History of Feminism
Related: About this forumThe Vagina Bonus
The Vagina Bonus
I know women can do magical things with their vaginas, like shut them down during a rape. But who knew the biggest advantage was to get more money from Social Security? Who knew? I surely didnt. It makes me wonder why men dont use this as their retirement plan. It seems logical to me, that men should take a pay cut so they can collect more when they retire.
SS is calculated by a formula.
Social Security benefits are based on your lifetime earnings. Your actual earnings are
adjusted or indexed to account for changes in average wages since the year the earnings
were received. Then Social Security calculates your average indexed monthly earnings during
the 35 years in which you earned the most. We apply a formula to these earnings and arrive
at your basic benefit, or primary insurance amount (PIA). This is how much you would
receive at your full retirement age65 or older
The more you earn and pay in, the more you collect. Men generally earn more than women, so their SS checks are higher. Another factor of overall lifetime earnings is that some women will take time off the raise children. For those years their contribution into SS is ZERO. No credit towards SS security reflects in the amount they receive in retirement. Say a woman takes off 10 years to raise kids, her earnings are $35,000 that is a minimum of $350, 000 not calculated into the formula. (That is not including any raises she would have received during those years.)
Oh. Wait. The reason women collect more is simply they out live men and therefore collect longer. There are some simple solutions to remedy this. Women could be killed when their spouse dies. A more compassionate alternative is simply to stop sending checks to those women when their spouse dies. A flaw in those ideas, some women never marry. At the age of 75 (the average life of a man) unmarried women could be rounded up and disposed of or can have their SS cut off.
Or
..
Women can earn equal pay for equal work and contribute more into SS. I know a radical idea.
Social Security as it was designed was as sexist against both genders as you can get. It wasnt until a 1975 Supreme Court case that it began to be more equalized. Who argued that case? Ruth Bader Ginsburg. ***gasp a woman***
Until then, if a mans wife died, he could not collect on her SS. In contrast a woman could collect on her deceased husbands. A mans wife died during childbirth. She was a school teacher at the time and the husband was denied his claim. The outcome was SS was no longer called nor considered a wifes benefit, but a spousal benefit.
Archaic sexist beliefs:
Why was the wifes benefit only 50% of her husbands SS? When SS was set up, the men on the panel argued a women can live on less than a man because she knew how to cook and clean for herself. A man had to eat at restaurants and hire a maid. If a woman could not live on the amount, she could always move in with her children, clean house and help raise the grandkids. If a man could not live on his check, he also could move in with his kids but his contribution to the household was to sit on the front porch and smoke a pipe.
So there you have it. It took a man's case and a woman to argue it for women to get the vagina bonus of equality within the SS administration to begin.
More on the Court case and archaic beliefs:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RxnwJxtwZCUC&pg=PA87&dq=alice+kessler+harris+designing+women+and+old+fools&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DkOxT9jKH4O7iwKF6OSGBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=alice%20kessler%20harris%20designing%20women%20and%20old%20fools&f=false
boston bean
(36,219 posts)Absolutely fascinating isn't it.
Then to use the ERA as a cudgel as well. Basically stating that the ERA is finally going to do away with laws that promote a level playing field for women. That men will finally stop being discriminated against! It's the white supremacists argument to affirmative action, basically.
And to see these type of arguments being made on a progressive board, and be told that these are just disagreements where progressives on this site are allowed to hold these disgusting bigoted attitudes, is just beyond the pale. And then be attacked for pointing this crapola out!? And told by the PTB that we need to do a better job at educating. Because the way we are doing it, is offensive. Harumph!
What is offensive is the attack on women. Let's start there, please.
mercuryblues
(14,525 posts)for equal rights, BB
I know the thinking was mainstream at the time SS was set up. In todays world it is mostly republican think. SS was set up to purposely discourage women from working outside the home. Until I read the link, I did not know how much so and how blatent they were about it.
boston bean
(36,219 posts)Kudos to you!
You added a whole new dimension. These are the things that keep DU interesting!
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)I know women can do magical things with their vaginas, like shut them down during a rape. But who knew the biggest advantage was to get more money from Social Security? Who knew? I surely didnt. It makes me wonder why men dont use this as their retirement plan. It seems logical to me, that men should take a pay cut so they can collect more when they retire.
mercuryblues
(14,525 posts)I was being facetious. There is more than one way to skin a locked post by the jury.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Call me clueless due to the need for coffee.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)boston bean
(36,219 posts)that the OP does not support this. But others certainly do.
You can read about it here:
I keep getting told that men make far more money than women. If that is true, then it stands to reason that most of the higher income earners are men, while most of the lower income earners are women. Due to the bend points in Social Security benefit formula, the less you make the more benefit you derive from SS as a function of what you put in. Therefore it stands to reason that women are getting more benefit for their FICA dollars than men are. If ERA were ever to be ratified, it seems as if this is something that would have to be addressed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11147636
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)mercuryblues
(14,525 posts)I think mocking might be a more apt description.
Even though I am not new to the board, I really don't post much. This is probably about the 5th OP that I have made. IOW, I know other's posting style and humor, better than you know mine. I really should have taken that into account and made it clear what my intentions were.
I offer you a Have a
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)[img][/img]
Little Star
(17,055 posts)Thanks mercuryblues. k&r
niyad
(113,095 posts)Response to mercuryblues (Original post)
seaglass This message was self-deleted by its author.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It is so good to see such a thoughtful, well-written, intelligent piece. Filled with fact and rational thinking.
Thank you!
mercuryblues
(14,525 posts)a clear example where women's fight for equal rights have positively effected men. Yet are accused of having more rights?
Humor me for a bit.
The idea was also tossed around that women should be married to a man for a certain length of time and be within 5 years of his age in order to collect the wifes benefit. This was to prevent women marrying men just to collect the benefits. They called these women.......Designing Women. It was eventually dismissed as too intrusive on marriage.
It did occur to me that the sitcom, Designing Women's name was not a fluke.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)sorry, my brain just does not go in this direction. so interesting.
CrispyQ
(36,424 posts)I can see them all signing up for that!
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I must tell you, I'm glad you didn't offer up Sati as an alternative to paying widows benefits!
I have always resented the fact that women who stay at home to raise children...I was frequently the only parent available to chaperone trips etc.... are ignored when it comes to SS benefits. I wanted to punch Ann Romney in the face when she did her I love you women crap.
Thanks for this OP...