I have already said that equality between the sexes, at least on isonomic issues, can be solved by changing the text of the laws, excluding the terms “man” and “woman” and substituting with “Brazilian”, “citizen”, “Person” or any term implying inclusion of both sexes. Thus, all rights as well as duties would be shared by both sexes. This is not so difficult: the Brazilian Federal Constitution says that the laws are for both sexes, but under the terms of the Constitution itself . This means that only the Constitution can treat men and women differently, and it does so mainly in two areas: mandatory military enlistment in times of peace and social security rules. Thus, in theory, any other legal distinction between the sexes would be questionable, unless there was an equivalent law for each sex or if different treatment was justified in a particular case. A very interesting article on equality can be found in Jus.com.br.
So I am trying to expand the range of sites I read on the Internet and I have decided to read a text about the minimum retirement age for men. While arguing against unconstitutional laws can work if you are a lawyer, prosecutor or judge, and that is not my case, how could anyone argue against the minimum retirement age for a man, when such rule is in the Constitution itself? In the article of Jus.com.br, we read the definition of equality used by Aristotle: if two people are unequal, you must compensate for the weakness of one so that it is on the same level as the other. For example, if two guys want to climb a wall, but one of them is a dwarf and the other is a giant, I have to give a bigger ladder to the dwarf. Alright, then.
Let us apply that definition from Aristotle to retirement, which, in Brazil, has different rules for men and women: men retire five years later, compared to women. Does it make sense for a guy to retire late if he will not have much time to live after retiring? On average, men die earlier than women. And that’s the point of the article I read earlier: why should men retire later, if they tend to die sooner, compared to women? This should justify a lower retirement age for men. That’s an interesting argument.
Let it be noted that I do not like the Brazilian pension reform as it currently stands, but if we really need a reform, it must be done in a fair way, not only when it comes to men, but also when it comes to the poor, because the so-called pension reform is brutal with poor people, while leaving the rich mostly untouched.
So, yeah, I’m pretty sure most of you knew about this already. But, just in case of someone not knowing, I’m throwing it out there. Unequal treatment must be justified and the inequality of retirement rules is not justifiable, in my modest opinion.