History of Women and Finances

Common law is a legal system that prevailed in Europe to this day and is essentially a body of law based largely on custom, practice, and folkways. Even when societies advanced, technology changed, or gender norms shifted, momentum was hard to build because the law was based on tradition. For women, traditional norms made economic progress difficult. Women had little right to own property or inherit money unless it was negotiated in advance of a marriage. Her dowry was her main security. A dowry is money that a woman takes with her in marriage. It functions as financial protection from her father or guardian if her husband is abusive or fails to provide. Dowries essentially disappeared from practice in the 19th century. In the absence of financial independence, jewelry has functioned as one of the few forms of property women could reliably own and control. Unable to invest in banks, women wore their wealth. Across many cultures, pieces such as gold ornaments or gemstone jewelry acted as a woman’s personal wealth, assets separate from her husband or family, and often passed from mother to daughter. As dowries, wedding gifts, or inheritances, jewelry provided women with a tangible resource they could draw upon in difficult times.

Still, around the world, women worked and earned money. At times and in some places, the work was gendered, while in other contexts, men and women worked together in the same fields. Many women became masters of their trade and were notable for their business acumen. In the Middle Ages, most jobs saw men and women working together, as work was necessary to survive with women being excluded from very little. While women and their families together for their communal success, women’s work was lower-paid, with sources showing women earned only about three-quarters of what men made.

Laboring Serfs[1]

In the urban environment, women had active professions such as laundering, spinning, milling grain, midwifery, and prostitution. Around one third to almost half of merchants were female in European urban areas, with estimates varying depending on location. Widows would continue their husband’s businesses as a mean of support, while also using their wealth to support social projects and politics. Spinning was a profitable business for women, and the word “spinster” is derived from it. Usually, a term to describe an older, unmarried woman, “spinster” was historically used to describe a single woman who made a living from spinning.  

Women’s guilds were vanishing during this period and brothels became mainly male owned and run. In places like England, regulations prohibited female participation in lucrative fields, keeping wealth in men’s hands. While weaving had long been an occupation of women, men took over the industry as larger looms and mills powered by water or animals created more efficient production and provided thicker cloth.

Women’s humble labor was constant and complex while men’s work was seen as exhausting and dangerous. Men were singularly focused while women had to balance many different tasks. A traditional English couplet emphasizes this point, “For man’s work ends at setting sun, Yet woman’s work is never done.” Women were paid less than men, no matter when they labored or how hard they worked. Judith Bennett’s A Medieval Life, has an example through Cecelia Penifader, an unmarried, lower class English woman at the turn of the 14^th century whose family’s success gave her access to an independent life. Though independent, men made one-third more than Cecelia doing unskilled labor.

In colonial New England, the role of “deputy husband” allowed women’s economic power to expand as they served as a surrogate for him in business outside of the home. In her paper, Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England, 1650-1750, Dr. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich coined the term. She found that women took on the deputy husband role through assuming traditionally male responsibilities like bending quills for the loom or planting. As a proxy for their husbands, women ran businesses or handled the farm. Middle class women often assisted their husbands in trades, taverns, and business ventures.

Women often worked at home, leveraging their skills and creativity to produce goods that necessary for local consumption and trade. Cottage industries like textile production, pottery, candle making, and soap making saw women actively participating. A running household was largely dependent on women’s work. Women’s work in the dairy, garden, kitchen or spinning wheel was as indispensable as a man’s labor outside the home. As the Industrial Revolution grew, women were key pieces to the manufacturing sector. Working in factories, mills, textile industries, women operated machinery and performed tasks like spinning, weaving, and assembling products. Women were pivotal in stimulating the early stages of industrialization, shaping the economic, social, and political landscapes for the coming years. In fact, women and children were seen as more valuable in early stages because of their lack of ties to the land and agrarian farms. Additionally, women were seen as a stable workforce that could be purchased at a minimal coast, as women working outside the home – especially widows – were suspected to be in poverty and economic desperation.

