job that requires physical labor.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Men should retire at 50 to pursue their dreams that were denied them in order to provide for the family. He's done his job most of his life, why can't he have a few "choices" before his whole life is gone!!
January 16th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Men should retire at 50 to pursue their dreams that were denied them in order to provide for the family.
He's done his job most of his life, why can't he have a few "choices" before his whole life is gone!!
January 16th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Glenn this is a simple issue of greed on the part of the writer. If a husband retires at 62 with reduced benefits then passes away 4 years later the survivor benefits will be much less.
What really irks me about this is the assumption by the writer that ALL men have come home with beer on thier breath, left thier socks on the floor for thier poor wife to pick up or made a poor gift choice on a holiday.
This is a thinly veiled "Shut up and be man" column. I for one will be writing to the editor.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Things a man could do,if he retired early.
..go fishing in Alaska
..Take a houseboat down the mississippi
..take flying lessons
..build that custom viking replica boat you had in mind
travel rail around Europe..
But chooses resposibility instead!!
January 16th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Heres what I wrote the editor
Dear Sir or Madam,
As a husband and a man I am deeply offended by this writers column and language in the aforementioned article. Ms Block has made a broad assumption that all men should plan thier retirement based on the needs of thier spouses and not themselves. We have many men out there who are now and have in the past dedicated thier lives to thier families and the financial security of thier spouses and for Ms Block to say they should not consider retiring to enjoy the fruits of thier long work so that if they happen to pass away thier widows will get even more is insulting.
She fails to mention the problems with social security funding, abuse,and fraud which has left the system in a shambles not to mention the enormous amount of money that the Federal Government has borrowed from the system and still not paid back. No instead she wants to put a price tag on the economic worth of men as that being defined by women. I would expect to see this sort of journalism in a publication of a feminist magazine. Not in USATODAY.
I, like many men, have never came home with beer on my breath from a binge with the boys, left my socks on the floor, or put no thought into gifts at important holidays. Ms Blocks' attempt at humor fell far short. She casts a broad assumption that ALL men are like she described. Its blatant misandry and again I say its highly insulting to me as a man.
As a member of Generation X I am planning my retirement based on the fact that I do not believe that there will be any benefits from Social Security left for me. The money I put into the system will be long gone.
Why not do a better story on that.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I'm forced to wonder if a reduced social security benefit for a wife might not be payback for all of the times-- she "had a headache" or didn't feel like cooking and insisted on eating out or didn't use the snazy vacum that was bought aside from a gift giving holiday, or the new curtains cause she was bored with the old ones, and maybe he never liked vacations at the beach, or would have been content with the Buick...
Maybe the surviving widow could sell the 'proper' Valentine's day presents.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Left out of her suggestions is the idea that the wife should get a job.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I've done a little digging on a question, but am wondering on anyone elses knowledge. How does retiring early affect your life / life expectancy?
The only things I've found were statements (not statistics or numbers of any kind) about retiring early not lengthening your life, but not whether or not it shortens your life? This seems based on a British study, which admits that since many of the subjects are still alive they can't difinitively answer that question. They do make attempts at removing people from the study who are retireing early due to their health. But that is a tough one to judge. They hint at semi retireing / gradual retirement being good for you, but again no definative answers.
The British system with sex based retirement ages is disgusting on so many levels.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:48 am
It seems to me that this women feels entitled to her trailer hitch work mule!!!
And wants him to continue to provide for her until his final heart attack!!
January 16th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Socks on the floor?! Beer on the breath?! Regardless of how much more attractive the beer made her, I think that asking the man to keep working is simply NOT payback enough for these infractions -- especially when he also may have gotten her a substandard gift on HER holiday!
So here's my solution for payback on these "men."
I think all these women should resolve to die first, thereby forcing their HUSBANDS to live on the substandard income. That'll teach 'em. Talk about poetic justice! If these ladies bail on life by simply dying first, not only will the men be too poor to afford beer and socks, but we also all know that men simply can't perform basic household functions without the direction and assistance of a wife!
I think this is a beautiful solution!
January 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Part of me is glad that I'm not married now (I'm only 27 so that may change one day). But at the same time I'm almost worried that this columnist is now thinking up some theory about how single men should retire early since they don't have wives and the percentage of benefits they lose for retiring early should go do some fund to assist widows.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Heres the letter I sent to the reporter:
Ms. Block,
As a man I found your article and conclusions reprehensible. Your assumptions that men should continue working past age 62 just for the benefit of a spouse after they pass away is insulting and one of the most heinous examples of misandry in the media Ive seen in a long time.
Many men work coutless hours in thankless or dangerous jobs and are relieved when they can finally sit back and enjoy the fruits of thier labors and possibly spend time with the family that may have taken a back seat to career goals. According to your article however this is irresponsible behavior and they should consider going on even longer in those occupations regardless of the possible risks to themselves. You give no thought or mention whatsoever to the fact that many men die BEFORE retirement age trying to attain the very security you are telling them to keep reaching for so thier widows will be comfortable.
What is also insulting in your article is the notion that all men should "pay back" thier spouses for all thier bad habits as if the spouses had no such habits that the husband may have had to endure over those years.
Were I your editor I would have never allowed such a skewed piece to ever be published and now that it has I would print an apology to all those this piece may have offended.
This is not a "Womans Issue" this is a National Issue. Instead of trying to suggest that men work longer why dont you do a piece that addresses how much money is owed to the system by the Federal Government or the fraud, waste and abuse that is rampant in the Social Security Administration and why it may not be there when my generation reaches that age.
That would be much more RESPONSIBLE journalism then you have shown thus far.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I read somewhere that many females are obsessed with financial security, and we are supposed to give them sympathy and empathy for this because this so-called fear is innate and hardwired by thousands of years of evolution. Whatever!! It sounds like mother nature is Frankenstein and the modern day gold-digger is Frankenstein's monster.
Gold-digging should be considered a form of domestic violence.
masculist XY
January 16th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Excellent letters The Other Mike D...I will be doing the same tonight.
A "Women's issue" ... what a load of horse shit.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:09 am
masculist XY.. we should have on-line board meetings to dicuss weather gold-digging should be considered a form of domestic violence...
I would make a motion for more debate!!
January 16th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Masculinist: "I read somewhere that many females are obsessed with financial security, and we are supposed to give them sympathy and empathy for this because this so-called fear is innate and hardwired by thousands of years of evolution."
Notice when something is hardwired into women we all need to respect their needs, however when something is found to be hardwired into men it is looked upon as base or dirty? The implication is men are expected to constantly improve while women are already perfect so they don't need to worry about fighting their instincts.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:16 am
How do you respond to a statement like "I think you should quit being so selfish and spend your life working to make my life easier".
This attitude of "its all about me" from females is socialized into them constantly and permeates their interaction with men.
I don't imagine this writer even considered the view that the man should simply do whats best for himself after 40+ years of working.
As Callum said, "Men have no innate worth, only their value to women". This statement is not made, but is implied by much of female behavior and our laws.
Of course, much of it is couched in "the best interests of the child" but that can't be said here can it? Here its "the best interest of the woman" straight out - the man's life simply does not matter.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:18 am
menscollegeactivist.org says:
masculist XY.. we should have on-line board meetings to dicuss weather gold-digging should be considered a form of domestic violence...
