Beyond "Caring More": A Multi-Factor Analysis of the Gender Gap in Financial Engagement

Introduction: Deconstructing the Premise of "Caring More"#

The observation that men appear to engage more with topics of finance, investment, and economics than women is a common one, often leading to the simple question of why men seem to "care more" about these subjects. This report seeks to move beyond this simplistic premise, arguing that the observed disparities in financial engagement are not a matter of innate or inherent preference. Instead, they are the product of a complex and deeply embedded web of historical, social, psychological, and economic factors. The disparity is not a simple gap in interest, but a systemic issue rooted in a legacy of legal and economic exclusion, reinforced by differential socialization and education, shaped by distinct psychological responses to risk and confidence, and compounded by persistent structural inequalities such as the gender pay gap.

The core thesis of this analysis is that these forces have collectively created divergent pathways, pressures, and opportunities for men and women in the financial sphere. To understand why these gendered patterns of financial behavior exist, one must deconstruct the very notion of "caring." This involves examining the historical structures that legally barred women from financial participation, the social conditioning that shapes financial identity from childhood, the psychological drivers that influence decision-making under uncertainty, and the stark economic realities that dictate one's capacity to save and invest.

This report will proceed through a multi-disciplinary analysis. Section 1 will establish the historical and structural foundations of the gender gap, tracing the long shadow of women's legal and economic dependency. Section 2 will explore the contemporary making of financial identity, focusing on the crucial roles of education, socialization, and the profound impact of the confidence gap. Section 3 will delve into the psychology of financial behavior, re-evaluating concepts like risk aversion and contrasting male-typical overconfidence with female-typical prudence. Section 4 will detail the practical differences in how men and women interact with investment markets, from participation rates to performance outcomes. Section 5 will quantify the staggering economic consequences of these disparities, connecting them to the gender pay, wealth, and retirement gaps. Finally, Section 6 will look toward the future, highlighting initiatives, innovators, and actionable recommendations for forging a more equitable financial landscape. By exploring these interconnected layers, this report will replace the simple question of "caring more" with a sophisticated and evidence-based understanding of a complex socioeconomic phenomenon.

Section 1: The Legacy of Exclusion - A Historical and Structural Analysis#

The financial behaviors and attitudes observed today are not ahistorical; they are deeply rooted in legal and social structures that, for centuries, systematically excluded women from economic life. Understanding the modern gender gap in financial engagement is impossible without first acknowledging the very recent and still incomplete history of women's economic emancipation. The norms established during eras of explicit legal exclusion continue to influence household dynamics, financial specialization, and individual behaviors in the present day.

1.1 The Legal Framework of Dependency: Coverture and its Aftermath#

For much of Western history, the dominant legal principle governing women's economic status was coverture. Upon marriage, a woman's legal and economic identity was subsumed by that of her husband. She could not independently own property, enter into contracts, control her own earnings, or sue or be sued. This legal doctrine effectively established the male partner as the absolute financial head of the household, a norm that has cast an exceptionally long shadow over contemporary gender dynamics.

The dismantling of these formal restrictions was a slow, arduous, and remarkably recent process. While Mississippi became the first U.S. state to grant married women limited rights to hold property in their own name (with their husband's permission) in 1839, it was not until 1900 that all states had passed similar legislation. The right to engage in even more fundamental financial activities came much later. The ability for a woman to open a bank account in her own name, regardless of marital status, was not uniformly established until laws like California's in 1862 and subsequent federal actions. The right to access credit independently was only secured with the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, which made it illegal for financial institutions to deny credit on the basis of sex or marital status. This timeline reveals that for the vast majority of U.S. history, women were legally prevented from participating in the financial system as independent actors. This exclusion was not unique to the United States; globally, women's rights have expanded in stages, with economic and political rights often preceding rights in the labor market, and many women today still face legal barriers to full economic participation.

Table 1: Key Milestones in U.S. Women's Economic Rights

1.2 The Division of Financial Labor in the Household#

The legal framework of coverture and its slow erosion naturally fostered a specialization of financial tasks within the household. With men holding legal and economic power, they logically assumed responsibility for major, long-term financial decisions such as investments, insurance, loans, and property management. This division of labor has proven remarkably persistent, continuing to shape household dynamics long after the repeal of explicitly discriminatory laws.

Modern research confirms that this pattern of specialization remains prevalent. Even in dual-income households, men are more likely to take the lead on long-term financial products like pensions and investments, while women are more frequently tasked with managing day-to-day household budgets, bills, and spending. One study broke financial decisions into two categories: "routine" (short-term household management) and "major" (long-term planning). It found that while single men and women were similarly involved in both, married women were significantly more likely to be involved in routine decisions, while married men were more likely to handle major ones.

This household specialization is a critical hypothesis for explaining the modern gender gap in financial literacy and confidence. Continuous engagement with complex financial products and long-term planning provides men with repeated opportunities to accumulate knowledge, experience, and familiarity. Conversely, women who are primarily responsible for budgeting and consumption have fewer chances to develop expertise in areas like investing and risk management. This is strongly supported by empirical evidence. The gender gap in financial literacy is found to be more pronounced for married respondents compared to single ones. In a notable exception that proves the rule, Germany stands out as a country where women report higher financial literacy than men; it is also a country where a larger share of women report being the sole financial decision-maker in their household, suggesting that direct responsibility fosters knowledge.

The historical and social norms that established the male partner as the primary financial decision-maker created a structure in which it can be perceived as "efficient" or "rational" for the female partner to specialize in other domestic areas and defer on financial matters. This aligns with economic models of marriage that posit household specialization for efficiency reasons. However, this seemingly rational choice carries severe and often unforeseen long-term consequences. Data indicates that approximately 90% of women will be solely responsible for their own finances at some point in their lives, typically due to divorce or widowhood. Deferring financial decision-making throughout a marriage leaves these women dangerously unprepared for that eventuality. The data confirms this acute vulnerability: over 70% of divorced women and widows report being met with financial "surprises," such as undisclosed debts or secret accounts, after their marriages end. Furthermore, women's finances and standard of living decrease by a staggering 41% after divorce-more than double the 21% decline experienced by men. Therefore, the very structure of traditional household roles, which encourages a seemingly logical division of labor, systematically engineers a future financial vulnerability for women. The issue is not merely that women "care less" about major financial decisions; it is that the traditional family structure can actively discourage their engagement until a crisis-such as the death of a spouse or a divorce-forces them to take control from a position of profound inexperience and distress.

