Killarney

I interpret your comments as saying that married women are not disadvantaged by the superannuation system but that women that get divorced can be.

I largely agree but I think we need some perspective on these women.

Firstly, most divorcees (especially the younger ones) will remarry so that they may acquire spouse or death benefits again through their new partners' superannuation. Also during the divorce settlement superannuation is taken into account and a separating wife often gets compensation from her ex. Divorce generally is a financial disaster for both parties. People who remain "spouseless" will lose out on potential spouse/death benefits from a partner's superannuation.

Secondly, the group you refer to (divorced women aged 65 and over) is demographically quite small. Of women aged 65 and over, 45 per cent are married and 42 per cent are widowed. Only about 9 per cent are divorced or separated.

You also say that "The few women who have remained single all their lives, who had to support themselves throughout their working lives, have a far better chance of a comfortable retirement than formerly married women". This group comprises only 4 per cent of women aged 65 and over. They may in theory have a better chance of providing for theor retirement. In reality (far from being better off than other women) they are generally the worst off group in retirement. This reflects that those who are the least marriageable (perhaps due to disability or health) are also the least employable and least well off.

I don't believe the stats are unfounded?

Single women even today seem to face more difficulty than blokes in obtaining a competitive mortgage or a business loan or superannuation that continues as they take maternity leave.

A couple is an entity, not two singles living in a business relationship, where their combined income is the exclusive property of the so called bread winner. But rather belongs equally to both parties. Don't like it, don't commit to it!

Many mums are expected to become stay at home mums doing all the cooking and cleaning, then picking up the entire load if hubby is killed or hurt or like many a deadbeat dad, takes of as soon as the load gets a little tough.

I remember my own wartime mother doing without many a meal so we kids could go to bed without a tummy rumbling with hunger. And later setting off to work before sunrise, only to return well after sunset too tired even to eat the simple meals we kids managed!

One only needs read some of the comments here to realize even some of the so called fair minded blokes are woefully ignorant of the problem or the extent of the gender gap in retirement.

And nobody ought to be compelled to stay in an abusive relationship simply to protect their so called retirement income! Time to remove the last vestiges of inequality.
Alan B.

"Many mums are expected to become stay at home mums doing all the cooking and cleaning, then picking up the entire load if hubby is killed or hurt or like many a deadbeat dad, takes of as soon as the load gets a little tough."

I wonder if anyone has done honest research into this?

Especially asking women, if they wanted to work full time, partime or to stay home and look after the children?