I would make a motion for more debate!!
That is a very good idea. As an example, I always laugh when so few feminists fight the diamond industry, despite all the corruption and materialism associated with it.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Lance says:
Notice when something is hardwired into women we all need to respect their needs, however when something is found to be hardwired into men it is looked upon as base or dirty? The implication is men are expected to constantly improve while women are already perfect so they don't need to worry about fighting their instincts.
Right on Lance. Men can't use a "testosterone defense" in a similar way that women have used the "PMS defense." And despite that men usually seem to have higher sex drives than women we are still perverts.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Letter to the editor, just sent:
Re: “Husbands should consider delaying social security benefits.”
I supposed Sandra Block thought she was being humorous when she wrote the following: “Here's some advice for married men who will turn 62 this year: If you want to make up for all the times you came home with beer on your breath, left your socks on the bathroom floor or gave your wife a DustBuster for Valentine's Day, hold off on filing for your Social Security benefits.”
Ms. Block most certainly will assert that her piece was merely intended to explain an economic point. So then why did she go out of her way to lead off with good old-fashioned male bashing? In fact, it would be difficult to fathom a more thoughtless display of misandry in a major publication. According to this writer, men “owe” it to their wives to continue working past retirement age to make up for stereotypical male failings that she effortlessly tosses off without apology or even wit.
And what of those husbands who have killed themselves for decades at dangerous, grueling jobs to support a wife and family and who want to enjoy their fewer-than-women’s remaining years in retirement? Of course, the writer doesn’t even bother to consider that.
You see, we owe it to our wives to keep working until we drop dead to make up for being born male.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Callum said:
Having read the article, what she's essentially saying is that men should base their life choices on what is best for women. Men have no innate worth, only their value to women.
That is so true Callum.
Here is an old quote by philosopher Kant that I got from Jack Kammer's classic book "If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules?":
"Feminine traits are called weakness. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable people know that those traits are the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs."-Kant, 1798.
Masculist XY
January 16th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Thank you Glenn for providing email addresses and links.
It allows instant response on our part and helps to increase awareness for those who are oblivious.
I have emailed both address and will continue to respond whenever addresses are provided. I think we all should take a moment and express ourselves to these idiots.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Having read the article, what she's essentially saying is that men should base their life choices on what is best for women. Men have no innate worth, only their value to women.
Yep, that's how it works in just about every society. We are dehumanized practically from birth to fit our role.
I've gotta comment about the "beer on his breath" line, however.
WTF? I'm not allowed to go out and have a beer? I'm not allowed to enjoy the company of my friends? We are only allowed to enjoy ourselves in ways you deem acceptable? What kind of slaves are we?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:57 am
OK, I can see the points Glenn and the rest of you are making about her poor choice of 'humour' but essentially she's passing on advice from a retirement 'expert' about how best to plan your well-earned rest from working.
Obviously, you're only going to be concerned about social security if you're at the lower end of the earning spectrum and/or if you've not saved anything or taken out a private pension. In that situation, you're not going to want your widow reduced from an already low level of income into abject poverty for the sake of staying at work for 3 more years (assuming you're still physically able to work of course).
It is a fact of life that women live longer than men. Acknowledging that fact isn't sexist or misandrist - its just being realistic. Perhaps I'm a bit old fashioned, but I'd hate to potentially consign my wife to a life of never turning on the heating, eating once a day etc etc just because I'd misunderstood the consequences of claiming benefits early.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:57 am
"If one member of a married couple dies, the surviving spouse can continue to receive her own Social Security benefit, or 100% of the deceased spouse's benefit, whichever is more."
Exactly how does she jump from if one member of the couple dies... to the surviving woman can recieve benefits?
If she is going to imply that the woman is the survivor, why doesn't she have the integrity to declare that it is the man dying? Why is she including women on both sides of the statement but excluding men from the benefits portion?
If she is going to say something outrageous I'd at least like for her to be self consistant.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Ms. Block,
you really need to keep your views on retirement to yourself. Men work too hard as it is. And men don't have to make up for beer breath or scattered socks since women spend all their money anyway. You feminists with your endless whining and moaning are so irritating. USA Today needs to hire a bunch of men so they can produce a real newspaper.
Stephen
January 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I think the joke shows a societal attitude that things at home should be run according to what a woman dictates. If socks on the floor do not bother me and bother her...why is it up to me to move them. Shouldn't she deal with what SHE doesn't like. It reminds me of "where it belongs". Married and cohabitating men you will surely have heard this at some point. We are not putting (insert noun here) "where it belongs". Funny, I never got the where it belongs handbook. If she is getting that in the mail and not showing it to me, how is that my fault? On the other hand, if she is making it up as she goes along, what gives her the right to decide, in a multi person household, "where it belongs"?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
James,
"It is a fact of life that women live longer than men."
If women live longer, wouldn't it make logical sense for them to be the ones working longer?
Why should men reduce their retirement time to practically nothing on a shorter lifespan so that their more long lived spouses can spend all those extra years relaxing while their husband is six feet under?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Jason - can't fault your logic really.
I guess the 'easy' answer there is that women tend to have kids which takes them out of the workforce for a period and therefore reduces their social security 'pot.' Of course, that argument has its own holes that are easily picked apart.
From a societal (ie Governmental) point of view, all those retired females provide a pool of unpaid childcare labour that means that younger (and therefore more productive) females can return to work sooner after childbirth.
Of course, many younger women resist that 'push' to get them back into work early but, in the UK at least, there is increasing pressure from the Govt to force them back into work - especially if they're claiming benefits.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Jason: "If women live longer, wouldn't it make logical sense for them to be the ones working longer?"
Well said Jason.
I think James may be missing our point a bit. While yes this is important planning information, it is being framed in a manner that is suggesting that men should pay for their sins by working to their deaths and that the only thing that men are good for is to bring home the bacon. The article is not a treatise on the myriad of problems with social security, it is underscoring the female-entitlement movement that is running our culture today. If a man decides that he WANTS to work longer to support his wife, fine. But it is the EXPECTATION that he should do so that is so infuriating.
Incidentally, the idea of women living longer then men is not a "fact of life." Historically, men and women had similar longevity's, and as seen in the Amish today, men and women can naturally expect to live to about the same age if they both take care of themselves. Much of the large disparity is probably due to differences in stress experienced by the two genders, the riskier jobs (and activities) experienced by men vs. women, and the "take it like a man" attitude that permeates our culture.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
My own letter to USA today thanks to others for ideas on the proper tone,
Dear Editor,
In regards to the recent story “Husband should consider Delaying Social Security Benefits” I am forced to ask if you would publish stereotypical woman bashing under the guise of helpful financial advice.
Ms. Block’s unfunny, “If you want to make up for all the times you came home with beer on your breath, left your socks on the bathroom floor or gave your wife a DustBuster for Valentine's Day,” can be seen as nothing more than a cheap shot at men.
I can hear the outrage of your female boomer readers who might be the family’s primary breadwinners had they been patronized to consider putting off retirement if they wanted to make up for all the times she came home with cosmopolitans on her breath, left her bras on the shower rod and gave her husband a cordless drill for Valentine’s Day.