Starting in 1839, some states passed Married Women’s Property Acts, which were laws that eroded the system of coverture inherited from English common law. Subject to coverture, a married woman’s legal identity was her husband’s, she could not own her own property, keep her own wages, sign contracts, sue, or exercise control over her or her children’s bodily autonomy. Only unmarried women had independent legal rights. The new laws attempted to change the economic aspects of coverture by giving married women back control over their own property and earnings.

Under coverture, husband and wife were one person in the eyes of the law. When women were injured or wronged, they had to seek legal redress through their husband or father. Because men could be sueded due their wife or daughter’s behavior, they were allowed administer correction. Violence was not acceptable, but this loophole empowered abusers as women did not have the means to seek legal support if violence was used.

Enslaved Women at Work[2]

Enslaved women were also “covered” by their male enslavers but were not granted the gendered privileges of labor. enslaved women did the same demanding physical labor as enslaved men. A job specific to enslaved women was wet nursing, where enslaved women were forced to care for the offspring of their enslavers. Wealthy Englishwomen were accustomed to the practice of hiring poor women to provide sustenance for her children. Poor white mothers and enslaved Black mothers were used for this purpose in the colonies. However, for enslaved women, it was forced upon them often causing separation from their own nursing children. Forced to wean their babies far too young, Black mothers were exploited for their breast milk.

The reform movement started slowly and unevenly. Mississippi passed the first statute in 1839 after a case involving a Chickasaw woman, Betsy Love Allen, established that the enslaved people she owned could not be seized to settle her husband’s debts. Other states followed with incremental reforms: Maine and Maryland granted rights in 1840, New Hampshire and Kentucky in the early 1840s, and Massachusetts expanded women’s independent economic rights soon after. These expansions were only in the case of abandonment to protect property from creditors. They were not really a recognition of women’s property rights but a protection of the husband’s property. Much like the concept of “deputy husbands” from the colonial era. The only real married women’s property rights were the 1839 case in Mississippi regarding the protections of enslaved people from unscrupulous husbands. New York’s 1848 Married Women’s Property Law became especially influential and served as a model for similar legislation across the country.

These changes were gradual and often motivated less by a belief in gender equality than by a desire to protect families from financial disaster. Courts and lawmakers remained wary of granting women too much independence, fearing it might undermine marriage itself. Over time, however, states advanced through three general stages of reform, first allowing married women to own property, then to retain their wages, and eventually to conduct business on their own. As with women’s suffrage, western states tended to adopt these reforms more quickly, marking a slow but significant shift in women’s legal and economic status.

Even after women earned the right to vote in 1920, the legal code was littered with discriminatory laws that kept women as second-class citizens. Women still faced gender bias in both law and bank policy in finance. In the 1960s, a bank could refuse to issue a credit card to an unmarried woman based on company policy. In cases where she was married, she was often required to have her husband cosign. Feminists of the midcentury changed this through legislation, empowering a generation of women to manage their own money. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 made it illegal to deny credit based on gender. The struggle for women to be financially independent of their husbands extended well into the 20th century.

The women in leadership roles began pushing the government for action. In 1961, Esther Peterson, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Women's Affairs, suggested the creation of a President's Commission on the Status of Women. Established by President Kennedy by executive order, the bipartisan commission was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt to examine discrimination against women and make recommendations on ways to eliminate it. The order stated, “prejudices and outmoded customs act as barriers to the full realization of women's basic rights which should be respected and fostered as part of our Nation's commitment to human dignity, freedom, and democracy.” The commission found that women faced barriers that limited their opportunities for employment and advancement. It recommended that women can compete for federal contracts, advocated changes to discriminatory state laws, and supported affordable daycare and equal access to education for women. The creation of the President's Women led to the establishment of similar commissions across the country. It helped to bring together women working for various women’s issues who had never met. Together, they created data that the women’s movement needed to challenge legislation at the federal and state level.

