The thing is that a lot of women major in pointless majors and I hate to say that way but too many women go into teaching, we need to major more in business, science, math, etc.

Things that pay more, many women choose majors like sociology and no wonder they never get anywhere. I know it sounds bad but women still choose majors that aren’t very practical, yes guys do it too, but women more so. Even though we live in very modern times many women are still traditional and expect their husband will provide for their future.

They don’t like to think of divorce or having a separate savings account because they think its going to jinx their marriage, no its never fun to think about such things, but its better to be safe than sorry. It seems many women even in the present day still don’t earn until its too late.

That’s why I’m reading about retirement as much as possible, I don’t want to be like that, I want to have enough savings. I’m 27, I’m not counting SS to be there for me. Young people and young women have to be their own backup plans we really do.

In some countries the government forces you to save, I wonder if we should start doing that, I take more of a libertarian approach when it comes to politics so I really don’t like the idea of forcing people to do anything but at the same time maybe we should?!

Reason why: many, if not most, people getting married simply do not have the in-depth conversations and understandings about finance and its role in a marriage that drawing up a prenup should precipitate.

That being said, it would help if the prenup could be re-characterized as a mutual financial disclosure and life goals document, because the common perception of a prenup is that it is merely a treaty establishing who gets what in case of war.

DH and I married at 41 and 35, respectively, and did not do a prenup – because we had no assets, but also because during the two years leading up to marriage we had some very intensive discussions of our financial status and goals.

One other thing that more people, but perhaps especially women, need to do is understand what their bare minimum acceptable quality of life is, how much it costs, and how much they as individuals are realistically able to contribute to that. Someone with a minimalist approach to life is not going to have the high income requirements of someone who feels she truly needs a 5-bedroom house.

And a final thing that women in the U.S. really need to do is get over the idea that the only “normal” living situations are 1) alone or 2) with a man (married or not) or 3) with parents. I think we’re going to see a lot more adult women living with other women as roommates in the next decade.

I think our culture encourages women to ignore the financial aspects of these life changing events. That needs to change.

Agree with Bill (#35 above) – crazy to leave behind a proportion of your salary if there is a match (not to mention the 100% Return of Investment)….

Both my ex-husband and I are better off financially, despite the divorce. We supported each other through a period of great professional growth, and by pooling our resources we were able to purchase a house well before the market was at its peak. Yes, we had to “split the pot” during the divorce, but we each got some valuable assets.

Financially we were very good together. We just weren’t very good together in other ways.

Should prenuptial agreements be the norm rather than the exception?

When I was financially leveled during a divorce in my mid 30s, 9 Steps to Financial Freedom was the first book I read. From then on, I was consumed with hunger for financial education and kept on reading. I also took a few classes in personal finance. At the last class, when I realized I was no longer hearing anything new, I was able to let go of my anxiety about retirement planning. I had but one thing left to do. SAVE!

I’m 48 now. According to all calculators I’ve run – if I keep going as I am now, and figuring in SS at just 70% of today’s estimate, I will have well over $1 million at retirement.

Incidentally, I’ve never been a high earner. Average or slightly above. But I also never had the burden (and joy) of kids, and I think that makes a huge difference.

There is still inequality in pay among the genders. It may be shrinking, but altogether too slow. The recession has hurt gains as well. But I now know more women who in charge of their finances and retirement savings, and are far more savvy than I am. I remain optimistic that women will become more empowered.

Even though I don’t have children and have no plans to ever do so, I still shorted myself on retirement savings until after I got married at 30. It just seemed there were all sorts of reasons not to worry about retirement until I became a “real grown up” when I got married.

I’ve been contributing to my (employer matched) 401(k) for 12 years now and am always happy to get the quarterly statement and be reminded of how I’m taking care of my own retirement. I’m also grateful that when we divorced, my ex-husband and I decided to leave each other’s retirement funds alone. It would have been a wash either way, but the psychological effect of having to cut up that account would have been so much worse than any of the other accounts we had to divvy up.

I guess this article points to yet another way that having a uterus is a drawback in this culture.

Sierra doesn’t find the 70% vs. 71% disconcerting, but the fact that “Women tend to earn less, be away from their jobs more often because of disabilities, pregnancies and family issues, and often invest less aggressively. On top of that, women tend to live longer than men and therefore need to rely on their retirement savings for more years.”

She doesn’t actually offer any statitics to support this statement which, in my opinion, is the most important part of the article.

I’d like to see the data on how women fare vs. men in retirement. How much has a typical 50, 60, 65 year old woman saved, vs. a man her age? At what age will a woman statistically run out of her nest egg? How many more women count only on Social Security?

participation among women increased 9 points to 70%
men increased 5 points to 71%

That means that the previous rates for men and women were 66% and 61%, respectively. Now it’s 71% and 70%. It also shows reduced contributions that are pretty close (21 vs 22%) between men and women.

The title for this article could be:
“Fairly narrow gender gap in retirement plan participation effectively disappears”

I don’t understand how that’s disconcerting.

As for the complexities of women’s retirement, they are difficult to overcome. I think that for women of my generation (X) and younger we have seen our mothers/aunts/grandmothers struggle and are learning to rely on ourselves far more than previous generations did.

I’m mid-30s and trying to get a handle on our retirement right now. It’s a vast field of information to wade through and people of both sexes have difficulty with it. Good to see that women are catching up to the men, though.

I’ve since remarried and have kept up with adding to my retirement account and what I have actually exceeds what my husband has saved. (He invests in real estate). We have different investment styles and I tend to be more aggressive.

Bottom line is that you have to look out for yourself and don’t assume that someone will be there to take care of you.

As a self-employed taxpayer, you’re likely eligible to contribute a ton to retirement accounts each year.

You have to start acting just a little selfish and pay yourself a good 15-20% of your income!!

That’s what I did