Section 2: The Making of a Financial Identity - Socialization, Education, and Confidence#

While historical structures built the foundation for the gender gap in financial engagement, contemporary social and psychological forces are responsible for its construction and reinforcement in each new generation. From the earliest lessons at home and in school to the pervasive culture of the financial industry itself, men and women are guided along different paths, leading to profound disparities in financial knowledge, and more importantly, financial confidence.

2.1 Early Financial Education: A Gendered Curriculum#

The first lessons in personal finance typically come from parents, and the curriculum is often gendered from the start. Research has shown that boys are more likely than girls to receive financial advice from their parents, and they tend to receive this advice at an earlier age. A revealing 2021 survey found that 22% of adult female respondents reported never having received financial education at home, a significantly higher portion than the 15% of male respondents who said the same. This disparity translates into a massive societal deficit: an estimated 10.2 million more adult women than men in the U.S. missed out on these foundational lessons in financial responsibility from their parents.

Worryingly, this trend may be worsening in relative terms. While today's parents are, on the whole, more likely to provide financial education to their children, the gap between how boys and girls are treated has widened. Among the previous generation, for every 10 men who didn't receive financial education at home, there were 14 women. Among the children of today's adults, for every 10 male children who don't receive this education, there are 17 female children in the same situation. This widening of the relative gap is being driven disproportionately by fathers, who are three times more likely to neglect financial education with their daughters compared to their sons.

This gendered socialization extends beyond the home and into direct encouragement to participate in financial markets. A study analyzing an app-based platform for gifting stocks found a significant gender gap in who receives these gifts. Women received only 38.8% of all stock gift cards, and the average value of a gift card purchased for a female was 21.9% lower than one purchased for a male. Critically, this gap persists even among children under the age of 8, an age before which a child has the cognitive ability to understand or express an interest in investing. This suggests that the gap is not driven by children's expressed interests, but rather by the givers' perception that finance is inherently a male domain.

The educational system can further entrench these differences. In many schools, financial literacy concepts are embedded within the mathematics curriculum. This can be problematic, as girls, even when performing equally to boys, tend to report lower confidence in their math abilities. This lower confidence can cause them to disengage or "switch off" from the material, assuming that personal finance is a "math-heavy" subject not in their domain. This has led to calls from educators for financial literacy to be taught as a standalone, practical life skills course to make it more inclusive and relatable for all students. As it stands, girls report that they learn about money primarily from their mothers (85%) and fathers (61%), with teachers (20%) and school classes (14%) being far less significant sources of knowledge.

2.2 The Confidence Chasm and the "Don't Know" Phenomenon#

Perhaps the most critical factor in understanding the gender gap in financial engagement is the distinction between knowledge and confidence. Across a vast array of national and international surveys, women consistently score lower than men on tests of financial literacy. However, a deeper look at the data reveals that this "literacy gap" is substantially, and perhaps primarily, a "confidence gap."

The key piece of evidence lies in the response patterns to multiple-choice questions. These surveys typically include an explicit "I don't know" option. Analysis after analysis has shown that women are vastly more likely than men to select this option. For example, in the Federal Reserve's 2021 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED), 63% of women selected "don't know" for a question on diversification, a rate 20 percentage points higher than for men. Crucially, when looking only at incorrect answers (excluding "don't know"), men and women perform at very similar rates. This indicates that the gap is largely driven by women's reluctance to hazard a guess, not an equivalent lack of underlying knowledge.

This hypothesis was put to a direct test in a survey experiment within the 2021 SHED, where respondents were randomly assigned to receive the financial literacy questions either with or without the "don't know" option. The results were striking. When the "don't know" option was removed, forcing respondents to choose an answer, the financial literacy gap between men and women shrank dramatically. For the question on diversification, the 20-point gap in correct answers seen in the control group virtually disappeared, resulting in a statistically insignificant 1-percentage-point difference (84% of women correct vs. 85% of men). This powerful finding provides strong evidence that a significant portion of the measured literacy gap is an artifact of women's lower confidence, not lower competence.

This confidence chasm is not merely an artifact of survey design; it is a widely reported psychological phenomenon. According to a Fidelity study, 72% of women rate their investing knowledge as beginner or nonexistent, compared to just 53% of men, and 58% of women admit that investing intimidates them. Another survey found that less than half (48%) of women who actively invest consider themselves knowledgeable about the topic, compared to 59% of investing men. This lack of confidence is a persistent issue that holds true regardless of a woman's age, level of education, or marital status.

The "don't know" response is therefore not a simple admission of ignorance. It is better understood as a culturally conditioned expression of intellectual humility and a form of risk mitigation, which stands in stark contrast to a culturally conditioned male performance of confidence. Society often socializes women to be less assertive and to downplay their knowledge, while men are encouraged to project confidence and authority. In the context of a test, selecting "don't know" is a low-risk choice; it avoids the potential social penalty or personal embarrassment of being proven wrong. This behavior aligns perfectly with broader findings that women are socialized to be more cautious and security-conscious. Conversely, venturing a guess is a higher-risk, higher-reward strategy (one might be right and appear knowledgeable), which aligns with the socialization of men to be more comfortable with taking risks. Consequently, a standard financial literacy test is not just measuring abstract financial knowledge; it is inadvertently measuring an individual's conformity to deeply ingrained gendered social scripts about how to express knowledge and navigate social risk. The measured "gap" is, in large part, an artifact of a testing methodology that is not neutral to these powerful behavioral differences. It assesses the performance of knowledge as much as the knowledge itself.

2.3 The Culture of Finance: An Unwelcoming Environment#

The confidence gap is further exacerbated by the culture of the financial industry itself. While women now comprise roughly half of the finance and banking workforce at entry levels, their representation plummets at each successive step up the corporate ladder. In 2024, women held a mere 10.4% of CEO positions at Fortune 500 companies and only 23% of C-suite roles within the financial services industry. In venture capital, the numbers are even more dire, with women filling only 15% of "check writer" roles.

