Why are women terrible with finances?

Why are women terrible with finances?

Because women are emotional

Because they can just get with a man who isn't bad with finances as a back up, literally nearly all girls do shitty path ways in education and waste money being financially irresponsible while they're young and if none of it pays off just marry a well of fun tradesdman or manager in a company so he can pay for their shit

Plenty of men have that trait as well, one of my mates ended up being 5000$ in debt to his now ex-gf due to bad financial habits and a tendency to gotget paying his bills on time

Another mate has the same problem, he just lives with his gf and they have a baby on the way, so he isn't 'loaning' from her, but she is picking up the slack nonetheless.

It depends on her background. If shes a CPA that means shes excellent with money, but if she just has a high school diploma don't expect much.

Background and heredity my friend.

thread

Men and women aren't much different just they gravitate more towards the median.

Men are hit and miss. There's equally as many 80 iq petty career criminals who KEEP committing petty crime like retail theft or fighting and KEEP getting into jail, over and over and over and never learn.

Whereas there's 135 IQ math geniuses writing genius works.

Women are more average and plain desu, they're not stupid but they're generally much less likely to be exceptional at something.

Because women aren't socialized that way. Men are taught:

>Develop yourself athletically (most NEETs don't do this)
>Get a job that pays well
>Deal with financial shit

Women are taught the complimentary set:

>Develop your position socially
>Invest in possessions and behaviors that demonstrate status
>Land a good man

Yes, women CAN work jobs and be independent financially, but that doesn't mean that they know how to handle it due to how they're socialized.

fpbp

because they dont need to be good with money

cucks will take care of them one way or another

this
Just started uni, out of the 15 or so girls that are in my social circle, one did engineering, one did physics, the rest did useless degrees or do something that pays really low like childcare worker

This guy has it in a nutshell.

Kudos.

blame how society has been structured since the dawn of man

it's not that they're so bad with finances, it's that finances got thrown into play in a material-focused system of basic hunting, gathering, and hoarding. It was the woman's role to be the receiver and to wear the shiny things, you can't blame them for doing what they were essentially hard-wired to do.

To be absolutely factual OP in the area of day trading women actually tend to be much more successful than men. Also, as far as "male dominated fields" goes females don't fare too poorly in finance at least when compared to computer science or engineering. Finance takes a lot of calculated risk assessment and intuition that women tend to have more naturally. The only parts that really appeal to men in finance are the ridiculous hours in the investment sector, and the overall tone of "make all the god damn money" so many hours for a relatively superficial competitive pursuit is lost as a merit on a lot of women. But as far as necessary skill set, and natural talent women are better.

>To be absolutely factual

>Proceeds to not be.

Look it up, bud. I promise you this is the case. (I'm on a shitty phone, links are hard.) Also, think about the role women have played traditionally one of them is book keeping for their husbands. Money managent is a trait that's passed down

/thread

this is actually true. The best new trader I've ever worked with was a Chinese girl with balls of steel.

>Because women aren't socialized that way. Men are taught:

I like how you relate this back to how people train puppies as if women were dogs.

They are innately inferior on average when it come to long term planning, application of logic, and decision making. This has nothing to do with their "socializing" and everything to do with their successful evolutionary traits. They are what they were designed to be, not what they were trained to be.

Women literally have to carry a child to term, and then take care of that child. Men have to find mates and kill shit. Long term planning is a much more serious necessity for women than men, I don't see where your theorem checks out sir.

> Get with cuck
> Cuck likes vagine
> Cuck makes 60k a year
> Cuck gets me pregnant
> Leave cuck
> Take out child support & alimony
> Get 950 a month in cs & 300 in alimony
> New guy I'm with has better dick
> New guy makes more
> Hope he gets me pregnant

Yes they're quite financially illiterate.

They only have to be able to find a man who is capable, not actually do it themselves.

Women do worse in general tests of math reasoning ability from what i have read.

Math is important to financ/investing, which is a large reason that less than 5 in 100 hard science/math/eng majors in college are women.
Is it genetic?
Yes, it is.
Women also do worse than men in spatial reasoning tasks, although this would be more explanatory of the lack of womens contribution to physics than their relativel short numbers in fin/investing circles.
Nobody will doubt that females have more developed capacity for language than males, so in order to purport that the male science advantage is fallacy, you need to understand that you are condoning the belief that, all accounted for, women are superior to men.
I dont believe men or women are better or worse in the aggregate; i believe everybody has different strengths and weaknesses. If something is politically correct and seems to go out of its way to preserve and protect jimmies from rustling, you can assume 9 times out of 9 that its rhinocerous shit.

Also, female iqs huddle around the median more than men. So there are more stupid men than women, but there are also more genius level men than women. Again, its tradeoffs, its not supior/inferior.

/thread

furthermore, women can always fall back on men in times of crisis.

Not so much the other way around.

> man: I'm broke, someone help...
> woman: fuck off loser

> woman: I'm broke, someone help...
> man: I'll help you get a job

>CPA
>Woman

wew lad don't be ridiculous, get the fuck out now.

That's literally what I said.

So basically there's a lot less geniuses but there's also far less relentless criminals.

