It’s a supreme irony of the pensions industry.
One of the biggest players is named after a woman, and features a woman – the enigmatic, eponymous Scottish widow character – in all its adverts.
Ironic because women still face fundamental disadvantages when it comes to pension saving, thanks to a combination of workplace convention, employment and tax law.
And ironic because pension companies, like many financial services firms, are often male-dominated.
The WASPI saga embodies how women have been discriminated against by the pensions establishment for years.
The increase in the state retirement age for women is set to rob women born in the 1950s of tens of thousands of pounds’ worth of state pension.
While the government may have a point in its call for gender equality on the state pension age, the rushed and poorly communicated plan gave as many as three million women almost no time to prepare for such a fundamental change.
To be fair, much of the discrimination in the pensions system is unconscious. But that doesn’t make it any less real or any less egregious.
Either way, the net result is pretty shocking. Last year figures from Aegon revealed that on retirement, the average man will have built up a private pension of £73,600 – three times the £24,900 saved by the average woman.
The blame for this imbalance cannot be laid at the pensions industry’s door. Women typically earn less than men, and so have less money to save into a pension.
Women are also more likely than men to take a break from work to raise children, and many will put their pension saving on hold while they’re not earning.
The finger should instead be pointed at the tax relief system, which – as is much debated in these pages – favours the better-off, and by extension, is frequently less favourable to women.
But if the pensions system as a whole penalises women, what can be done to redress the balance?
Clearly the pensions industry would like more women to save more into private pensions. But we’re unlikely to see pension providers rushing to launch women-specific products or marketing campaigns.
While the prospect might have the best intentions, the risk that such an approach might be seen as patronising or sexist will deter many. Anyone who remembers Michael Winner’s toe-curling adverts flogging motor insurance to women will know what I mean.
Meanwhile we shouldn’t expect auto-enrolment to be a silver bullet either. While it has got more people – and therefore more women – into the pension habit, its link to the workplace means women benefit less if they take time out to raise a family.
So the only realistic way to tilt things in women’s favour would be to use the single most powerful lever available to the government – pension tax relief.