While I laud your efforts to keep us aware of how best to make use of the Social Security system, I must condemn you for the misandry used to do so. Perhaps you are aware that yearly over 92% of workplace fatalities happen to men. Risking life and limb to provide for a family and surviving to 62 should warrant a longer lived spouse living at a horrible 1% below the poverty level which I it seems likely she will be doing in a house provided by his labor in the first place?
There is much talk amongst Father’s Rights organizations about Feminist bias in the media. Pieces like this give such talk credence. I expect a more unbiased approach from such a widely know media source.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Lewis-- Very nice....Make sure you send another directly to the reporter herself.
Very well said...I like the Cosmopolitan bit...too funny!!!!
January 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
What kind of slaves are we?
We're THEIR slaves. Now shut up and go sleep on the couch SLAVE!
j/k
January 16th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
It should also be noted that women tend to marry older men, not the other way around. What this means is that many men have been working for years before their wives entered the work force.
The peak reproductive success for men occurs when they marry a woman six years his junior. For women the difference is four years her senior. The reason for this is simple. By marrying someone older it reduces the risk of getting a financial lemon. He has a few years under his belt and can provide for a family. (The 6 and 4 years is a world wide phenomonum, not just the US or industrial societies).
Looked at another way, you take a set a fraternal twins, one male and one female and see which one gets married first or has a reallistic opportunity to marry. Both come from the same background, both have the same financial resources, both have the same looks. All things held constant, she will get the opportunities first.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
There is much talk amongst Father’s Rights organizations about Feminist bias in the media. Pieces like this give such talk credence. I expect a more unbiased approach from such a widely know media source.
Lewis if you be some chance get a response to your letter (well it will more than likely be a response to this last line) I'd really like to read it. In the mind of feminists and their allies Father's Rights organizations, MRAs, and basically anything that does not blindly fall in line with their brand of feminism are nothing but a bunch whinners that are trying to hold on to their precious privilege (personally I think they are just mad that men are trying to prevent their oppression whereas women were oppressed and had to fight back.).
January 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I sent the same letter to Ms. Block and will be happy to post any replys I might recieve.
I think it would be unfair to do otherwise.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Lance said:
The article is not a treatise on the myriad of problems with social security, it is underscoring the female-entitlement movement that is running our culture today. If a man decides that he WANTS to work longer to support his wife, fine. But it is the EXPECTATION that he should do so that is so infuriating.
Incidentally, the idea of women living longer then men is not a "fact of life." Historically, men and women had similar longevity's, and as seen in the Amish today, men and women can naturally expect to live to about the same age if they both take care of themselves. Much of the large disparity is probably due to differences in stress experienced by the two genders, the riskier jobs (and activities) experienced by men vs. women, and the "take it like a man" attitude that permeates our culture.
Spoken like a true masculist. Good stuff, that.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Lewis, That good one! Good letter. I think Stephen did not distinguish between women who want men to slog their lives off and good decent women. A very important distinction in my opinion.
And why is everyone so alarmed at this? Aren't good honest men already doing this - delaying retirement to support the better life for their spouses? What decent man thinks "hmm.. my wife will have no funds to survive after me, but what the heck I will retire anyway"? I mean you work longer hours. If your work-life is calculated on the basis of work-hours spent. You have already worked more hours.
It is true that women loose a lot of work hours tending for the kids. But conversely a lot of men are deprived the joy of raising their young ones, because they are to bring in as much money as possible to raise them. To those who disagree with that, I would question how much money would they pay just to be with their kids if they were forced to work while someone else would take care of their kids?
I think the problem is not that people think SSs needs to be supplied with more labor, but that people think SSS is actually a good thing. Its not, in principle. Because you are promised money later for work you do all your life. Oh and if you die single, your earnings disappear. How is that fair? I think people should be given the right to save their own money rather than letting the govt take over for people and force them to do it a particular way.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
The girls over at feministing.com are having a lively debate about HOW FEMINISM BENEFITS MEN.
One commentator wrote that … “Men benefit from feminism too... But while men benefit, they also stand to lose the unearned privileges they have under patriarchy. For that reason, many men oppose feminism. But men who value universal human rights and women's liberation are willing to give up their unearned privileges for the sake of true equality."
Ms. Block's article is just an extension of this fundamental feminist "logic," because for a man to consider retiring after thirty or more years of wage-slavery and domestic servitude is clearly one of those "unearned privileges" that men inherited under the glorious Patriarchy.
For the complete giggles see --
http://feministing.com/archives/008404.html#comments
January 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
People who live a long life can outlive their money. Therefore, delaying retirement to protect the standard of living of a surviving spouse is something that a married person should consider. More women than men live longer. USA Today covers this concern people who live a long life in their story.
People who work in physically demanding jobs can become disabled and suffer a reduction in their quality of life if they are injured. Therefore, a married person should also consider retiring early or finding alternate work, if he or she is no longer capable of working safely or risks injury in a job that requires physical labor. More men than women work in these jobs. USA Today does not covers this aspect of concern for older workers who work physically demanding jobs in their story.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Stephen, that letter is terrible.
You seem to put through thinly-veiled threats that as she is a woman, her journalistic integrity is less of a man. I suppose that women with integrity like Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Summers can't write a newspaper article 'like a man real man' And that misandrists like Jeff Fecke or Michael Moore are preferable.
Don't you see, you're doing exactly what the author of this article wants. You are enforcing old-fashioned ideas of masculinity that men can never show weakness or complain and should do everything perfectly. That is not what we're about here. We are about destroying restrictive steriotypes about men, you are merely enforcing them.
At the same time as criticising misandry while being incredibly misogynistic yourself.
You sir, are a hypocrite.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
One commentator [at the feministing blog] wrote that … “Men benefit from feminism too... But while men benefit, they also stand to lose the unearned privileges they have under patriarchy. For that reason, many men oppose feminism. But men who value universal human rights and women's liberation are willing to give up their unearned privileges for the sake of true equality."
The prior generation of gender-equity feminists were partly responsible for accelerating the elimination of the wage gap between the genders. As a result, some jobs that would have been taken by women as a result of supply and demand are opened up to men.
That said, the current generation of feminists never link female privelege with the operation of the family courts. They do not support gender equity and they oppose a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting. To say that they are misguided is very generous. For feminists to imply that feminists support human rights and members of the fathers' rights movement do not is beyond misguided, it is completely backwards.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Roy said:
"The girls over at feministing.com are having a lively debate about HOW FEMINISM BENEFITS MEN."
It is funny how these feminists fail to see that this so-called "patriarchy" is merely a scapegoat for the world's problems. Even the ACLU acknowledges "scapegoating" as a strategy used by bigots and hatemongers.
masculist xy
January 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Pankaj, I don't want to distinguish between women who want to work men to death and good decent women. My problem is I can't seem to find too many good, decent women anymore. I know a few but they're disappearing thanks to feminism. In practically every couple I can think of the woman is trying to wear the pants and controls the money. I suppose such a situation sheds a bad light on weak men.
I think Ms. Block should pipe down because men already don't enjoy the benefits of their labor. They really have been reduced to slavery.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Lance,
Perhaps you can point me to information that I haven't been able to access in this short a time, but looking at the US census results for 1890 - 2004, life expectancy rates for (white) females vs (white) males has been consistently biased towards longer spans for women accross the entire period.
