Her Money, His Market

For generations, women have taken responsibility for managing the finances of their households, creating and following daily budgets, stretching grocery dollars, managing household expenses, and saving for the future. That responsibility, however, existed within much narrower limits than it does today. It did not mean financial ownership or independence. Historically, many women were managing money earned or controlled by their fathers or husbands, tasked with making limited household funds cover domestic needs rather than deciding how wealth itself was earned, owned, or invested. Yet, the contrast with the present is striking. Women are gaining control over unprecedented amounts of wealth, yet many of the institutions responsible for managing and investing that wealth remain heavily male-dominated. This contradiction reflects a broader disconnect: as women’s influence over the economy continues to grow, their representation in the financial institutions and educational pathways that shape that economy has struggled to keep pace.

Over the past few decades, women’s influence over the economy as a whole has expanded far beyond the household. According to Morgan Stanley, women are the principal shoppers in roughly 72 percent of households, while McKinsey estimates that women already control about one-third of financial assets in the United States and Europe, a share expected to rise to roughly 40 to 45 percent by 2030. This shift, often referred to as the “sheconomy,” is changing who holds wealth and how this wealth is invested and spent. 

Much of this change can be traced back to several social and economic shifts over the past few decades. Greater access to higher education has allowed more women to qualify for higher-paying careers, while changing expectations surrounding marriage and family have given many women more time to establish financial independence before taking on caregiving responsibilities. At the same time, expanded workplace opportunities and legal protections have made it easier for women to remain in the labor force, advance into leadership positions, and launch businesses of their own. These developments have increased women’s earnings and allowed them to accumulate independent wealth. In addition, Cerulli Associates projects that $124 trillion overall will transfer through 2048, with trillions expected to pass to women through spousal and intergenerational transfers especially, partly because women tend to outlive men. 

As women gain greater financial influence, investment trends have also begun to shift. Morgan Stanley research has found that women show greater interest than men in sustainable investing and are more likely to consider social or environmental impact alongside financial returns when making investment decisions. Financial institutions have responded by changing how they market investment products and services as well as what they offer. For example, some firms have created investment platforms, advisory services, and products designed around women’s financial goals, helping them plan for retirement or prepare for child-induced career interruptions, and have begun to factor caregiving responsibilities and longer life expectancies into their monetary decisions. Yet even these attempts to cater to female investors can reveal the assumptions that helped create the gender divide in the first place. Advice marketed toward women frequently treats childcare and career interruptions as distinctly female financial concerns. Men become fathers too, but financial planning rarely approaches fatherhood with the same expectation that a man’s career will be interrupted by caregiving. The industry is adapting to women’s lives without seriously questioning why women are still expected to absorb so much of the financial cost of raising a family. Companies outside the financial sector have also paid closer attention to areas in which women influence spending, such as healthcare, family services, and education. The economy now seems more centered around their priorities, influencing which companies and industries receive attention and investment and how businesses of all kinds respond to a more female-centered economy.

However, despite their growing economic influence, women remain underrepresented in many areas of professional finance. Finance classes, investment clubs, and leadership positions within the industry continue to be disproportionately male, in spite of all the aforementioned cultural and economic shifts. Calling finance “intimidating” for girls only explains part of this divide. Girls grow up receiving messages about which kinds of ambition are acceptable for them. A boy who takes charge is seen as confident or driven, while a girl displaying the same behavior risks being dismissed as bossy, aggressive, emotional, or difficult. Those double standards matter in a field that is built around competition, authority, risk-taking, and control over money. At the same time, schools often fail to present finance as an accessible field connected to real-world decision-making, reinforcing the idea that it only belongs to a narrow group of people. Popular culture can reinforce the same image. Finance is still commonly represented through male executives, traders, investors, and entrepreneurs, giving girls fewer visible examples of women occupying positions of financial power. If girls rarely see women presented as the people making major economic decisions, entering those spaces can feel like crossing into territory that was never designed with them in mind. 

The disconnect between women’s growing economic power and their continued underrepresentation in finance will have far-reaching consequences, limiting how much of their growing economic influence translates into actual decision-making power. Financial literacy and early exposure to finance often shape who feels confident pursuing careers in investing, economics, and business leadership later on. Thus, when girls are not encouraged to participate in these spaces early, opportunities for influence and leadership become uneven long before professional careers even begin. Students who receive greater exposure to finance are more likely to develop the confidence, technical skills, and professional networks needed to open doors to internships, university programs, and careers in the industry. Those who never receive that exposure begin financial careers—if they pursue them at all—at a disadvantage. That gap eventually reaches institutions deciding where billions of dollars are invested and which businesses receive capital. Women can hold a growing share of wealth while still having far less representation among the professionals deciding how wealth moves through the economy. If the “sheconomy” is expected to transform financial markets, ensuring that more girls are prepared to participate in those markets is essential to sustaining the very change that the sheconomy represents.

In response to gender imbalance in financial spaces, schools, nonprofit organizations, and financial institutions have begun creating programs designed to introduce girls to finance at an earlier age. These initiatives often provide workshops on investing and budgeting, mentorship from women already working in the industry, stock-market simulations, networking opportunities, and access to internships or career panels. By giving students practical experience and visible role models, these programs can make finance feel less unfamiliar and help girls imagine themselves pursuing related majors and careers. However, participation often depends on whether a student attends a well-funded school, lives near a major financial center, or has the time and resources to seek out opportunities beyond the classroom. Girls from lower-income or under-resourced communities remain excluded from the very programs intended to close the gender gap. That creates another divide within an issue already defined by unequal access: the girls most likely to benefit from early exposure may be least likely to receive it. Although specialized programs are an important step, lasting progress will require financial education and career exposure to become available to girls regardless of their school, location, or socioeconomic background. 

Expanding female participation in finance is about nurturing the health of the free market. As women become a larger economic force, bringing more female perspectives into financial decision-making is important. It can influence the kind of businesses that receive investments, the products companies develop, and the long-term priorities that shape markets. Leaving women out of those decisions results in leaving an increasingly important source of economic knowledge out of the room. When an industry reflects the people it serves, it is better equipped to respond to changing consumer needs and economic challenges, leading to greater success and longevity. Therefore, the female influence in the economy should be matched by female influence in finance to ensure that the market is able to respond organically to the changes brought by the “sheconomy.”

The rise of the “sheconomy” demonstrates that financial influence is no longer concentrated in the hands of one demographic. As women continue to reshape markets, businesses, and investment priorities, the question is whether education and the finance industry will evolve quickly enough to match it. At Stuyvesant, there is already an opportunity to begin closing this gap. Starting in the 2026-2027 school year, New York public schools are required to begin providing personal finance education to middle and high school students. This is a promising step. However, because schools have flexibility in how they implement the requirement, its impact will depend on what that education actually looks like. A few lessons on budgeting or credit can prepare students to manage their own money, but schools should also use this opportunity to introduce investing, financial careers, and the people who make decisions within the industry. At Stuyvesant, this could look like connecting classroom instruction with investment organizations, mentorship, career panels, and female professionals working in finance. New York City is uniquely positioned to do this. Students here attend school alongside one of the largest financial centers in the world, and schools should take advantage of that proximity by building partnerships that give students meaningful exposure to the industry. If implemented well, New York’s new requirement can do more than just improve financial literacy. It can give girls an earlier chance to see finance as a field in which they care for and belong, and then eventually lead. Preparing more girls to participate in finance is about ensuring that the people shaping tomorrow’s economy reflect the economy itself.