This stark lack of representation at the top fosters a male-dominated culture that can be unwelcoming, intimidating, or even hostile to women. A UK government report on "Sexism in the City" described "antiquated, male dominated cultures, and high rates of sexual harassment" in the sector. Women investors report feeling patronized by financial advisors, with 48% saying advisors treat women differently and 40% feeling that their ideas are less likely to be listened to. This perception is not unfounded; a staggering 86% of asset managers admit that their default target customer is male. This bias is reflected in financial media, where articles aimed at women tend to focus on frugality, saving, and coupon-clipping, while articles aimed at men emphasize daring to invest to increase power.

This environment creates a significant role model deficit. The scarcity of visible female leaders, mentors, and prominent investors means that women aspiring to careers in finance have fewer examples of success to emulate and fewer senior sponsors to guide them. While there are certainly notable and trailblazing female investors , they remain exceptions in a landscape dominated by men. This creates a powerful, self-perpetuating cycle: the industry's culture deters the very women whose presence is needed to change it.

This leads to a negative feedback loop with profound consequences. The male-centric culture of the financial industry deters women's participation and advancement, which in turn reinforces that very culture. This lack of diversity in leadership and product design roles means that financial products, services, and marketing campaigns are overwhelmingly created for a default male client. These offerings often fail to resonate with or adequately address women's distinct financial realities and priorities, such as longer life expectancies, career interruptions for caregiving, and a stronger preference for investments that align with their values. This failure of the industry to meet their needs further alienates women, deepening their disengagement. The gender investing gap is therefore not solely a demand-side issue of women being less interested; it is equally a supply-side issue, where the industry systematically fails to provide what women want and need. This represents a systemic failure, not a collection of individual choices.

Section 3: The Psychology of Financial Behavior - Risk, Mindset, and Decision-Making#

Beyond historical and social structures, the gender gap in financial engagement is also shaped by a collection of internal, psychological factors and behavioral patterns. These include differences in risk perception, confidence levels, and fundamental mindsets about the purpose of money. However, common tropes in this area, such as the idea that "women are more risk-averse," often oversimplify a much more nuanced reality.

3.1 Re-evaluating "Risk Aversion": A Nuanced View#

A long-standing consensus in much of the economic and psychological literature posits that women are, on average, more risk-averse than men. This difference is frequently invoked to explain gender disparities in career choices-specifically, women's underrepresentation in high-risk, high-reward professions like finance and entrepreneurship-as well as their lower participation rates in the stock market.

However, a more critical examination of the evidence suggests this conclusion merits significant reconsideration. While many studies do find a statistically significant difference in the average risk tolerance between men and women, this does not mean the difference is substantively large or that it applies universally to all individuals. The distributions of risk preference for men and women show a tremendous degree of overlap; they are far more similar than they are different. The broad, generic statement "women are more risk-averse than men" is a misleading oversimplification that can easily lead to harmful stereotyping and confirmation bias.

Furthermore, risk-taking behavior is not a stable, innate trait but is highly dependent on context. Experiments have shown that the gender gap in risk-taking can be manufactured or erased simply by changing the framing of the task. For instance, when a "stereotype threat" is activated-such as reminding women of their gender before they perform a math-related task-their risk aversion tends to increase. In more neutral, "stereotype-irrelevant" contexts, the gender difference can vanish entirely. Similarly, studies conducted in single-sex educational environments have found no significant difference in risk behavior between boys and girls, whereas a gap emerges in co-educational settings, suggesting a strong social component.

The determinants of these differences are complex and likely involve an interplay of biological and social factors. Some research has linked financial risk aversion to hormone levels, finding that higher concentrations of circulating testosterone are associated with lower risk aversion, an effect that appears to be particularly strong among women. Yet, the power of social conditioning is equally evident. Other studies have demonstrated that merely priming men with "masculinity" concepts can significantly increase their propensity for risk-taking, an effect sometimes larger than the baseline difference between men and women. This body of evidence suggests that while biological predispositions may play a role, they are heavily mediated by social norms, cultural expectations, and situational cues.

3.2 Confidence vs. Competence: The Performance Paradox#

One of the most compelling areas of gender difference in financial psychology is the relationship between confidence and competence. As established in Section 2, men tend to report significantly higher levels of confidence in their financial and investing abilities. This often manifests as overconfidence, which has direct and measurable consequences on their investment behavior.

The primary behavioral outcome of this overconfidence is a higher frequency of trading. Numerous studies have documented that men trade their investment portfolios far more actively than women do. One seminal study from the University of California, Berkeley, found that men traded 45% more frequently than women. More recent data from Vanguard confirms this pattern, showing that women are 50% less likely than men to trade actively and log on to their accounts half as often.

This hyper-activity, driven by overconfidence, is ultimately detrimental to investment returns. Each trade incurs costs, both explicit (commissions, fees) and implicit (bid-ask spreads, market impact). Over time, these costs erode portfolio value. The Berkeley study calculated that this excessive trading reduced men's net annual returns by 2.65 percentage points, compared to a reduction of only 1.72 percentage points for women.

This leads to a striking performance paradox: despite having lower confidence and participating less in the market, when women do invest, their portfolios consistently outperform those of men. This finding is robust across multiple studies and time periods, with women's annual returns exceeding men's by a margin of 0.4% to as much as 1.8%. A Wells Fargo study further found that women achieved these higher returns while simultaneously taking on less risk, resulting in superior risk-adjusted performance. This outperformance is largely attributed to greater behavioral discipline. Women are more likely to create a long-term plan and stick to it. They are less reactive to short-term market volatility and less prone to making impulsive decisions based on news or fear.

This paradox reveals a fundamental flaw in how "good" investing is often perceived. The financial industry and its media ecosystem tend to reward and amplify a stereotypically "masculine" approach to investing-one characterized by high confidence, decisive action, and frequent trading. The narrative often glorifies the high-risk "maverick" investor, who is almost exclusively portrayed as male. This industry focus on short-term performance and active management aligns with the male-socialized tendency to use money as a display of power and to demonstrate confidence through action. Yet, the empirical data clearly demonstrates that this approach leads to inferior outcomes. The more prudent, patient, and disciplined "buy-and-hold" strategy, which is statistically superior, aligns more closely with the female-socialized approach of prioritizing long-term security and being more cautious. The very definition of what it means to be an engaged, competent investor is thus culturally gendered and biased toward a less effective strategy. The industry celebrates a style of engagement that is often detrimental to long-term wealth creation, creating a situation where women are implicitly criticized for not participating more actively in a system that lionizes a suboptimal methodology.