Looking further back, women's life expectancy from about the 1600's in the UK has risen for both 'elite' AND 'non-elite' females in a consistent curve that has been shadowed by 'elite' (but not 'non-elite') males to the present day. This is despite the much higher levels of mortality in childbirth during the period preceding modern healthcare.
Perhaps stress levels and the more manual slant to mens' traditional vocations can explain some of the disparities, but then that wouldn't fully account for the 'non-elite' women.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Re: the comment at Feministing about men giving up "the unearned privileges they have under patriarchy" --
PLEASE, TAKE THEM! TAKE THEM!
Start with the life expectancy gap; the bias against men in family law courts; the bias that says men HAVE to work while women don't; bias that men are fools to be ridiculed while women are to be taken "seriously."
Oh, man, this list could go on forever. Take ALL my "privileges" and just let me be equal!
January 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Callum said:
"Don't you see, you're doing exactly what the author of this article wants. You are enforcing old-fashioned ideas of masculinity that men can never show weakness or complain and should do everything perfectly. That is not what we're about here. We are about destroying restrictive steriotypes about men, you are merely enforcing them."
I believe that is a very masculist statement, and I agree with it. Masculism includes analyzing how restrictive the traditional male gender role can be (male disposability, provider/protector roles, etc). Hey Callum, what do you think of Britain's David Thomas, author of "Not Guilty: The Case in Defense of Men"?
I will list again some of my favorite books in the men's movement, in case anyone wants to become more acquanted with the masculist literature:
*Myth of Male Power-Warren Farrell
*The hazards of being male-herb goldberg
*If men have all of the power, how come women make the rules?-jack kammer
*The other side of the coin-causes and consequences of men's oppression-roy schenk
*Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence
*The new men's studies-Eugene August
*Spreading misandry-Nathanson
*The rantings of a single male-Thomas Ellis
*Not guilty: The case in defense of men-David Thomas
*The war against boys-Christina Hoff Sommers
*When she was bad-The myth of female innocence-Patricia Pearson
*Why men earn more: The startling truth behind the pay gap-Warren Farrell
*The fraud of feminism-E. Belfort Bax
*Why males exist-Fred Hapgood
*The evolution of desire-David Buss
*The evolution of human sexuality-Donald Symons
*Media and male identity-Macnamara
Masculist
January 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
"Incidentally, the idea of women living longer then men is not a "fact of life." "
Statistical studies show that on average, women live longer than men. I can add that male mortality has improved more than female mortality in recent years.
I have personal beliefs as to why this is true. I believe that because on average men are more massive than women, they eat a "bigger" diet. If you want to live long, eat the right foods, exercise and don't smoke.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
"If you want to live long, eat the right foods, exercise and don't smoke"
Can't argue with that.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
And again, we find a woman arguing to keep women dependent on men. Where are the feminists, eh?
January 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Very curt response from the author of this piece. I would hazard to guess she didnt like the comments very much either that or she really doesnt care what people think.
Subject RE: Husbands should consider delaying Social Security benefits
From "Block, Sandra"
Date Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:04
Thank you for your comments.
Sandra Block
Personal Finance Reporter
USA TODAY
January 16th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Form response from the editors email. It wasnt even form his personal box.
Subject USA TODAY - Editorial Department (KMM4390028V97629L0KM)
From Letters to the Editor
Date Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:34
Dear USA TODAY Reader:
On behalf of the Editorial Board of USA TODAY, thank you for the letter
to the editor you submitted.
Your opinion is important to us. If your letter is one of those selected
for publication, congratulations. The competition for space is keen.
Regretfully, although we would like to publish all of the 800 to 1,000
letters we receive weekly, we are unable to do so. If no one from USA
TODAY has called you within two weeks, it is probable that your letter
has not been selected. Don't give up; try again.
Those letters that are published are selected for their timeliness,
clarity, accuracy and length, as well as for the insight and perspective
they provide. Letters of 250 words or fewer are the most likely to be
published.
Our goal is to put together a daily package of diverse opinions
reflecting views from people representing all walks of life, different
areas of the country and overseas.
Again, thank you for your interest in USA TODAY. We look forward to
hearing from you again.
Sincerely,
Brian Gallagher
Editor of the Editorial Page
January 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
JD, the feminists are too busy seeking more and newer unfair advantages for women while claiming to seek equality. I'm so glad that this feminist hoax is coming to an end. Until feminists explain the paradox of women being victims and victors simultaneously, I will remain a staunch adversary.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I think some of these writers are shell-shocked that men are reacting the way they are. Thank you, Glenn.
I always recall hearing an umpire discuss Earl Weaver, the former fiery manager of the Orioles who used to pick fights with umpires all the time. The umpire's point was that because of Earl's tendency to "call" the umpires on their mistakes, the umpires were actually more vigilant and tried harder not to make mistakes when they called games involving the Orioles.
Glenn is Earl Weaver when it comes to unfair gender stereotyping against men, and we're his helpers.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
She shows a typical arrogance found in the media today. I dont know why but when they go thru journalism school they must attend a class "Basic Narrow Mindedness 101" that teaches them they are the shepards and the rest of us good little sheep must follow along.
Ive met and talked to a great many reporters and many of them have the same attitude "You dont tell us we tell you". When I was overseas we would get new reporters come by to interview the wounded soldiers and after that firt couple of interviews you could see thier air of self importance bubble really deflate. it was a wonderful thing to watch.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Judge Rufus Peckham wrote --
"Re: the comment at Feministing about men giving up "the unearned privileges they have under patriarchy" --
PLEASE, TAKE THEM! TAKE THEM!"
Years ago, pre-divorce, I got kicked out of a feminazi "anger management" class for making precisely the points you just did.
It pissed me off.
Not so much being expelled, but the lack of willingness on the part of the brainwashers -- licensed professional counselors -- to interrogate their own assumptions -- well, I'm still a tad mift about it.
In all of these psycho-babble counseling gulags, they instruct that you should "turn your anger in a positive direction."
I took their advice and became a men's rights advocate!
What I've learned is that it's best to turn your anger in "strategic" directions.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Though she couches her reasoning in pretty offensive terms, her advice may actually be some what sound and something couples should consider.
My dad worked in a pretty crummy job, and he did take early retirement. However, after talking it over with my mom they had a choice of taking either a) full pension until he passed away, or b) something less until they both passed away. And my dad chose b which was very smart because he passed away only a few years later, and my mother lived another 35 years.
So as financial advice goes, remember not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The columnist here is a sexist bigot, but if her advice applies to your situation, you may want to consider it.
One final thing though. My dad took early retirement and did not live until retirement age. So by taking early retirement he had time with my mom and time to start a second career as a teacher at a pre-school that he never would have had. He thoroughly enjoyed his work at the pre-school, unlike his first job, and they thoroughly enjoyed him. So there is a lot lot lot to be said about early retirement from crummy jobs and finding a new job.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
"The columnist here is a sexist bigot, but if her advice applies to your situation, you may want to consider it."
Right, Jerry. My beef is the callousness with which she treats men: "Men, make up for your flawed behavour by doing a huge favor for your oppressed wives -- keep working.." It was the opening paragraph that was so offensive -- she wouldn't dare address ANY other class with such disdain, but I would imagine she thought it was "funny," as did her editors.
