You know the statement "Women own 60% of US wealth" is just MRA idiocy, right?

[hfojvt]

33. I think THIS is the first time I have seen it.

I didn't take the stats for 2011, not the gender breakdown.

So, looking at 2002 I find

110 million households
59 million married couples
19.3 million single men
31.7 million single women (dang it, those numbers SHOULD make dating easier for men)

By wealth it was (the first number being the percentage with zero or negative, the 2nd number being those with over $500,000 in net worth) (edit - the poorest vs. the richest, by percentage)
married - 11.9 vs. 12.4
men - 20.7 vs. 4.8
women - 24.0 vs. 3.6

at the next level (under $5,000 vs. over $250,000) (the next poorest vs. the next richest)
married - 5.7 vs. 14.3
men - 13.3 vs. 7.5
women - 13.7 vs. 7.3

at the next level (under $10,000 vs. $100,000 - $249,999)
married - 3.5 vs. 23.8
men - 6.8 vs. 15.1
women - 6.0 vs. 16.9

summing up all three (under $10,000 vs. over $100,000)
married - 21.1 vs. 50.5
men - 40.8 vs. 27.4
women - 43.7 vs. 27.8

In general, married couples are far more likely to be wealthier and far less likely to be wealth-poor than single households. Female households are slightly more likely to be wealth-poor, but also slightly more likely to be wealthy than male households.

As far as the total wealth owned by each gender, I find THIS interesting. If you assume that each household has an equal share of wealth and you can also figure that the women own half the wealth of the 59 million married couple households. Then women's share of the wealth would be (59/2 + 31.7)/110 = 55.6%

So 60% is perhaps NOT THAT unreasonable a guess.

And to say that something can NOT be proven, is not the same thing as debunking it.

As for what you said

"Women still vastly outnumber men in the poorest segments of our society." That appears to NOT be true on a percentage basis. 24% vs. 20.7% is NOT a huge disparity. But sheer numbers are gonna be greater for women because the 31.7 is far more than the 19.3.

However, you can use the SAME logic to say that women are much wealthier. By numbers there are 1.14 million female households with over $500,000 in net worth and only 0.93 million males households with that much wealth.

Now you may point to the Forbes 400 list being mostly men. But most of those men are NOT bachelors. Is MELINDA Gates somehow NOT fabulously wealthy? If she got divorced from Bill today and moved in with ME, wouldn't we be living the life of Riley? (Mel, call me, or send me an email) (or better yet, Oprah, drop me a line (so I won't be a home-wrecker)) Is she somehow poor as a church-mouse while only Bill and Bill alone lives the lifestyle of the very rich and famous? Further, I don't think that 400 out of 110,000,000 is somehow representative of the average reality as lived by the rest of us.

So, again, THIS "women are greatly under-represented in the wealthiest segments of society" does NOT fit the facts.

And neither does this "women are more likely to face destitution in their old age." The vast majority of women get married, and thus have some claim on their husband's assets in their old age. Further, unlike single guys, they are more likely to have children they might be able to turn to for support in their old age.

Somehow, I don't think that I can count on my fur-babies.


edit - link for 2011 census of wealth http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/

the fourth link under "latest releases" table 4