American Association of University Women with John F. Kennedy as he signs the Equal Pay Act into law[3]

The early 1960s brought important federal legislation to assist women. For example, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was a direct result was the President's Commission on the Status of Women. The Act prohibited employers from paying unequal wages to men and women working the same type of jobs. It was among the earliest federal efforts to address gender discrimination and was later followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 1964 Act was a produce of the Civil Rights Movement. It prohibited segregation in public places, banned employment discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin. Proposing an amendment to include sex as an employment discrimination category, to kill the bill, Representative Howard Smith (VA) was thwarted as Representative Martha Griffiths (MI) and the other female representatives lobbying saw the bill passed in the House. It was signed into law by President Nixon in 1972, after being championed by Senator Maragaret Chase Smith (ME). Establishing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the law helped enforce the anti-discrimination provisions of the law.

Higher education and elite training was a gateway into most industries but women were barred from Ivy League schools well into the midcentury. Yale and Princeton did not accept female students until 1969. Harvard and Brown did not merge with their sister schools until 1971 and 1977 respectively. Dartmouth and Columbia did not admit female students until 1972 and 1981, respectively. Only Cornell admitted women starting in the 1870s.

An advocate for gender equality, Congress member Pasty Mink worked hard to eliminate gender-based discrimination and education. Fueled by personal experience, Patsy Mink was dedicated to equal opportunity for women in education. She pushed for an amendment to be education portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prevented gender discrimination in schools: Title IX. Title IX requires that schools treat boys and girls sports teams equally. Funding must be equal. It was significant change for schools’ sports team budgets. Male coaches and administers were not thrilled about it. Battles erupted around the country. While Title IX was passed in 1972, preventing gender discrimination in schools, private institutions remained exempt from some of its effects.

In its beginning implementation, Title IX had the greatest impact on high school and college female sports. Prior to it passing, female teams were given hand-me-downs and received very little equipment. For example, at the University of Michigan girls’ sports fans were not allowed into the stadium, but dogs were. In another case, a boys basketball’s team practice took precedent over a mid-game girls’ basketball event. Hence the belief that girls teams might be highlighted athletic talent seemed far-fetched.

In 1976, 19 Yale college athletics protested the University’s violations of Title IX. Stripping off their uniforms to display “Title IX” on their bodies, the women’s rowing team protested their lack of facilities which included locker rooms, bathrooms and an equipment manager. Yale had neglected the girls team needs while providing male athletes with updated facilities. Demanding equal treatment, the protest highlighted gender inequalities at Yale and around the country.

It may seem like sports does not matter to personal finance, but sports give a number of life skills. By pushing oneself, playing with a team, and developing personal discipline, sports can help one overcome adversity and develop social and leadership skills. Most women in C-Suite executive roles played sports growing up well into college.[4] Over seventy-five percent of female Fortune 500 companies played sports. Title IX was a significant point in the intersection of women’s education and career trajectories. Almost three-quarters of women earning over $100,000 grew up playing competitive sports.

From 1970 to 2019, while the percentage of men with a college degree only slightly doubled, the percentage of workforce women with a degree increased fourfold. Women were meeting or surpassing the number of men in law, business, or medical schools. Women were also at the forefront of the start-up entrepreneurs who have changed the world with technology.

Patsy Mink, the champion of Title IX[5]

The early 21st century saw the number of women in positions of economic power grow significantly. Women were named to head major corporations. Others became self-made billionaires, with Martha Stewart becoming the first in 2000. In 2013, General Motors made history with CEO Mary Barra becoming the first woman to lead a Big Three automaker. This was a huge step in an industry dominated by men. Cathy Engelbert and Lynne Doughtie became the CEOs of Deloitte and KPMG, respectively, in 2015. A sizable change was taking place in the corporate landscape, as women led half of the Big Four accounting firms.

