By Lynne Miles | 22 April 2005, 13:59

Thoroughly objectionable article in The Telegraph today \x96 a new report published today by the Centre for Economic and Business Research for the Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society indicates that in 20 years\x92 time there will be more female millionaires than male.

Of course that may be true, but detracts attention from the real issue, which is that women are still paid far less than men, predominantly because they tend to be concentrated in part time, lower skilled \x91women\x92s\x92 jobs. That a handful of women are able to excel is good news but it certainly doesn\x92t mean the battle is won.

Worse is the tone the article takes. Having begun by saying what canny financial and business skills this new millionaire female breed possess, it continues by pointing out that \x93women are increasingly using their business wiles to gain financial rewards from their private lives\x94 \x96 and goes on to categorise these as Boomers (inherited their husbands\x92 wealth) and SARAHS (Single And Rich And Happy - \x93who have made their cash through clever wrangling in the divorce courts”).

So more demonising of women who gain divorce settlements, characterising them as ball-breaking man-hating money grabbers. The reality, of course is not at all like these caricatured situations. The vast majority of women end up significantly financially worse off after a divorce than they were before it and that, in this country at least, the chances of gaining maintenance payments from an errant husband or father are increasingly slim.