Roy: "Years ago, pre-divorce, I got kicked out of a feminazi 'anger management' class for making precisely the points you just did."
As John Madden would say, "You can't argue with someone you can't argue with." I am happy to discuss any points radical feminists want to raise, so long as they can back up their arguments with objectively veriable evidence. (Not this made-up crap, about one out of four college women will be raped, etc.) I agree with a lot of what they say, but the major points they make -- about the wage gap, about women being excluded from fields, about the glass ceiling -- are largely not true. But you see, these points shouldn't be "opinions," all of this can be assessed by real evidence if people are open-minded enough to weigh it.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
That is awful. Men should retire when they want, and to heck with working until death just so the little woman can be comfortable. Maybe she should work until she is 77, since she will live longer.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Wow, that article was a doosey! I was astounded at the voracious evil greed of that cow!
January 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
...Would this statement ever fly in USA Today? "Ladies, now that your husband has been changing tires for you and taking out the garbage for 30 years, how about letting him retire at 57 and you pick up the slack? You've been spending his hard-earned money frivolously for decades while he takes years off his life working for your benefit. Now it's your turn, ladies."
January 16th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/block/2008-01-14-social-security-early-benefits_N.htm#uslPageReturn
people get on the link above and blast her!
January 16th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Stephen Says:
January 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I'm so glad that this feminist hoax is coming to an end.
----------------------------------------
Stephen, whatever dream world you're living in, wake up. "This feminist hoax" is not coming to an end. In fact it's alive and well, kicking and screaming discrimination, sexism, rape, misogyny etc in every direction. When was the last time you watched TV? How many MRA blogs, TV programmes, newspaper columnists etc are there when compared to the feminist equivalent? Coming to Glenn's blog everyday might have given you a false sense of rapid progress in this movement, but keep in mind that 3/4 of the US population have no clue a MRM even exists. Feminism is a household name. And even if most people knew about the MRM, I think a lot of them, particularly men sadly (though a lot of women too), would have a negative view of it. As is typical, the MRM garners most of its support from men and women who have been through the sexist-toward-men justice system we have in place. For those who have not gone through it, many are of the opinion that MRAs are a bunch of misogynists and whiners or they couldn't care a rat's behind one way or the other.
Personally, I just don't get it. I'm not dismissing that my gender still faces a lot challenges today, but how does that dismiss the fact that men are being treated unfairly in an increasing number of areas in society? Sexism toward men is an accepted work place phenomenon. You can't turn on your TV, watch a movie or go to your local pub with hearing some form or another of man-bashing, heck you see it in how women relate to their male partners with little or no respect, emotional terrorism, belittle(ment) - a la Leslie Mann's character in the movie Knocked-Up, the H.U.G.E sense of entitlement western women have etc and etc ... I just don't get how people can't see these things. I don't get how people can still think western feminism is about "human rights" as one woman stated over at feministing. I don't know what I'm missing, but how can someone say they're for human rights, yet ban you once you start making references to male suffering even while you ARE on topic? Check out Jessica's responses to a poster called HouseWife under the link Roy provided. Are men not humans?
Feminism is still, and will remain, a powerful organisation until it's opposition (the MRM) is no longer looked up with ridicule and disdain. Therefore, feminism is by no means "a thing of the past", particularly now with a female running for President. Modern Feminists have jumped on this opportunity to revive their license to spread misandry. Just check out some of the leading feminist blogs. All they're talking about is the rampant sexism that's coming to light during Clinton's campaign and how the movement "still has a long way to go" and "needs to be revived" (and Hillary's race for the Presidency is evidence of this). Here are some interesting links:
http://www.hillarynowobamalater.org/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15herbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
In the latter link you'll find an article by Bob Herbert, a man who Jessica (feministing) professed to have a crush on. Somehow, I don't think he'd be privy to Jessica's affections had he had any other opinion.
And for the record let me just say that I'm very pleased about the prospect of a woman running for President, and I hope to see a female (qualified and the best person for the job) in the White House within my lifetime. That female, however, should not be Hillary Clinton. Which reminds me of an interesting chat I had with my DH .... he brought up a point that I, in my oft optimistic naivete, have never considered. He said the possibilities of another woman, a non-feminist that sympathises with men's and father's issues, having a viable run for the White House is next to none, that any future viable female candidate is likely to be staunchly indoctrinated with feminist dogma ... pretty much like Hillary Clinton. I can't decide whether I agree or not. I know it's a little off topic, but what are your takes on this? Do you think we'll ever have another female candidate who isn't a feminist, or if she is, only a moderately so, like Susan Hoff Sommers?
As for the OP, I sent Ms. Block a letter. Unfortunately in the process of posting it here it got deleted. Anyhow I pretty much got the same reply as The Other Mike D, which in essence is fine by me. I bet she never expected the backlash, probably thought all the "real men" would see the humour in it and go on their merry way.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
"I think some of these writers are shell-shocked that men are reacting the way they are. Thank you, Glenn.
I always recall hearing an umpire discuss Earl Weaver, the former fiery manager of the Orioles who used to pick fights with umpires all the time. The umpire's point was that because of Earl's tendency to "call" the umpires on their mistakes, the umpires were actually more vigilant and tried harder not to make mistakes when they called games involving the Orioles.
Glenn is Earl Weaver when it comes to unfair gender stereotyping against men, and we're his helpers."
My sentiments exactly. One of the greatest reasons why misandry is so prevelant in our culture is because we let it be. It's common, it's trivial. Not anymore. Even in my everyday life, I call out women who make sexist comments, and let them know that men like me are not going to stand for it anymore. (ex: just basic stuff, such as shooting a dirty look or audibly scoffing at some girl making anti-male while whining about her boyfriend or something).
January 16th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
This is only an issue because of men's much shorter life expectancies. Maybe a little more attention to mens health is a solution.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
While she states that men earn more, I find it amazing that she believes he should work longer in order give her a higher standard of living after his presumed earlier death. Especially when considered that he had raised her standard of living all the years she was alive. As any good feminist or entitlement princess will tell you his income (human capital) belongs to her - he earned more therefore (by way of averaging the two incomes) her standard was raised. His of course is lowered but that fact is 'void' or 'cancelled out as it her entitlement. No it doesn't count he owes her.
Also, staying at home with children (apart from the joy this brings) would also contribute to his lowered standard. Yes, she (in this case) can't earn as much while at home, however, it isn't often that while she is not earning her own income that some one else isn't compensating for this by supporting her. Would it not be safe to assume that her half of the children's expenses were covered too? The time lost with the children and added financial burden he faced of course doesn't count.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Davina, truth is the match and feminism is the straw. Feminism's worst enemy is the truth. If it is doing so well then why are American men dumping American women? Because they're fed up with feminist crap. It was a bad idea to begin with and more people realize it every day.
January 16th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
[...] Some women are the primary breadwinners, of course, but in the majority of couples, husbands retire with higher lifetime earnings than their wives. (more…) [...]
January 16th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
James,
Stats for Amish...see first paragraph:
http://gerontology.umaryland.edu/documents/Advances_in_Aging_fall031.pdf
The above study cites a combination of genes and living conditions and a few months ago there was one that I am having trouble finding that explicitly said that living conditions (and the fact that both genders tend to experience similar environments and levels of stress in the Amish community) are huge influences...that one even made national news believe it or not. Back when men and women lived to ~30, and more women died in child birth (while men died in defense et al), the rate was probably about the same as "old-age" diseases were much less likely.