3.3 Divergent Money Mindsets and Motivations#

The differences in financial behavior are also undergirded by divergent mindsets about the meaning and purpose of money, which are shaped by socialization from a very early age. These learned behaviors influence how individuals earn, save, spend, and experience financial stress.

Men are often socialized to view money through a lens of power, achievement, and status. Financial success can become deeply intertwined with their identity and sense of personal worth, particularly due to societal expectations of being a provider. This can lead men to be more focused on the accumulation of wealth as an indicator of success and to be more risk-taking in its pursuit.

Women, in contrast, are frequently socialized to be more cautious savers and to prioritize financial security and stability. Their financial motivations are often more communal. One survey found that the top financial priority for women was "supporting family," whereas for men it ranked second to last. This is reflected in spending patterns; when receiving extra income, women are more inclined to allocate it toward family needs and household necessities, while men are more likely to spend it on personal wants and hobbies.

These differing mindsets also shape emotional responses to financial matters. Men may be more likely to internalize financial strain or debt as a personal failure, a blow to their identity as a provider. Women, on the other hand, may experience greater shame or anxiety related to spending, feeling caught between the societal pressure to be frugal and the desire to provide for their families or spend on themselves. These gendered responses highlight how deeply financial behaviors are connected to cultural norms and personal identity.

Section 4: Divergent Paths in Investment - Participation, Performance, and Priorities#

The historical, social, and psychological factors discussed in the preceding sections manifest in tangible, measurable differences in how men and women engage with financial markets. These divergences can be seen in who participates, how they invest, and what they prioritize, painting a detailed picture of two distinct approaches to wealth creation.

4.1 The Participation and Investment Gap#

A persistent and well-documented gap exists in investment participation between men and women. While the exact numbers vary by survey, the trend is consistent. One NerdWallet survey found that 66% of men had money invested in the stock market, compared to only 48% of women. Another study reported an even wider gap, with 63% of men investing in general versus just 36% of women. This disparity is a primary driver of the long-term gender wealth gap.

The reasons women cite for not investing align with the themes of confidence and economic reality. Women are more likely than men to say they don't invest because they don't know how (23% of women vs. 16% of men) or because they feel anxious about their holdings (29% vs. 22%). Furthermore, the gender pay gap is a critical factor. With lower average incomes, women have less discretionary capital available after covering essential expenses. This makes building an emergency fund and paying down debt a more immediate priority than long-term investing.

However, there are encouraging signs of a generational shift. The participation gap is closing, driven largely by younger women. Data shows that 77% of Generation Z women and 74% of Millennial women are now investing, a rate significantly higher than that of their Gen X and Baby Boomer predecessors. In a particularly intriguing finding, one UK study noted that women are beginning to invest at an average age of 32, three years younger than their male counterparts who start at 35. This suggests that while barriers remain, younger generations of women are increasingly recognizing the importance of investing and are taking action earlier in their lives.

4.2 The Performance Paradox Revisited: The "How"#

As established in Section 3, the lower participation and confidence among women belie a crucial fact: when they do invest, they tend to be better at it. This performance paradox is rooted in how they invest. The key behavioral differences that drive their superior returns are discipline and a collaborative approach.

Women's investment style is characterized by a long-term, patient perspective. They are significantly less likely to engage in frequent, speculative trading. This discipline is particularly valuable during periods of market turbulence. While both men and women are most likely to "stay the course" during volatility, men are more prone to reactive behaviors like trying to time the market by selling out or making large, impulsive new investments. By avoiding these behaviors, women incur fewer transaction costs and are less likely to sell at market bottoms or buy at market tops, which preserves and enhances their long-term returns.

Additionally, women appear to be more collaborative in their decision-making. They are more likely than men to seek out and work with financial advisors. Men, in contrast, are more inclined to rely on their own research and instincts, a behavior consistent with higher levels of self-reported confidence. By seeking professional guidance, women may benefit from a more structured, goals-based approach and an external check on emotional decision-making, further contributing to their disciplined investment style.

4.3 Investing with Intent: The "What"#

Beyond participation rates and performance, a significant divergence appears in what men and women choose to invest in. Women exhibit a markedly stronger preference for investments that align with their personal values, particularly those that meet Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria.

This preference is quantifiable. A Cerulli Associates survey found that 52% of women would opt to invest in companies that achieve positive social or environmental outcomes, compared to just 44% of men. This desire to invest with impact is especially pronounced among younger women; 71% of women under 30 and 70% of women in their 30s and 40s prefer to invest in companies that support their personal values. This connects directly to the broader mindset of using money for communal well-being. Studies show that women invest up to 90% of their income back into their families and communities and donate a greater percentage of their wealth to charitable causes than men do.

This preference for ESG and impact investing should not be dismissed as a mere "preference" or a desire to "feel good." It can be interpreted as a rational response to a financial system that many women perceive as extractive or misaligned with their values. It represents a form of market demand for a different, more sustainable model of capitalism. Traditional finance has historically prioritized profit maximization above all else. Women, who are often socialized to prioritize long-term security and community health, may view this narrow model as incomplete or inherently risky. Their demand for ESG-focused investments can be seen as a strategic choice to allocate capital to companies whose long-term sustainability and social license to operate are stronger. This can be a proxy for identifying better long-term risk management and more resilient business models. In this light, the gender gap in ESG preference is a leading indicator of a broader market shift. Women are not just asking for a seat at the existing financial table; they are demanding that the table itself be redesigned to reflect a more holistic and sustainable definition of value. Their "care" is directed not just at achieving personal returns, but at shaping the systemic impact of their capital.

Section 5: The Compounding Cost - The Gender Pay, Wealth, and Retirement Gaps#

The behavioral, social, and historical factors that shape gendered financial engagement do not exist in a vacuum. They have profound, tangible, and devastating economic consequences that accumulate over a lifetime. The disparities in financial participation are both a cause and a consequence of three interconnected structural inequalities: the gender pay gap, the gender wealth gap, and the gender retirement gap. It is fundamentally difficult to "care" about investing when one has systematically less capital to invest.