Women were rising beyond the corporate world as well. With Janet Yellen’s 2014 nomination and subsequent appointment as chair of the Federal Reserve, she made history as the first woman to hold the top position in the US central bank’s long history. Yellen’s appointment was the first democrat since Paul Volcker's tenure under President Jimmy Carter to chair the Fed.

In the entrepreneurial field, Oprah Winfrey was gaining increasing wealth and influence. She became the first African American female billionaire with her TV success. Her media empire includes the OWN cable network and a 10 percent stake in weight watchers. A massing an estimated 3 billion fortune, Oprah’s success the growing economic influence of women across industries. These different milestones illustrate the role of women in shaping the global economy.

As supporting a middle-class family on one salary became more difficult, more women entered into the workforce to support their families. Companies maneuvered around the 1963 Equal Pay act, as its intent was to give woman pay equity for same or similar jobs as men. The social convention of not discussing pay was detrimental to women, who unknowingly accepted lower pay than their male counterparts. For example, a former employee of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Lilly Ledbetter, uncovered she made significantly less than her male counterparts. Suing her company, Ledbetter’s case went to the Supreme Court which ruled against her due to the statue of limitations. In 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act was passed by Congress and the Obama Administration. The act provides an extended time frame for filing pay discrimination claims by resetting the statue of limitations with each paycheck affected by the discriminatory action. Employees can now file within 180 days of receiving a unfair paycheck. While the act did not personal help Ledbetter, she took pride in spurring the creation of the act.

Lily Ledbetter[6]

Personal Finances Today

Cultural norms are hard to eradicate, and the long history of denying women control over their wealth has falsely imposed the idea that women are worse at money management. In reality, women are just as good. The symbols of wealth send messages of male dominance to girls. Wall Street is identified with a huge statue of a bull, snorting and grunting at passersby. Only recently was the statue of a small girl, staring him down, added as a counter message. Our national currency also has a “male” quality. American bills feature male figures from history, such as a past president. The promise to put an image of Harriet Tubman on a $20 bill will not be fulfilled until 2030.

Women’s financial futures are distinctly different from those of men. 74 percent of women die single, because most women outlive their male partners and are less than fully prepared with savings of their own.[7] This demographic fact makes retirement planning crucial for women. Single women must pragmatically take control of their financial futures. Safe investing and saving are insufficient to provide for a comfortable retirement.

Women also must plan financially for the birth of their first child, which, studies show, has a significant financial impact on women, especially those who have no or inadequate medical insurance coverage or maternity leave. This gap in earning and contributing to a retirement plan is known as the motherhood penalty. Given that women are likely to lose money when they have their first child and given that they are likely to die later than their partners, they need to be particularly attentive to their personal financial well-being.

Selecting the “Right” Career

Many assume they will make enough money to support a reasonable lifestyle. Studies show that the gender pay gap follows women throughout their careers and into retirement. In some places, employers will ask prospective candidates about their salaries from prior jobs to determine how much to pay them at their new job rather than offering them the maximum of what the job pays, a practice that is now illegal in a few places, such as New York City, but is a common practice elsewhere. The effect is discrimination that follows women from job to job over the course of their lives and affects them even into retirement due to less earned income and fewer Social Security and pension benefits.

A tried-and-true strategy for women is to find career fields that offer flexibility around child rearing. Teaching positions generally provide a stable and consistent salary, offering financial security for mothers. Unlike some professions with irregular income patterns or commission-based structures, teachers can rely on a regular paycheck. This stability is particularly crucial for mothers who are often juggling various expenses associated with raising a family. The alignment of a teacher's schedule with that of their children is also a distinct advantage for women who have primary responsibility for childcare. This synchronization allows mothers to spend quality time with their kids during holidays and enjoy a more harmonious work-life balance.