So does census data - which is an overall view of population - say that men die earlier then women? Sure. I don't doubt that. I posit though that going forward, if you and your wife eat together, are the same age, and you both work the same number of hours at equally demanding jobs over a lifetime, then both of your are probably going to live about the same. Obviously that's an N of one, so your results my vary. If you carry that out to the whole professional population, my guess is you will still find that women outlive men, but by much less then the overall population.
January 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Incidentally, here's a good article on the difficulties of gauging lifespan.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5362/395
And my overall point is that life expectancy stats can be confusing and dangerous. If you believe that your life will be shorter then a woman's it probably will be (self-fulfilling prophesy). But if you take care of yourself, see the doctor as much as she does, and have similar career aspirations, you and she will likely live to about the same age. Considering that women are entering a stressful workforce at a fast rate, my guess is in future decades, the gap will tighten and there was a huge tussle this past summer when a study came out underscoring that idea.
January 16th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
callum: "You seem to put through thinly-veiled threats that as she is a woman, her journalistic integrity is less of a man."
Well put. Since GS is going the route of underscoring misandric articles in mainstream media (which I 100% agree with) hopefully the majority of letters are well-articulated.
Davina: "Feminism is still, and will remain, a powerful organisation until it's opposition (the MRM) is no longer looked up with ridicule and disdain"
Well said sister! It does us no good to think that any of this is coming to end. Will right prevail over wrong? Yes...I do think so. But we need to be among the vanguard of people who are ready to push back.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Davina -- "... heck you see it in how women relate to their male partners with little or no respect, emotional terrorism, belittle(ment) ..."
I would offer the caveat that it is primarily North American women who have been marinated in feminism that are the arrogant, predatory harpies to which you refer.
It is amazing how much more feminine, intelligent, and balanced (non-psychotic) women in other cultures may be.
I say "may" because feminism is a virus and it has begun to spread to lands once blessed by its absence.
Given their standard qualities of angry entitlement and intellectual infantilism, it amazes me that American women can still find men to marry them.
Oh,I forgot.
The lobotomizing virus of Chivalry has not yet been eradicated.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
My letter:
Re.
Husbands should consider delaying Social Security benefits
USA Today, 1/15/08
To Ms. Block, and the Editor,
The overt and blatant misandry in the opening of this article sadly detracted from
the potentially valid advice being disseminated. In essence, the very audience you were trying to reach turned a deaf ear because of the unprofessional sexist approach. I
simply expect better of this publication; you have collectively let yourselves down
by stooping to this journalistic tactic. I will now take pause to remember and
honor the countless men who have "retired" early throughout our history,
on continents near and far, to afford us opportunities of free speech, even when exercised in objectionable and irresponsible ways. Perhaps next time, you too can take into account the sacrifices and rewards we all reap from the pursuits, sacrifices, and labor of men before espousing in a disdainful way.
Regards,
January 16th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Stephen, there are some decent women out there. My husband and I are equal. That does not mean I ask for the feminist equality, but we are equal. I am 39 and have worked over 18 years and for the first part of our marriage
I made more money than my husband and helped him get a better career. Now the tables have turned. With that said
our retirements are not OURS but individual. I don't see him as my supporter, but if he makes more and provides us
more stability, I am very thankful to him. Unfortunately, I have seen too many women complain about the man instead
of being appreciative for their hard work. There is no cleaning, cooking, picking up socks or even taking care of kids
that compares to the mental burden of being the primary bread winner. That stress is more than all the others...
I know, I've been ok both sides.
And yes, inactually read this and sent it to Glenn because I was offended and would never imagine thinking of money more than my husband enjoying retiremet WITH me.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
sorry about some of the spelling...typing in a tiny keyboard
January 17th, 2008 at 12:18 am
This article doesn't bother me. It really doesn't; the difference between this post and other articles posted here is that this is someones opinion. She's free to state that she thinks men should work until they're put into the ground, and i'm free to laugh at her while giving her the finger.
In my opinion the problem isn't so much anti-male OPINIONS but anti-male LAWS. A radical feminist can think all men are potential rapists and I could care less. But if the same feminist convences the government to pass coercive laws, enforced at the barrel of a gun; that take away my right to life, liberty, or property I care a whole lot.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:24 am
My letter
Ms. Block,
Any validity that can be attributed to your article's main subject is seriously undermined by your sexist joke (was it a joke actually, one can't really tell) in the first paragraph.
I fully realize that you were trying to ingratiate yourself with your readers, and that male-bashing is a no-risk, trendy, practice in western culture, including journalism. I wish to protest this latest example of misandry to you personally.
The fact is if your article had started like this: "Ladies you can finally repay for all the frivolous spending of your man's money on shoes and dresses by letting him retire early and carry your weight professionally for a few more years.", you or anyone else for that matter would be out of a job and maybe facing legal actions like Don Imus. Of course, in your case, it was only men you insulted, so no harm done, right?
Wrong.
The vast majority of men want to matter. They want the result of their actions to be a positive, recognised and valued contribution to their family, society, and world, no matter what form it takes.
Does that society, does that family, sees him as anything more than a temporary, unwanted and ultimately disposable means to an end? That is the question that more and more men have been asking themselves recently. That is what your "joke" reflects about the general attitude toward men's value to his partner: secondary to her entitlements and her needs.
I suggest you investigate the roots causes of these differences in the social security system and why men die earlier than women on average. Maybe you will see that those men are not the slackers that your stereotypes want to portray.
Looking forward to your reply.
Louis
January 17th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Also I forgot to add. You or your spouse outliving your money is a real problem meriting serious consideration. But there are plenty of ways to address this problem without being forced to work for another 10 years.
You can buy:
1.) An annuity with an optional continued payout to a 3rd party (your wife in this case) in the event of your death.
2.) A life insurance policy. (duh)
3.) A fixed income financial instrument such as a high quality bond.
Options 1 & 2 also offer optional inflation guards. Also if you choose option 2 when your young enough it can build cash value and eventually pay for it’s self and increase in value if it’s a whole life policy. That way when it comes time to retire you don’t have to worry about continued payments. Everything’s already taken care of.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:27 am
"The vast majority of men want to matter. They want the result of their actions to be a positive, recognised and valued contribution to their family, society, and world, no matter what form it takes." Beautifully stated Louis and some very sound advice from Hunter. Perhaps a financial columnist could come up such good advice too. You would need someone to put their interest in finance first rather then using it as a tool for her main interest of spreading sexist beliefs.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:53 am
JD,
"And again, we find a woman arguing to keep women dependent on men. Where are the feminists, eh?"
Something tells me they wouldn't have too many issues with being dependant on a dead man... it's not like the dead guy can expect anything for the comfort they have provided with their demise.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:01 am
whatamess, I know that there are some decent women out there. I meet them every day. However, I believe that the laws of the land are making women worse all the time. I would like to point out that when men were in charge women were treated very well and had many privileges. But now that women are in charge they've thrown the well being of men into the toilet. Also, when men ran things we had a democracy. But now that women run things we have a Conspiracy. I'm trying to figure out why possessing power brings out the worst in women.