5.1 The Gender Pay Gap: The Starting Deficit#

The foundational economic barrier to women's full financial participation is the gender pay gap. Despite decades of progress and legislation, a significant and stubborn gap in earnings persists. In the United States, women working full-time, year-round are typically paid only 83 to 85 cents for every dollar paid to men. This gap has shown remarkably little improvement over the past two decades; in 2002, the figure was 80 cents, indicating that progress has all but stalled.

This disparity is compounded by intersectional factors. The gap is substantially wider for women of color: in 2023, Black women were paid just 64 cents, and Latina women just 51 cents, for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. The gap also worsens with age and parenthood. A "motherhood penalty" means that mothers are paid just 62 cents for every dollar paid to fathers. Furthermore, the pay gap exists at every level of educational attainment. Shockingly, women with advanced degrees are paid less per hour, on average, than men who have only a bachelor's degree.

This persistent income disparity is the primary impediment to equal financial engagement. Lower earnings directly translate into less capital available for saving and investing after essential living expenses are met. Any discussion of a gender "investment gap" that does not begin with the "pay gap" is incomplete. The conversation is often framed as a behavioral issue-that women need to be more confident or more interested in investing. However, it is fundamentally a capital issue. The primary reason women invest less than men is because the gender pay gap leaves them with less money to invest. Women's stated financial priorities, such as building an emergency fund before investing, are not signs of disinterest but are rational, prudent choices made in the face of lower income and greater financial precarity. To focus on "fixing" women's financial behavior without first fixing the structural pay gap is a form of economic victim-blaming. It places the onus on the individual to overcome a systemic deficit. The most effective policy to close the investment gap would be to close the pay gap, because the "care" deficit is secondary to the "capital" deficit.

5.2 The Gender Wealth Gap: The Accumulated Disadvantage#

If the pay gap is the starting deficit, the wealth gap is the accumulated disadvantage. It is crucial to distinguish between income (a flow of earnings) and wealth (a stock of assets, including savings, investments, and property, minus debts). The gender wealth gap is far more severe and consequential than the pay gap.

The statistics are staggering. For every dollar of wealth owned by a man in the U.S., a woman owns just 32 cents. For Black and Latina women, the figure plummets to as low as a single penny for every dollar owned by a white man. Even when comparing only never-married men and women to control for the effects of shared marital assets, women own just 68 cents for every man's dollar.

This chasm is the cumulative result of a lifetime of disadvantages. It is the direct consequence of the gender pay gap, compounded by career interruptions for caregiving (which are disproportionately borne by women), lower rates of investment, and historical barriers to asset accumulation and property ownership. Wealth is what provides financial security, enables opportunity, and can be passed down to future generations. The profound gender wealth gap means that women have a much smaller cushion to withstand financial shocks and far fewer resources to build a secure future for themselves and their families.

5.3 The Retirement Security Crisis#

The lifetime effects of the pay and wealth gaps culminate in a massive and perilous retirement savings gap. This is the final and perhaps most critical economic consequence, as it directly impacts quality of life in old age. Across multiple studies, a consistent finding emerges: women have approximately 30-32% less income in retirement than men.

The shortfall in savings is dramatic. A 2024 report found the median retirement savings for women to be just $50,000, compared to $157,000 for men. Another analysis showed that the median 401(k) balance for women was 65% lower than for men. The gap exists across all generations; for Baby Boomers, the median savings were $166,000 for women versus $410,000 for men. This disparity is driven by lower lifetime earnings, lower contribution rates (which are a function of lower pay), and shorter job tenures due to career breaks for caregiving.

This retirement crisis is made even more acute by a simple demographic fact: women, on average, live longer than men. This means they must stretch a significantly smaller nest egg over a longer period of retirement. This "longevity risk" makes achieving financial security in old age a uniquely urgent and challenging issue for women, heightening their risk of poverty in their later years. The entire lifecycle of financial inequality-from the first unequal paycheck to the last dollar of retirement savings-places women at a profound and systemic disadvantage.

Table 2: The Economic Consequences - A Multi-Gap Comparison

Note: Data points are from various years (2022-2024) and sources, intended to illustrate the scale of the gaps. N/A indicates specific comparative data was not available in the provided research.

Section 6: Forging a New Financial Future - Initiatives, Innovation, and Recommendations#

While the analysis of the gender gap in financial engagement reveals a landscape of deeply entrenched systemic challenges, it also points toward a future of significant opportunity and change. A growing ecosystem of innovative companies, advocacy organizations, and prominent female leaders is actively working to dismantle old barriers and forge new, more equitable pathways. This final section outlines these positive developments and provides actionable recommendations for accelerating progress.

6.1 Industry Innovators and Advocates#

A new wave of financial firms and non-profit organizations has emerged with the explicit mission of addressing the gender gap.

• Firms Built for Women: Perhaps the most well-known example is Ellevest, a financial company founded by former Wall Street executive Sallie Krawcheck. Ellevest was created specifically to address the gender investing gap by building financial products and providing advice tailored to women's unique financial lives, which includes accounting for longer lifespans and different salary curves. A key part of its strategy has been a focus on impact investing, allowing clients to align their portfolios with their values, such as advancing women's rights and racial justice. However, the journey for such firms highlights the inherent business challenges; Ellevest's recent strategic pivot to focus primarily on high-net-worth clients underscores the difficulty of profitably serving smaller, lower-asset accounts, which represent the majority of women who need support.

• Advocacy Organizations: A robust network of non-profits is tackling the issue from multiple angles. The Financial Alliance for Women is a global consortium of financial institutions dedicated to championing the female economy, providing members with data, tools, and peer learning to better serve women clients. Organizations like Women's Money Matters provide direct, grassroots support, offering financial wellness workshops and one-on-one coaching to low-income women and girls. The American Association of University Women (AAUW) runs salary negotiation workshops (Work Smart and Start Smart) and financial literacy programs (Money Smart) that have reached over 190,000 women. Meanwhile, Girls Who Invest is focused on building a pipeline of female talent for the investment management industry.

