a href=”http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1692″Glenn Sacks /a wonders about a emUSA Today /emfinancial colunm that blames men for retiring early:br /br /blockquoteUSA Today financial columnist Sandra Block’s column below all but comes right out and says that men are selfish for retiring at retirement age. Instead, men should continue to work, work, work while–guess what?–women should retire earlier./blockquotebr /br /The a href=”http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/block/2008-01-14-social-security-early-benefits_N.htm”opening paragraph of the article /agives a clue as to the bias the writer feels towards men:br /br /blockquoteHere’s some advice for married men who will turn 62 this year: If you want to make up for all the times you came home with beer on your breath, left your socks on the bathroom floor or gave your wife a DustBuster for Valentine’s Day, hold off on filing for your Social Security benefits./blockquote br /br /Yes, those troublesome men. They die earlier than women and therefore should work longer to provide for their merry widow in retirement. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? It seems to me that if you are going to die sooner, you will have a shorter retirement to enjoy and therefore, you should retire sooner, not later. But, naturally, the writer looks at what is best for women, so guys, get back to work so your wife won’t have to. br /br /Or on the other hand, maybe someone should suggest to wives that since their husbands will be supporting them long after they’re gone, maybe the wives should try to make the few years their husbands have remaining a bit more pleasant. Think you’ll see ithat/i article any time soon?