This is in many ways a matter of class and gender. The truth is, no one in this country is taught proper financial planning strategies and thinking patterns unless they are taught by their parents. In my family, my mother handles the long-term investments and my father handles the day to day druggery of bill paying. That is a reversal of many families, I've come to learn. My parents started teaching me about check-books and savings accounts when I was about 12; then I got a credit card at 18 and I learned about debt structuring and repayment schedules (always pay off the balance at the end of the month, etc). My mother, my sister, and I have talked about investments (I'm in grad school right now, so nothing to invest and I'm stacking up some student loans, but I'm not really afraid of them, I just know that I want to pay them off sooner rather than later).

Now, here's the thing; if you haven't checked out "Nickled and Dimed" do it now--there's a poverty tax in this country and its steep. Money management isn't really some most people that are living hand to mouth are dealing with--logistically as well as as a concept. As that more women are working class or working poor, of course we're more uneasy--we have dependants and no money. Teaching folks about money (where, the schools? that's tantamont to religion, money)needs to happen, but we need fair wages, universal healthcare, universal childcare, and so forth before it means anything.

peace

I agree that in general no one is taught about financial planning. I feel like it should be a required course before graduating high school. Right now I am volunteering in a pilot program which has matched me to a family living in section 8 housing. The basic idea is for me to help the family understand credit scores, loans, budgets, credit, and investing. The ultimate goal being to get people to be debt free with decent credit scores.

But what is amazing to me is that when I talk about my volunteering with people at my work (in a university) or with friends (most have college degrees) they know hardly anything about managing finances either. The only difference between most of them and the family I am volunteering with is the safety net of a wealthy family and decent paying job.

Thank God for my father who made it a point to teach me about finances from a very young age.

My mother was the money manager of our household, both small scale and large. I'm following in her footsteps. Some day I look forward to sharing the thrill of a well-prepared tax return with my daughters.

No doubt there is some sexism at work, but most kids just don't learn how to deal with their money, because their families never did, either.

This is making a gender issue out of something that's not about gender. Women have been managing their families' finances for ages, that's nothing new. I guarantee you men are not better trained or somehow intuitively know how to manage their own finances while women are left in the dark. There's not some secret class all boys go to in school that teaches them about financial management. Men just get someone else to do it for them if they don't know how or don't feel like learning (mom, CPA, etc.).

The issue is that for the small segment of the female population who never would have needed to manage money in generations past, they are finding themselves without a crutch to lean on. Boo hoo.

"I don't find finances confusing. I just don't make any money."

Great quote, Samhita! I love it. It's a great response to the idea that people who are poor are that way because they don't "understand finances". Sometimes that's true, sometimes not.

jpmadrid, this is a feminist issue. Yes, men face it too, but we're not talking about men, or a small segment of the female population. Plus, none of the people here suggested that men be excluded from a financial planning class.

Even if women do marry a man who will worry about it, they now outlive men in every country in the world. In generations past, men would not only take care of it, they would usually also outlive their wives. Since that has reversed, we also see a huge number of elderly women living in poverty because they didn't work enough on their own to build a pension, and couldn't/didn't set aside a nest egg for themselves.

This is something that's fixable, though. A few financial planning classes, and perhaps more women anchoring business news. (My mother is a big fan of Suze Orman, probably because they seem to be a lot alike.) Most importantly, this has to be something women see as important and necessary, if not interesting.

I still don't see how it's a feminist issue, and I don't agree with the claim that it was always assumed the husband would take care of the finances, or that women have somehow been barred from having financial savvy. I'm imagining a stepford wife who spends her days frittering away the household income. Who has had the luxury of never worrying about money, really? Just because the husband was traditionally the one making it does not mean there wasn't a division of labor in many households.

Sure, lots of people make poor decisions and plenty of people are the victims of an ineffectual social security system, but at some point the burden of responsibility has to fall on women too. It's a shame if some women from past generations didn't know any better than to get a job earlier in life, but that does not make it a women's rights issue. There are still plenty of women from all generations who have pulled thru, many by their own bootstraps. The independent variable here is primarily class, not gender.

ah, 'bootstraps.'

it's a feminist issue because, as an economically vulnerable population, women have not traditionally had access to the kinds of financial planning/knowledge normally available to wealthy/upper middle class families where that sort of knowledge has been taught or modeled - a point to you for class being a controlling variable.

but in those cases where the top 2-3% of the socioeconomic food chain isn't a reality (i.e., for the rest of us), women have, traditionally, been left out of the loop.

a woman who does not enjoy class privilege will find that her situation is completely defined by her gender as well as her class: if she's a single mother, then she has less money to pay for child care, transportation, utilities, healthcare, housing. after the bare necessities are taken care of, there will be no money for building or acquiring assets.

add race to the pot and a woman's chances of achieving financial stability is even lower.

even the financial industry is agreeing; we feminists aren't out here on a crazy limb. more and more, banks and lending institutions are targeting low-income women, young women, and newly/single women for training, workshops and seminars on how to build wealth. as a grant writer for economic empowerment issues, i've made the case to these institutions and they're listening and saying it makes sense.

and they're responding to it.

feminism isn't just about looking at gender; it's also about looking at the ways that different privileges (like class and race) affect women particularly.

while (not to mention that work in the house is WORK).

Yeah, but they aren't paying rent and someone else is paying for their food, vacation time, medical expenses, entertainment, retirement, etc.

commentator--what's your point?

Commentator, when a home makes money beyond bare necessity, it typically goes to the person who does market labor. In case of divorce, the person who works outside home is usually financially secure; the person who doesn't, isn't.

Saying that intra-household relationships are equal just because women get room and board is like saying that slavery was really an equal institution because slaves got a place to sleep and some food.

Fine - feminist issue perhaps, gender issue...I'm still far from convinced.

Good and valid point about single moms and the particular economic circumstances that affect poor, underprivileged women. That is a big problem, one that our welfare system (and advocacy groups where necessary) should be addressing.

But with regards to this particular article, which pretends to be talking about women as a special subset of the population (not merely lower class women), I still maintain that both genders have had equally lacking financial training, and the only gender disparity has more to do with women being at a higher risk of becoming bogged down by the poverty trap as noted. That is to say I don't believe that women and men start out on unequal footing.

Further, the whole "women are never taught about finances etc." line of reasoning really irks me. What I am taking issue with here is the claim that women need a special kind of help, that we are somehow isolated in a path to poverty and inequity because of some socially-gendered ineptitude with finances - come on! Would you say that because women in the past were traditionally excluded from math and science careers that we need special women-geared classes, or women scientists teaching us?? Please. Part of being a feminist is standing up and saying hey, we can do this too, no excuses. We're already in science class with the boys, and have been for years. Same with personal finances. We should not be using some "I'm a woman, I've been oppressed" cop-out for why we're not hacking it alongside men. It's not women's lib all over again; we've already been liberated. Now it's time to take the helm and steer.

BTW, "bootstraps" is not a pejorative or chauvinistic term, it is part of a principle on which this country is founded, and I personally know numerous women of all different generations who have overcome averse situations to have successful and independent lives. For me, these women are the most inspiring, powerful examples of feminism out there.