• Prominent Female Investors: The visibility of successful women in finance is crucial for providing the role models that have long been absent from the mainstream narrative. This includes historical trailblazers like Geraldine Weiss, the "Grand Dame of Dividends," and Muriel Siebert, the first woman to own a seat on the New York Stock Exchange. It also includes contemporary leaders like Mellody Hobson, co-CEO of Ariel Investments, and Abby Joseph Cohen, a renowned portfolio strategist. A new generation of female venture capitalists and angel investors, such as Joanne Wilson and Arlan Hamilton, are not only achieving success but are also actively investing in and mentoring other women and underrepresented founders, creating a virtuous cycle of empowerment.

6.2 The Future of Women in Finance: Trends and Opportunities#

The landscape of finance is on the cusp of a seismic shift, driven by demographic and cultural trends that place women at the center of the future economy.

• The Great Wealth Transfer: A monumental intergenerational transfer of wealth is underway. By 2030-2045, an estimated $30 trillion in financial assets will shift into the hands of American women, primarily through inheritance from spouses and parents. This represents the single largest wealth transfer in history. This demographic tsunami will dramatically increase women's financial power and influence, creating an immense business opportunity for a financial industry that can successfully cater to their needs.

• Redefining Success and Leadership: As more women enter and ascend in the finance industry, they are actively changing its culture from within. They are challenging the traditional, narrow metrics of success-power, prestige, and short-term financial gain-and replacing them with a more holistic vision that incorporates work-life balance, long-term value creation, social and environmental impact, and personal fulfillment. Research suggests that female leaders bring distinct strengths, including a more collaborative communication style, a greater emphasis on long-term stability, and a more prudent approach to risk management, all of which can lead to more resilient organizations and better financial outcomes.

• Demand for a New Advisory Experience: As their wealth and influence grow, women are demanding a fundamentally different relationship with their financial advisors. They are seeking professionals who can provide holistic, comprehensive planning that integrates all aspects of their lives, from career and family to retirement and legacy. They value clear communication, empathy, and an educational, judgment-free environment where they feel comfortable asking questions. While women do not exclusively demand female advisors, they show a strong preference for professionals who can relate to their life experiences and values, underscoring the urgent need for greater diversity within the advisory profession.

6.3 Actionable Recommendations for Systemic Change#

Closing the gender gap in financial engagement requires a concerted, multi-faceted effort from all stakeholders. The following are evidence-based recommendations for driving systemic change:

• For the Financial Industry:

  • Inclusive Product Design and Marketing: Financial institutions must move beyond superficial "pink-it-and-shrink-it" marketing strategies. They should develop products and services that genuinely address women's unique financial lifecycles, including their longer life expectancies and potential career interruptions for caregiving. Marketing materials and financial education content must use inclusive language and imagery that represents and welcomes women.

  • Transform the Advisory Experience: Firms must invest in training advisors-both male and female-to listen actively, avoid condescension, and engage in holistic, goals-based financial planning rather than product-based sales. A key part of this is recruiting, retaining, and promoting more female advisors to better reflect the client base they serve and to foster a more inclusive culture.

  • Embrace Diversity as a Business Imperative: Leadership must recognize that gender diversity is not just a social goal but a driver of better performance. Diverse teams make more innovative and robust decisions, and companies with more women in leadership are more likely to have superior financial returns.

• For Policymakers:

  • Close the Gender Pay Gap: The most impactful policy for closing the investment gap is to close the pay gap. This includes passing legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act, which strengthens protections against wage discrimination, and promoting pay transparency laws.

  • Support Caregivers: The "motherhood penalty" is a primary driver of women's lower lifetime earnings. Implementing national paid family and medical leave policies and investing in universal, affordable, high-quality childcare would allow women to remain attached to the workforce, protecting their long-term earning and saving potential.

• For Educators and Parents:

  • Start Early and Be Equitable: Financial literacy must be taught as a core life skill from a young age, both at home and in school. It is critical that parents and educators provide the same messages, encouragement, and opportunities to both girls and boys. This includes encouraging girls to open bank accounts, discuss investing, and engage with financial concepts without gendered stereotypes.

  • Build Confidence Alongside Knowledge: The educational approach must focus as much on building financial confidence as it does on imparting knowledge. This means creating supportive, collaborative learning environments where asking questions is encouraged and where failure is treated as a learning opportunity. Moving financial literacy out of a purely mathematical context and into a practical, real-life skills framework can make it more accessible and engaging for all students.

• For Individuals:

  • Women: Take proactive steps to build financial knowledge and confidence. This can include reading personal finance books, listening to podcasts, and taking online courses. It is crucial to be an active participant in all household financial decisions, especially major long-term ones. Finding supportive communities, mentors, or a trusted financial advisor can provide guidance and accountability. Most importantly, women must internalize the fact that investing is the single most powerful tool for growing wealth over the long term and is essential for achieving financial independence.

  • Men: Act as allies in closing the gap. This begins at home by ensuring that financial conversations and responsibilities are shared equitably. In the workplace, men can advocate for equal pay, sponsor and mentor female colleagues, and challenge biased or exclusionary behavior. Recognizing and dismantling the systems that have historically benefited men is a shared responsibility.

Conclusion: Toward a More Equitable and Prosperous Financial Landscape#

The notion that men "care more" about finance is a simplistic misreading of a complex and deeply rooted socioeconomic reality. As this report has demonstrated, the observed gender gap in financial engagement is not the result of innate preferences but is the predictable outcome of centuries of legal exclusion, decades of differential socialization, persistent psychological barriers, and stark economic inequalities. From the historical legacy of coverture that designated men as the sole financial actors, to the modern-day confidence gap that causes women to doubt their own knowledge, to the structural pay gap that leaves them with less capital to invest, the system has consistently placed women at a disadvantage.

The analysis reveals that the very metrics often used to gauge financial engagement-such as confidence and trading activity-are themselves culturally gendered and are poor proxies for financial acumen. In fact, the "feminine" investment style, characterized by prudence, discipline, and a long-term perspective, has been shown to produce superior returns. The challenge, therefore, is not simply to encourage women to adopt the financial behaviors of men. Rather, it is to dismantle the barriers that prevent their full participation and to create a new, more inclusive financial ecosystem that values diverse approaches.