Teachers often benefit from parental leave options as one aspect of their union contract. Teachers’ unions advocate for family-friendly policies, including maternity and paternity leave, allowing mothers to take time to care for their newborns without sacrificing job security or financial stability. This support is invaluable during the crucial early stages of a child's life. That said, teachers are notoriously underpaid because teaching has historically been a feminized occupation. Sexism and assumptions about what jobs constitute “women’s work” have long determined how women are paid. Women’s income through most of history was seen as secondary or supplementary to that of the male head of household.

Occupations with the Highest Median Earnings Among Women, US Department of Labor[8]

While teaching offers unique advantages, other professions within the education sector such as administrative roles as well as health-related careers can provide similar benefits. Administrators in educational institutions and healthcare professionals may enjoy stable salaries and certain family-friendly policies. However, they might not align as closely with school calendars, missing the advantage of synchronized schedules with children.

But, as Gloria Steinem said, children have two parents, and the full pressure of having a flexible job for child rearing does not have to fall on the mother. In recent decades, significant strides have been made in breaking down gender stereotypes and regulations protecting female employees and mothers, particularly in traditionally male-dominated fields like science, medicine, engineering, law, and the military. The representation of women in law schools, for instance, increased substantially, with nearly as many women as men enrolled by 2020. Similarly, the STEM field has seen progress, with women now constituting 27% of jobs, up from 13% in 1980.[9] Despite challenges in the tech world, Claudia Goldin notes a decline in gender biases in most male-dominated professions.

Occupations with the Smallest Gender Earnings Gap, US Department of Labor [10]

Unlike the gender desegregation seen in male-dominated professions, the shift has been predominantly one-way, where women are increasingly taking on roles traditionally held by men. This positive trend has not extended to traditionally female occupations, particularly in HEAL fields (health, education, administration, and literacy). These roles remain "pink collar," with just 26% of HEAL jobs held by men, down from 35% in 1980.[11]

HEAL occupations, contrasting with STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), emphasize people-centric tasks and prioritize literacy over numeracy skills. The decline in the male share is notable in certain fields, such as psychology and social work. For instance, the proportion of men in psychology has dropped from 39% to 29% in the last decade, with a mere 5% among psychologists aged 30 or younger.[12] In teaching professions, the decline in male representation is evident, with only 24% of K-12 teachers being men, down from 33% in the early 1980s. The situation is more acute in early education, where men are nearly invisible, constituting only 3% of pre-K and kindergarten teachers, highlighting a continuing gender imbalance.

Increasingly, women are looking at higher-paid roles. In 2023, women surpassed men in law school. Nearly 40 percent of practicing lawyers are now women, marking a notable increase from the 31 percent recorded in 2010. The presence of female federal judges has also seen a substantial rise since 1980, when there were only 46 women on the federal bench. Presently, approximately one-third of all federal judges are women, and this figure is on an upward trajectory. State Appellate Courts exhibit a robust representation of women, constituting 41 percent of high-court justices.

Women's presence in US law schools has witnessed a remarkable surge. In 2000, only ten percent of law school deans were women, a figure that has grown to 43 percent. Women are almost half of law school faculty members, a significant jump from the 20 percent recorded in the 1980s.[13] Despite these advancements, a notable gap persists in leadership positions outside of academia, especially for women of color. Within law firms, women account for only 26.65 percent of partners and a mere 22.6 percent of equity partners, according to the National Association of Women Lawyers' recent diversity report on US law firms.[14] Another noteworthy trend is the substantial decline in male enrollment in law schools as women increasingly dominate classrooms. Over the past 13 years, the number of male enrollees has consistently decreased, dropping from 78,516 in 2010 to 50,097 in 2023.[15]

The legal profession is notoriously inflexible for parents and rewards people who build long-term relationships with clients. Clients want to know their lawyer personally, regardless of how skilled that person is. For some reason, the legal profession has not shifted into the 21st-century to allow skilled lawyers to put in less time. For MBA and JD earners, there is a substantial gender earnings gap that increases over time. Notably, women with MBAs and JDs tend to shift into lower-paying positions or leave the workforce for temporal flexibility, especially after having children. The finance and corporate sectors penalize lower hours, leading to a pronounced gender earnings gap.