I have to admit that I have been a bit harsh in the past couple of days. It started with one of those stupid, multi-cultural, politically correct, feminist pictures on my Yahoo! homepage. It was an article about people quitting their jobs because of bad bosses. Well the picture had an oriental woman in front.Behind her and to her left was what looked like an Arab man. Behind him and to his left was a white woman. And finally, behind her and to her left was a black man. I wanted to throw up. This is America dammit. Then the next day Yahoo! had an article concerning when a woman should dump a man. Some days I truly get fed up with all this superior woman foolishness. Then I run into feminists who know they lied through their teeth to gain power and now they're so smug and irresponsible about it.
So I wrote Yahoo! and protested their sorry pictures and articles and I'm going to target more media outlets for their anti-male bias. Really, I need a break from all this. I hate living in a Matriarchy.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I suppose that next, men will be told that if they really loved their wives, they should kill themselves before their life insurance policies lapse ....
January 17th, 2008 at 11:39 am
That's a good one Jay.
I don't live in the US and because the same anti-male laws are here, I see the impact everyday.
We live in a nice community and struggle to make ends meet because of cs... We live here because
I worked hard for years to afford it, only to be taken away by the poor woman my husband married first
who has his child and cs and asks for more because she can't make it. Yet she has just had her 4th
child!!! I commented to my husband that we are close with about 8 of our neighbors. 1/2 have never
been divorced and the other 1/2 the woman is divorced with children and receiving CS. None are divorced
men paying cs. They are all living the nice life because of the cs and private schools and alimony their ex's
have to pay them and not a single one of the women work except a couple work FOR their current husbands.
Where is the justice? And of course those are also the
women who continuously bad mouth their husbands and their
abilities and have it all...
Everytime I read such anti-male issues, I think of my son first. If it would be unfair for my
son to be treated this way, then no matter how angry one could be at their spouse or ex spouse,
one cannot justify applying such horrible laws or anti-male bashing to any other male.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Umm . . . yeah not going to happen. Both my parents died in their 50's. If I can retire I am going to but the way someone (not me) mismanaged credit cards and a home equity I do not even know if it will be feasible but I am going when I can and not taking reduced retirement money from work to provide extra time for my wife. Seems selfish and it is but she has been guilty of that also. I am not looking for a pound of flesh just feel I deserve to retire the way I want.
b
January 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
whatamess -- "My husband and I are equal."
No, you're not. Not even remotely.
Wanna try a little experiment?
You dial 911 and tell the dispatcher "I'm afraid of him."
Then have your husband dial 911 and say "I'm afraid of her."
Then, wait twenty minutes and post back here on who got arrested!
Equality?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Roy there is no need for whatamess to bother doing that I have the answer here.
That link goes to the Tyra Banks Show recap section where they did a series of "What would you do?" tests. They led off the show with three fake situations in which two people are arguing (and escalated to physical contact) on a public sidewalk and watched to see what the passing pedestrians would do. They were:
A man arguing with a man.
A woman arguing with a woman.
A man arguing with a woman.
In the first two no one did anything and some even stopped to stare. But in the third a firefighter stopped to break it up (by getting in the man's face of course) and a few minutes later actual NYPD officers arrived on the scene and Tyra and her crew had to stop them from acutally arresting the guy.
Now let me ask this: Why was there situation of a woman getting agreesive with a man?
Sorry for the threadjack Glenn.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Now let me ask this: Why was there NOT a situation of a woman getting agreesive with a man?
Forgot the most important part.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Danny, you should see this one:
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2741047
January 17th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Wow. I'm never, ever, getting married again.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Danny, a man arguing with a woman is synonymous with a woman arguing with a man. No need to waste letters on that one.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
OK Roy, you are right. We are equal in our home only.
As I went to fix some issues with the electric company today,
the man told my husband to "control" me because he didn't
like my questioning him the way I was...to which my husband quickly
replied that he had nothing to control as just because he didn't like
women questioning him, that was not his problem.
No, we don't live in the US and I don't complain because I also
know men are treated horribly by law enforcement and all other
poor woman bad man laws.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:37 am
whatamess-- "OK Roy, you are right. We are equal in our home only."
Girl, you still do not get it.
Your husband is NOT equal in your home.
Because if you ever get bored with him, you can have him exiled in a heartbeat by dialing 911 and telling a story about being afraid and maybe you could pinch your cheeks and the DV cops will see that as evidence of abuse.
You are in deep denial about the feminazi power you have at your disposal to bring down upon your soulmate just by dialing a phone.
You may see your home as a sanctuary for both you and your husband.
But the law says it is NOT!
Tell me I am wrong.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Danny, a man arguing with a woman is synonymous with a woman arguing with a man. No need to waste letters on that one.
Actually the experiment was about who was getting aggressive who with who. There is a HUGE difference between a woman escalating to physical contact on a man and man escalating to physical contact on a woman. That's what I meant
January 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
roy, I get what you mean. No matter how you slice it, in this society the wife is the lion's mouth and the husband has his head in it. There's no other way to perform this circus act. One of my problems with marriage is my wife could wake up and realize all the power she has at her disposal. And I'm not going to rely on her conscience or decency to come into play when it's my head in the lion's mouth. Marriage should be equal risk for both parties but it's not. So in the meantime I'll be a happy bachelor.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
How about the whole society to put more efforts to make men's life expectancy longer? Feminists think that women's longer life expectancy than men a "given" and base their argument on how to empower or make those women's extra 5 or so living years more comfortable tom them. Why not we work to eliminate this "difference" in life expectancy between men and women (remember feminists told us that 'difference" means "discrimination"!)? With all the advancement in science and medical science, why everyone is stil content with the fact that men have five or so less years to live?! That is, five or so years in beautiful retirement years, when one is freed from work and family support or most other life obligations, when one can enjoy life, etc. And men, despite having worked tirelessly and selflessly to support their families in their younger years, cannot enjoy those years as lon as women do. Women , on the other hand, who are in general not a primary breadwinner, and who have depended on their husbands' support for their livelihood, casually expect that men would graciously put off their retirement benefits (that these emen worked so hard for so many years) so that women can enjoy the maximum benefit when men die. What kind of creatures are they?
January 18th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
"Why not we work to eliminate this "difference" in life expectancy between men and women (remember feminists told us that 'difference" means "discrimination"!)?"
More funding is provided for breast cancer research than prostate cancer research, but I don't think that current feminists announce this.
(Personally, I consider nutrition to be a very important health factor.)
January 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am
The "stay at home" mom is generally done with child-rearing by age 50 yet will live to age 80. Your advice to her should have been to go get her own job for 15 years from age 50 to 65 and then she'd have her OWN social security. Yet you seem to feel that she's entitled to 30 years retirement as supported by her husband. Shame on you.
And men have to pick up plenty of pantyhose off the bathroom floor.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
There was an article somewhere (I think in the NYT) about women who are upset that their husbands are living longer than they expected them too, and hence denying them a long and happy widowhood.
The thing I'm having trouble untangling is: how much of the entitlement attitude shown by many of today's women is caused by current social trends, versus how much of it has always been there but masked by social myths?
