I have a quick question if it's not too late. Even though I'm a member, I'd like to know why WASPI is so against the "cost neutral" option that occasionally crops up, whereby both women and men could opt to take a reduced pension from an earlier age. It's not compensation (presumably the fight for this would go on), and in a purely financial sense there would be losers (who lived to a ripe old age on that smaller pension) and winners (who died sooner, but at least had their pension for a couple of extra years). It's a system that's already offered in other countries, notably Germany. I feel that for some women, particularly those with health issues that give them a shorter life expectancy, this might be a choice they'd like to have.
Exploratory Essay Help: Navigating the Uncharted Territory of Writing
Where did 'please' and 'thank you' go?
Does anybody work out with kettlebells ?