By contrast, Nobel Prize winning economist, Claudia Goldin’s research showed that pharmacists earn comparable hourly income to lawyers, in fact, it’s one of the top paying jobs for women, but it has allowed parents, mostly women, to be more flexible on the job. When a customer shows up to a pharmacy, they do not really care who’s preparing the medication for them. This adaptation of the field has highly skilled women to have lucrative careers as pharmacists. Goldin used the O*NET database to identify characteristics related to flexibility in various occupations and found a negative association between these characteristics and the corrected ratio of female to male earnings.

What can be concluded from these data? Young people should be thinking about the jobs that will allow them to have the lifestyle they want. If that lifestyle includes children, they need to think about that and build it into their career planning, or they need to prepare to change the system and advocate for more family friendly policies.

Claudia Goldin Becomes First Woman to Win a Nobel Prize in Economics[16]

Persistent Myths

Several persistent myths shape women’s experiences in the workplace and ultimately influence their personal finances. One myth is that women do not advance in their careers because they lack ambition, assertiveness, or the skills necessary for leadership. However, Marilyn Loden—who coined the term glass ceiling—argued that the real obstacles are cultural, not personal. Women are often passed over for promotions due to stereotypes, assumptions about motherhood, and the belief that men deserve higher-status jobs because they are “breadwinners.” These invisible biases limit women’s career mobility and reduce their lifetime earning potential.

Another common myth is that the glass ceiling itself does not exist and that women can rise as far as they want through hard work alone. Some argue the ceiling is a “myth,” but even these arguments acknowledge significant barriers: women shoulder disproportionate family responsibilities, face limited opportunities for advancement, experience gender-based discrimination, and often struggle with confidence due to workplace culture. Rather than disproving the glass ceiling, these points confirm that structural barriers continue to hinder women’s progress and financial stability.

A third myth is that hard work alone will be recognized and rewarded. As Linda Babcock shows in Women Don’t Ask, socialization teaches many women not to negotiate or advocate for themselves. Instead, they often wait to be noticed or invited to opportunities. This hesitation leads to lower pay, fewer promotions, and ultimately weaker long-term financial outcomes when compared to men, who more frequently negotiate for raises and advancement.

Another misconception is that there are simply too few qualified women for top leadership roles. Companies often claim that women lack the CEO experience typically required for advancement. However, research from the Harvard Business Review shows that women do reach CEO roles, just often through alternative pathways—particularly through service on corporate boards. The issue is not a lack of qualified women but the structural patterns that prevent women from entering the traditional leadership pipeline.

Finally, many believe that women’s limited advancement is the result of personal choices around family responsibilities. In reality, women continue to carry a disproportionate share of unpaid labor at home, which restricts their professional opportunities. These expectations are shaped by cultural norms, not individual preference, and they significantly influence women’s long-term financial security.

Investing & Retirement Planning

Women need to embrace managing and dealing with money. According to polls, money is women’s number one stressor and that saving and investing helps women feel empowered and in control of their finances. Financial wellness is just as important as physical and mental wellness.

The gender wealth gap is the gap in overall wealth (not just pay) between men and women including assets, inheritance, and other aspects of wealth that can be generational. The wealth gap is larger than the pay gap. It is maintained by the historical and legal obstacles that have placed women, especially Black and Indigenous women, at a significant economic disadvantage. Even if the pay gap were eliminated, systemic barriers that place women in an inferior position regarding their entitlement to wealth would persist. If women do not have wealth, it makes it tricky to invest it.