January 20th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
New York state office of DV has reached a new low.
http://www.opdv.state.ny.us/public_awareness/coachboys_campaign/index.html
They have this on billboards all over NY. Notice how they make the young man look
like a thug in his hoodie, just to look at this bb does not make you think its about DV
it makes the young man look evil and diabolic.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
A funny story: once my dad really did give my mom a knife set for christmas (and nothing else) she really let him have it. That never happened again. But what's funny is decades later just 2 years ago she wanted a new vacume cleaner, and kept telling us which one she wanted, but none of us bought it or even chipped in because we were too afraid of getting in trouble! After Christmas she said "why did no one get me a vacume i kept saying I need a new one" I just said "because of the knives!" heh.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 am
I understand that individuals who are married mutiple times enable more than one person to collect social security benefits based on their earnings. The system is way out of control. No one should collect benefits based upon some elses earning. This is a long time over due needed reform.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:34 am
Normally, I would not respond to such nonsense, but in this case, I'll make an exception. So let me see if I understand Ms. Block's reasoning: in order to provide for wives, husbands should forget about retirement &
basically work "...to the grave"? What about developing alternate sources of income for the family (that includes
husbands, wives and any children under legal age)? How about we explore legitimate, profitable investment
strategies instead of working a "job" which in this economy & time period, there is not even a guarantee of keeping
(can you say "downsizing" and "outsourcing")? Not to generalize the Women's Movement, but some of it's "leaders"
do a great disservice not only to women, but to society on the whole. And this drivel from an "educated" individual.
If this is the best advice educated people can offer, I will gladly remain a fool!
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
Dear Sandra,
Here's some advice for married women who's husbands will turn 62 this year: If you want to make up for all the times you didn't contribute to the family's financial well being, the times you spent his hard earned cash on frivolous things, the times you treated him poorly because his work had to come first in order to support you and the children - write him a long letter apologizing and thanking him for giving thousands upon thousands of hours of his life to a job he probably hated, for your benefit. Go out and find a fantastic thank you card, then put that letter along with his first social security check and retirement benefit check inside. Give it to him at breakfast on his first day of retirement and then look forward to your retirement years together, after all... he EARNED it.
Average Joe
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I found this article and the article further down Glenn's page on VENUS: The Dark Side (about women with borderline personality disorder) to be somewhat amusing in that I saw portions of each in the other. They go together like ham and eggs.
My hat's off to you guys for the well thought-out discussion. I think the tide has turned. Getting the truth out is helping. I see more evidence of this every day. As you probably remember from Newtonian mechanics- a pendulum reverses direction at zero velocity and passes through center at maximum velocity.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I hope you guys don't mind that I plagiarized portions of your letters to assemble one to the editor and to Ms. Block. It sure helps to have sample letters, which reduces the writing time dramatically, and gives you more ideas.
Dear Editor,
Please censure Ms. Block for her irresponsible and reprehensible misandrist, male-bashing article. Her blatant misandry turns off readers and invites lawsuits.
Ms. Block,
As a man I found your article and conclusions reprehensible. Your assumptions that men should continue working past age 62 just for the benefit of a spouse after they pass away is insulting and one of the most heinous examples of misandry in the media I’ve seen in a long time.
Many men work countless hours in thankless or dangerous jobs and are relieved when they can finally sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labors and possibly spend time with the family that may have taken a back seat to career goals. According to your article however this is irresponsible behavior and they should consider going on even longer in those occupations regardless of the possible risks to themselves. You give no thought or mention whatsoever to the fact that many men die BEFORE retirement age trying to attain the very security you are telling them to keep reaching for so their widows will be comfortable.
What is also insulting in your article is the notion that all men should "pay back" their spouses for all their bad habits as if the spouses had no such habits that the husband may have had to endure over those years. It was my wife that had all those bad habits, and then committed adultery. I, like many men, have never come home with beer on my breath from a binge with the boys, left my socks on the floor, or put no thought into gifts at important holidays. Ms Blocks' attempt at humor fell far short. She casts a broad assumption that ALL men are like she described. Its blatant misandry and again I say it’s highly insulting to all men.
Were I your editor I would have never allowed such a skewed piece to ever be published and now that it has I would print an apology to all those this piece may have offended. Further, your misandrist article invites lawsuits from men and MRM organizations, because it is irresponsible male-bashing writing like this that influences and promulgates misandrist legislation.
This is not a "Womans’ Issue" this is a National Issue. Instead of trying to suggest that men work longer why don’t you do a piece that addresses how much money is owed to the system by the Federal Government or the fraud, waste and abuse that is rampant in the Social Security Administration and why it may not be there when my generation reaches that age. Or even better, a letter about how misandrist hiring laws skewed in favor of women make it harder for men to compete for work. This is fine, if it’s truly all “equal”. But it’s not - far from it. If a divorced woman with kids loses her job and can’t make ends meet, the government sends her a check. But if a divorced man with kids loses his job and can’t make ends meet, they send him to jail.
That would be much more RESPONSIBLE journalism then you have shown thus far.
.......
And yes, I am well aware that Ms. Block's article is an opinion, and therefore mentioning lawsuits in the letter to the editor is irrelevant. However, I didn't threaten lawsuits, I simply said that it "invites" lawsuits. Lawsuits make them nervous since they know that bringing suit (even if unsuccessful) has been a wildly successful strategy for small, vocal feminist groups. Ahem...
January 28th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Glen
Once again thanks to you and one of your readers for bringing the article written by Ms. Block of USA Today to everyone's attention.
Like many readers I found her statment men should delay retirement " If you want to make up for all the times you came home with beer on your breath, left your socks on the bathroom floor or gave your wife a DustBuster for Valentine's Day...."Many men who are eager to retire may chafe at this suggestion" highly offensive.
It is blantantly obvious Ms. Block not only sterotypes the male gender but fails to take into account that men are also parents. Many of whom by age 62 have grandchildren and would also like to spend quality time with them, sadly this is how many men attempt to make up for not having the luxury of that time to have spent with their own children due to working long hours.
I'm disappointed that USA today bites into this male bashing as acceptable. My father didn't drink beer or much of anything else nor leave his socks strewn about or give dustbusters. In fact he never once gave an appliance as a gift. His retirement was a godsend to me as I now can spend time with him.....you know to catch up for all those years when he was either working two jobs or going to college at night just to get a better paying job to give his four children all the things he didn't have. My mother; years younger than he continues to work and finds it both humorous and enjoyable that he takes care of the house inside and out, the dog, the cars, her redecorating projects etc... In fact she keeps him so busy we all wonder if earning a paycheck wouldn't be less hours!
As for my husband who also has never given an appliance, doesn't drink beer or much of any else for that matter the occasional picking his socks up off the floor greatly pales in comparision for all the times he shovels the snow, warms up my car, puts air in the tires, changes the oil, washes it, cuts the grass, washes dishes, makes the morning cofee etc without suggestion.
I am an able bodied woman with a career of my own; who has made both more money and less money then my spouse. Although we both work long hours his are without a doubt more demanding. I'm more concerned with not having him than getting his Social Security which is projected to be defunct when we are ready to collect.
Both Ms. Block and USA Today should be issuing an apology, the article was not only offending to men but many women as well.
Ms.Block could have easily written her article without bringing any gender or cheap shots into it whatsoever; or is it that she was airing her own pathetic expectations by publicly placing her spouse on notice how he can make up for giving her a dustbuster for Valentines day.