Closing these gaps is not merely a matter of social justice or fairness; it is an economic imperative. Empowering women financially has the potential to unlock trillions of dollars in global economic growth , create more stable and resilient financial markets driven by more prudent investment behavior, and foster healthier and more secure outcomes for families and communities. The path forward requires a systemic approach: policymakers must address structural inequities like the pay gap and the lack of caregiver support; the financial industry must redesign its products, culture, and advisory models to be truly inclusive; and educators and parents must commit to providing equitable financial education from the earliest age.

Ultimately, the goal is to create a world where financial knowledge and confidence are not gendered traits, but universal life skills. A world where a woman's financial security is not dependent on her marital status, and where her ability to build wealth is limited only by her ambition, not by her gender. The future of finance is not just female; it is equitable. And in that equity lies the potential for a more prosperous and resilient future for all.

Works cited#

1. Day 4: Evolution of Women's Financial Rights | YWCA Spokane, https://ywcaspokane.org/day4challenge2024/ 2. The origins of women's rights - CEPR, https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/origins-womens-rights 3. Detailed Timeline - National Women's History Alliance, https://nationalwomenshistoryalliance.org/resources/womens-rights-movement/detailed-timeline/ 4. Uncurrent Events: A History of Women's Economic Rights | Inside ..., https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/blog/2018/03/a-history-of-womens-economic-rights/ 5. Women and financial literacy: Closing the gender gap - N26, https://n26.com/en-eu/blog/women-and-financial-literacy-closing-the-gender-gap 6. Facts and figures: Economic empowerment | UN Women - Headquarters, https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/facts-and-figures 7. Gender and financial identity as predictors of the saving behavior of emerging adults - American Council on Consumer Interests, https://www.consumerinterests.org/assets/docs/CIA/CIA2023/WilskaTerhiAnnaCIA2023.pdf 8. Closing a Gender Gap: Financial Literacy is not Enough - Stanford Center on Longevity, https://longevity.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Closing-a-Gender-Gap-Financial-Literacy-is-not-Enough.pdf 9. Women continue to lag behind men in financial education, confidence and literacy, https://future.portfolio-adviser.com/women-continue-to-lag-behind-men-in-financial-education-confidence-and-literacy/ 10. Technical Report GENDER GAP IN FINANCIAL LITERACY AND WITHIN HOUSEHOLD SPECIALIZATION | CEPR, https://cepr.org/system/files/2022-08/Gender%20Gap%20in%20Financial%20Literacy%20and%20Within%20Household%20Specialization%20-%20Maddalena%20Davoli%20and%20Jia%20Hou.pdf 11. Playing with a squared ball: the financial literacy gender gap - Allianz, https://www.allianz.com/en/economic_research/insights/publications/specials_fmo/financial-literacy.html 12. 65+ Financial Issues Women Face Today - Ellevest, https://www.ellevest.com/magazine/stats-about-women-money 13. 8 Tips to Help Women Improve Financial Literacy by Kathleen Marteney, CRPC, https://www.provwealth.com/8-tips-to-help-women-improve-financial-literacy-by-kathleen-marteney-crpc/ 14. Understanding the Retirement Savings Gap for Women and How to Bridge It - Bankers Life, https://www.bankerslife.com/insights/personal-finance/understanding-the-retirement-savings-gap-for-women-and-how-to-bridge-it/ 15. Survey: Early financial education at home matters, but there's a gender gap, https://www.cardratings.com/financial-literacy/survey-early-financial-education-at-home-matters-but-theres-a-gender-gap.html 16. The Gender Gap in Stock Market Participation: Evidence from Stock Gifting - FDIC, https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/consumer-research/conferences/2024/papers/iskowitz-paper.pdf 17. How schools can break down financial literacy gender barriers - The Educator Online, https://www.theeducatoronline.com/k12/news/how-schools-can-break-down-financial-literacy-gender-barriers/285026 18. Stereotypes in Financial Literacy: Evidence from PISA*, https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Stereotypes-in-Financial-Literacy-Evidence-from-PISA_DEC2020.pdf 19. Having It All - Girls & Financial Literacy, https://www.gsmw.org/content/dam/gsmw-redesign/documents/GSRI_having_it_all_report.pdf 20. THE GENDER GAP IN FINANCIAL LITERACY - Observatory Finances Households SMEs, https://www.ie.edu/observatory-finances-households-smes/reports/the-gender-gap-in-financial-literacy/ 21. Financial literacy and wellness among U.S. women: The gender gap | Institute - TIAA, https://www.tiaa.org/public/institute/about/news/financial-literacy-and-wellness-among-us-women-gender-gap 22. Gender Differences in Financial Literacy Between and Within Generations - Springer Publishing, https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrjfcp/early/2024/07/01/JFCP-2023-0058.full.pdf 23. The Gender Gap in Financial Literacy: A Global Perspective, https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Gender-Gap-in-Financial-Literacy-A-Global-Perspective-Report.pdf 24. The Fed - Question design and the gender gap in financial literacy, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/question-design-and-the-gender-gap-in-financial-literacy-20240102.html 25. Women and Investing Statistics for 2025 | The Motley Fool, https://www.fool.com/research/women-in-investing-statistics/ 26. Understanding gender differences in money attitudes: biological and psychological gender perspective | Emerald Insight, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ijbm-08-2022-0352/full/html 27. Women Vs Men Psychological Money Habits - Medium, https://medium.com/@Ashish_Negi/women-vs-men-a-psychological-look-at-money-habits-2d5acc05d716 28. Why Are So Few Women in Finance? It's Complicated - Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092315/why-are-so-few-women-finance-its-complicated.asp 29. Finance and women: leadership roles are more possible than ever - IE, https://www.ie.edu/uncover-ie/women-leadership/ 30. Women in Finance: Diversifying Your Leadership Pipeline - IMPACT Group, https://impactgrouphr.com/blog/women-in-finance/ 31. The gender gap and women in finance in the US: Challenges, corporate responses and technological solutions - Intelligent Fin.tech, https://www.intelligentfin.tech/2024/09/05/the-gender-gap-and-women-in-finance-in-the-us-challenges-corporate-responses-and-technological-solutions/ 32. What role does gender play in the world of finance? | King's College London, https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/spotlight/what-role-does-gender-play-in-the-world-of-finance 33. Men, Women And Debt: Does Gender Matter In Finances? | Bankrate, https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/debt/men-women-and-debt-does-gender-matter/ 34. 