Studies show that women are more cautious investors than men., assuming lower levels of risk compared to their male counterparts. According to Wells Fargo, women typically assume around 82% of the investment risk taken by men and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as women tend to be less inclined to hop on investment trends. This pays off, women investors achieve superior returns compared to their male counterparts, variances ranging from 0.4% to almost 1%.[17] One encouraging discovery is the increasing interest in investing among younger women. According to Fidelity, 71% of millennial women engage in non-retirement investing, surpassing the rates for Gen Xers (67%) and baby boomers (62%).[18] Interestingly, women are more likely to remain composed amid market instability– a crucial skill in investing. According to Nationwide, only 8% of women opted to cash out their retirement accounts in such circumstances, compared to 15% of men.[19] It is more prudent to retain investments during downturns, allowing the portfolio to recover over time.

There are interesting threats to the wealth gap including the Great Wealth Transfer, an anticipated shift in who owns wealth. Currently, half of the nation's wealth belongs to the Baby Boomer generation. Over the next two decades, this wealth will be inherited, resulting in a transfer of wealth on an unprecedented scale. Estimates vary on the exact magnitude of this wealth transfer, but by 2030 American women are projected to oversee at least $30 trillion, constituting a historic transformation. When women control more wealth, they can invest it, and women have historically invested well.

With women controlling more wealth, there will be a sea change in what gets funded, as women tend to invest much differently than men. Philanthropy is one area where women, particularly those with high net worth, tend to excel. High-net-worth women typically contribute a substantial portion of their wealth to philanthropic causes.[20] With more women gaining wealth during the Great Wealth Transfer, nonprofits may experience increased funding. Not surprisingly, female investors tend to show more support for organizations helping women and girls and addressing issues such as reproductive rights, women's health, and violence against women.

Other women may use their wealth to start businesses, also contributing to economic growth. Companies led by women often outperform those without female leadership. This suggests a positive impact on entrepreneurship and economic development. Studies indicate that women are already more likely to engage in impact investing, including gender-lens investing, which evaluates companies based on their gender-related practices. Women also express a strong interest in climate-themed investments.

Despite outperforming men in investing, women exhibit lower confidence levels in this domain. Fidelity's findings reveal that only one-third of women perceive themselves as investors, and the majority lack confidence in making investment decisions. Data from FINRA reveals that this insecurity may be fueled by a clear knowledge gap with 64% of women respondents having low investing knowledge.[21] Still, women’s successes suggest higher knowledge is not necessarily a prerequisite for successful investing– so women should leave their insecurity at the door.

Throughout their lives, women experience an income disparity, with the most pronounced gap occurring in retirement. The gender pay gap, persisting throughout a woman's life, leads to substantial earnings losses, hindering savings accumulation. Women have smaller Social Security benefits, pensions, and savings. Consequently, their retirement income is only 70% of that earned by men. Elderly women are more prone to living below the poverty line compared to men. Notably, in 2018, 62% of Americans above 65 living in poverty were women.[22] Women, often engaged in part-time work or navigating in and out of the workforce. They frequently lack access to employer-sponsored retirement plans. Lower wages and intermittent employment result in reduced Social Security benefits. The data show 11% of women above 65 lived in poverty, while just 8% of men.[23] Even those not in poverty struggle with meager incomes. While white men aged over 65 average $44,200 annually, Black women have $21,900, Latinas $14,800, and white women $23,100.[24] The numbers speak for themselves.

Because women live longer, they face higher retirement costs, including daily living and healthcare expenses. Social Security is a crucial income source, constituting 47% of total income for unmarried women, including widows, compared to 34% for unmarried men.[25] Additionally, 46% of unmarried women over 65 rely on Social Security for almost all (90% or more) of their income. Ensuring a secure retirement for American women, regardless of their career paths, necessitates laws and policies fortifying retirement programs. This involves safeguarding Social Security, enhancing pension benefits, and advocating for fair pay throughout women's careers. Achieving gender equity is an enduring commitment.

