Vanna, what in the heck are you talking about re uni enrolments? Men and the tax base?

It's a simple proposition. Women earn less for numerous reasons which flows across the life span and most measurably in less super. Reread the article.

*and it is their choices that determine their ultimate financial position,*

Exactly, that kind of sums it up for all of us, men and women.

Women are simply far more talented at complaining, then are
men.

Cheryl, it's also a fairly simple proposition that the average does not always equate to specifics. In this case there is good reason to think that the financial situation of most of the women in the groups mentioned, especially divorced and bereaved women is not reflective of the average superannuation balance and may be substantially better than suggested.

It's also fairly clear that for most women still with long term partners the joint financial situation is more relevant.

The only group where the arguments put forward make much sense is long term single parents and in that case the averages may overstate their position.

For the article to have any real meaning it would have to back it's arguments with more specific details on the overall financial situation of the mentioned groupings.

R0bert

Cheryl,

Increasing the superannuation levy being paid by employers is going to cost the employees eventually, and they will most likely see a decrease in their next pay rise, or no pay rise at all.

As for your previous comments about female university graduates, it is obvious that universities are heavily corrupted by feminists, and I do wish universities or their advocates would tell the truth for once.

THE TRUTH IS: Female university students outnumber male students in a few areas (mainly nursing and teaching), but most female university graduates will not earn high wages, and almost 50% will not earn enough in their lifetime to ever repay their HECS fees, and this situation is unlikely to change in the long term, which means that their debts will have to be paid for by the taxpayer eventually, most of whom are men.

If only universities would tell the truth.

Vanna,

Anyone who manages to get in the phrase 'women hating' and freudian' in the first sentences of her reply is surely one of those 'university women' you were talking about. I suspect a first year student, but standards are falling so rapidly who knows?

Trying to convince women like Cheryl that men are people too is a waste of time. Their sense of entitlement runs so deep and their sense of female privilege so strong that whatever men do they will never be pleased. We should stop trying. These women are incapable of fairness. They only see men as useful for changing lightbulbs and hanging pictures anyway.

Dane

Look at some of the comments on this thread (including your own). These surely qualify as woman hating:

“I'm sure we'll do anything except ask women to take responsibility for themselves”
“women are far better at complaining and lobbying then are men”
“women spend lots more than men on NON ESSENTIALS”
“So men have to work longer and longer hours to pay women more money so they can retire in style, after a lifetime of reading women’s magazines, getting their hair done, shopping for that new look, watching day time TV, gossiping on the phone, getting their divorces, and whinging.”
“any divorced women who is not well catered for in retirement can only blame herself for inadequately screwing her ex”