10 Top Women Investors - Wifinglobal, https://wifinglobal.org/10-top-women-investors/ 35. Top Women Angel Investors (2024) - Eqvista, https://eqvista.com/top-women-angel-investors/ 36. The Top 12 Female Angel Investors in the USA - getPIN.xyz, https://www.getpin.xyz/post/top-12-female-angel-investors-usa 37. Unveiling gender disparities in finance: Insights into how women ..., https://www.ubs.com/microsites/nobel-perspectives/en/latest-economic-questions/finance-economics/articles/explore-gender-disparities-in-finance.html 38. Women in Finance: Current and Future Perspectives | UNSW Online, https://studyonline.unsw.edu.au/blog/women-in-finance 39. Gender differences in risk attitudes - IZA World of Labor, https://wol.iza.org/articles/gender-differences-in-risk-attitudes/long 40. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN BEHAVIORAL TRAITS AND LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES - Wellesley College, https://www1.wellesley.edu/sites/default/files/assets/departments/economics/files/shurchkoveckelchapter201705.pdf 41. Are Women Really More Risk-Averse than Men? - Boston University, https://www.bu.edu/eci/files/2020/01/12-05NelsonRiskAverse.pdf 42. Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0907352106 43. The Gender Investing Gap is Real and the Statistics are Here to Prove it, https://www.femaleinvest.com/en-gb/magazine/gender-investing-gap 44. Money, Gender, and Mindset | Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-psychology-of-debt/202503/money-gender-and-mindset 45. Women and Investing: Grow Wealth & Own Your Future - Ellevest, https://www.ellevest.com/magazine/women-and-investing 46. Gender pay gap in U.S. has narrowed slightly over 2 decades - Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/04/gender-pay-gap-in-us-has-narrowed-slightly-over-2-decades/ 47. Gender Pay Gap Statistics 2025: A Comprehensive Analysis, https://www.equalpaytoday.org/gender-pay-gap-statistics/ 48. The Enduring Grip of the Gender Pay Gap - Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/ 49. America's Women and the Wage Gap, https://nationalpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/americas-women-and-the-wage-gap.pdf 50. Gender wage gap persists in 2023: Women are paid roughly 22% less than men on average, https://www.epi.org/blog/gender-wage-gap-persists-in-2023-women-are-paid-roughly-22-less-than-men-on-average/ 51. Closing the Gender Retirement Savings Gap | T. Rowe Price, https://www.troweprice.com/financial-intermediary/us/en/insights/articles/2023/q1/closing-the-gender-retirement-savings-gap.html 52. Retirement Savings by Gender - Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/retirement-savings-by-gender-5100948 53. Gender and Racial Wealth Gaps and Why They Matter - National Women's Law Center, https://nwlc.org/resource/gender-and-racial-wealth-gaps-and-why-they-matter/ 54. Women and Retirement: Gender Gap | Morgan Stanley at Work, https://www.morganstanley.com/atwork/articles/women-retirement-stakes-higher 55. Spotlighting Women's Retirement Security | U.S. Department of the Treasury, https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/spotlighting-womens-retirement-security 56. Women Can't Build Secure Futures Without Financial Literacy | RAND, https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/06/women-cant-build-secure-futures-without-financial-literacy.html 57. home.treasury.gov, https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/spotlighting-womens-retirement-security#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20using%20self%2Dreported,tied%20to%20labor%20market%20opportunities. 58. Closing the Gender Investing Gap - Chicago Ideas, https://www.chicagoideas.com/videos/closing-the-gender-investing-gap 59. Ellevest CEO Sallie Krawcheck Wants To Close The ... - Bumble, https://bumble.com/en/the-buzz/sallie-krawcheck 60. Impact Investing | Ellevest Private Wealth Management, https://www.ellevest.com/private-wealth-management/impact-investing 61. Ethic and Ellevest Created a New Way to Invest in Women, https://www.ethic.com/clients/ellevest 62. Ellevest impresses analysts and enrages some women by firing 99% of its investors with a late-evening email, and funneling them to Betterment | RIABiz, https://riabiz.com/a/2025/3/6/ellevest-impresses-analysts-and-enrages-some-women-by-firing-99-of-its-investors-with-a-late-evening-email-and-funneling-them-to-betterment 63. Financial Alliance for Women: Home, https://financialallianceforwomen.org/ 64. Women's Money Matters: Home, https://womensmoneymatters.org/ 65. Women's Economic Empowerment Initiative - AAUW, https://www.aauw.org/resources/programs/womens-economic-empowerment-initiative/ 66. www.google.com, https://www.google.com/search?q=women+in+finance+organizations 67. Top Angel Investors for Women and Founders of Color - Beta Boom, https://betaboom.com/top-angels-women-diverse-founders/ 68. The Rising Financial Power of Women, https://www.theamericancollege.edu/knowledge-hub/insights/the-rising-financial-power-of-women 69. Women Are Shaping the Future of Financial Services - AdvisorHub, https://www.advisorhub.com/resources/future-of-finance/ 70. Driving Innovation: How Women in Finance Shape Business Strategy - Baker College, https://www.baker.edu/about/get-to-know-us/blog/how-women-in-finance-shape-business-strategy/ 71. How Women Are Redefining Success In Finance - Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesfinancecouncil/2024/09/27/how-women-are-redefining-success-in-finance/ 72. 10 Ways Communities Can Strengthen Women's Financial Literacy - Vestpod, https://www.vestpod.com/news/10-ways-to-strengthen-womens-financial-literacy 73. Women in Finance: The Future of Finance is Inclusive - OneStream Software, https://www.onestream.com/blog/women-in-finance-the-future-of-finance-is-inclusive/ 74. Money Matters: Financial literacy's gender gap - Radio Television Digital News Association, https://www.rtdna.org/news/money-matters-financial-literacys-gender-gap 75. There's No Financial Literacy Gender Gap Amongst 10-14-Year-Old's! - Gifting Sense, https://giftingsense.org/theres-no-financial-literacy-gender-gap-amongst-10-to-14-year-olds/ 76. What girls aren't learning about personal finance in school - Assembly | Malala Fund, https://assembly.malala.org/stories/what-girls-arent-learning-about-personal-finance-in-school 77. Building Financial Independence For Women Through Financial Literacy - Bankrate, https://www.bankrate.com/banking/women-and-financial-literacy/