Conclusion

It is a pivotal moment to reimagine personal finance with women in mind. It is crucial to dismantle gender differences in financial upbringing and their effect on women's financial futures. Women must take control of their financial futures, especially considering unique challenges like the motherhood penalty and the fact that 74% of women may end up single in retirement. Therefore, young women should carefully explore career choices, considering the gender pay gap and the importance of selecting fields with flexibility around child-rearing. In terms of investing, women are found to be more cautious but achieve superior returns. With the looming Great Wealth Transfer, women will have greater opportunities to influence investment patterns and philanthropy. Finally, it’s important to be aware of and advocate for policies that fortify retirement programs and promote gender equity.

[1] Limbourg, Paul. Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry. ca. 1412.

[2] “An Overseer Doing his Duty” (1798), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_Overseer_Doing_his_Duty_1798_-_Benjamin_Henry_Latrobe.jpg.

[3] Abbie Rowe, “American Association of University Women members with President John F. Kennedy as he signs the Equal Pay Act into law,” Wikimedia Commons, June 10, 1963, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963#/media/File:American_Association_of_University_Women_members_with_President_John_F._Kennedy_as_he_signs_the_Equal_Pay_Act_into_law.jpg.

[4] South Carolina Women in Leadership, “Women who Played Sports are more likely to be Business Leaders,” N.D. https://scwomenlead.net/women-who-played-sports-are-more-likely-to-be-business-leaders/.

[5] Unknown, “Patsy Mink,” 1994, Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Patsy_Mink_1994_portrait_(cropped).tif?page=1.

[6] US Department of Labor, “Lilly Ledbetter gives remarks at the Department of Labor’s Worker Voice Summit , part of the larger White House United State of Women Summit,” June 15, 2016, Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:L-16-06-15-D-021_(27696833425).jpg.

[7] “Women and Retirement: Not-So Golden Years,” American Association of University Women, https://www.aauw.org/issues/equity/retirement/.

[8] US Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau, “Occupations with the highest median earnings among women,” April 2025, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/earnings/occupations-highest-median-earnings-women.

[9] Ian Pisarcik, “Women Outnumber Men in US Law School Classrooms, but Statistics Don’t Tell the Full Story,” Jurist, January 17, 2024, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2024/01/women-outnumber-men-in-us-law-school-classrooms-but-statistics-dont-tell-the-full-story/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20most%20recent,percent%20of%20all%20law%20students.

[10] US Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau, “Occupations with the Smallest Gender Earnings Gap,” April 2025, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/earnings/occupations-lowest-median-earnings-women.

[11] Richard V. Reeves, Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2022), 24.

[12] Reeves, Of Boys and Men, 24.

[13] Pisarcik, “Women Outnumber Men in US Law School Classrooms.”

[14] Pisarcik, “Women Outnumber Men in US Law School Classrooms.”

[15] Pisarcik, “Women Outnumber Men in US Law School Classrooms.”

[16] US Embassy Sweden, “2023 reception of the US Nobel laureates at the embassy of the United States in Sweden: Claudia Goldin,” December 9, 2023, Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Embassy_Sweden_2023_Nobel_Reception_%2853390553295%29.jpg.

[17] Lyle Daly, “Investing for Women: What You Should Know: When it comes to investing, women and men differ. Here's what the research says,” Motley Fool, September 26, 2023, https://www.fool.com/research/women-in-investing-research/#:~:text=Women%20are%20more%20conservative%20investors&text=It%20starts%20with%20a%20more,to%20hop%20on%20investing%20trends.

[18] Daly, “Investing for Women.”

[19] Daly, “Investing for Women.”

[20] Emily Green, “The Great Wealth Transfer,” Ellevest, January 16, 2024. https://www.ellevest.com/magazine/investing/great-wealth-transfer.

[21] Sallie Krawcheck, “18 Truths About Women and Money,” Ellevest, December 8, 2020, https://www.ellevest.com/magazine/disrupt-money/truths-about-women-and-money.

[22] Krawcheck, “18 Truths About Women and Money.”

[23] Krawcheck, “18 Truths About Women and Money.”

[24] Krawcheck, “18 Truths About Women and Money.”

[25] Krawcheck, “18 Truths About Women and Money.”