I do not think that women are superior in language tasks. I seriously doubt this 'fact' you say. I rarely come across a woman with language skills that I am impressed with (less than with men).

I think you might be aiming for emotional sensitivity or something like that but not language skills.

I remember a gem of a post that explained this a while ago.

Of course this dicounts women like mother Teresa. or my boss who said poor people deserve it they are losers

It's not just women, it's women, children and nu-males. All have the same characteristics:

- child-like mind
- have a parent figure to rescue them (the parent figure ultimately always being masculine; either dad or dad through alimony, or the state through social support devised by men)

I was gonna mention this.

Women usually don't need to be as careful with finances compared to men because they're born with innate value. I could say the value is their pussy, but biologically it's really their eggs. They can always trade on their sex, at least when they're young, and even older ones can if they take care of themselves. They'd
just have to make up for their lack of youth and fertility by actually being a good, loving person.

Whereas if men lose their status, they're completely SOL.

Patrice O'Neal said being a woman is like walking around with $10,000 on you at all times. $10,000 she didn't even have to work for. Whereas a man has to work for his $10,000.

Dr Jordan Peterson, Prof. at the University of Toronto. Sorry for the caps but that's how it was transcribed.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE DOMINANCE HIERARCHY IN WESTERN SOCIETY, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE WORST OFF ARE MEN. THE ONES AT THE BOTTOM. SO THERE IS NOTHING MORE
LACKING -- THERE IS NO GROUP OF
PEOPLE FOR WHOM THERE IS LESS
SYMPATHY THAN DOWN AND OUT MEN.

MEN DON'T HAVE MUCH SYMPATHY FOR
THEM AND WOMEN HAVE -- AS FAR AS
I CAN TELL -- VIRTUALLY NONE. THE EQUALITY IS THE ONLY AIMED
AT THE TOP. MEN CERTAINLY ARE VERY DOMINANT AT THE TOP OF MOST PROFESSIONS BUT IT'S A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF MEN. IT'S ALSO A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PROFESSIONS.

THE EQUALITY THAT'S TALKED ABOUT
IS ALWAYS THE WOMEN WHO ARE IN
THE MIDDLE, GETTING TO THE MOST
POWERFUL POSITIONS THAT MEN
OCCUPIED HAS NOTHING TO DO, SAY,
WITH BRINGING THE 30 percent OF MEN OR
25 percent OF MEN WHO ARE BARELY
CLINGING TO THE EDGE OF EXISTENCE UP INTO SOME QUASI- CIVILIZED FORM OF LIFE.

THEY ARE JUST IGNORED.

THERE IS NOTHING MORE CONTEMPTIBLE GENERALLY SPEAKING THAN A FAILED MAN. AND THAT'S NOT IN THE CONVERSATION AT ALL.

AND MEN DON'T HAVE THE POWER.
SOME MEN HAVE THE POWER.
AND THERE AREN'T VERY MANY OF THEM.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE POWER IS NOT
DISTRIBUTED NORMALLY."

convertcase.net

or just use Word.

Women don't need to care about finances because some beta will always give them the money they need to buy the newest purse.

It's not fully socialization, it's also biology, of which the socialization is an outgrowth.

They can be independent, but why bother when you can use your pussy and eggs to co-opt men's energies? Or even leech on the mostly male tax funded welfare state? And still be told how great and independent you are by society.

A few women are truly independent. Good for them. But high status, educated people only want to talk about high status, educated women, and the fact is those women are the few and not the general trend. The truth is that women are often, in some way or another, propped up by artificial constructs which are usually funded mostly by men (as is the case with the welfare state) or which give women lower requirements or unmerited favor in order for them to better compete with men.

Equality of outcome is fundamental for women to """advance""" in society (and become more unhappy as a result apparently), because equality of opportunity is a meritocracy, and in a meritocracy women on average will not be able to compete with men on average.

t-t-thanks, you too

>few months ago

>guy I work with is talking about marriage
>he's 36 or 37, I'm 29
>no kids either of us
>tells me I have to get married soon
>tell him I probably won't, seeing as it's bad for business most of the time
>he says some trad-con bullshit that I dismantle, he shakes his head and backpedals while stammering

>last week
>says he told his wife wanted to take a look at the books
>they both work and don't have kids, they should have a good surplus to do shit with

>turns out his wife brought about 25k of student loan debt into the marriage that he didn't know about
>for some bullshit degrees like philosophy and interior design (the fuck?!?!)
>no vacations or fun times, sonny

>I transcend into my planar form and become Pepe

>"yeah, like I said...bad for business."

>[Jimmies destabilize further]

>he's been mean muggin ever since
>still smug as fuck over here

This is too true.

meanwhile they're taking up funding, space, and eventually income that would otherwise go to legit shit.

It is amazing how opaque information can be between married individuals.

I have been with my girlfriend for almost two years and we literally share all of our financial information. We keep separate accounts and share one credit card that we both split the bill for each month for joint expenses.

How the fuck can a guy get married and not know about student loans? Fuck, my girlfriend and I make a game out of our credit scores for fuck's sake.

How do you get married and not know that? How do you think about kids and not know this shit?

>How do you get married and not know that?

Pussy fumes and desperation.

And she's a landwhale for fucks sake.