Financial independence for women beyond income and inheritance

The case of Martha Stewart

Did you see Netflix’s documentary, Martha, regarding the life and times of the formidable homemaker-turned businesswoman? And did you take note of the scene when her sentencing is officially announced following the failure of being able to convict her for insider trading? They were keen to pin her down somehow, and resorted to charging her for lying.

Her roaring career and rise to the top was reduced to the label of someone, most unlikely, to have done jail time. The truth of the matter aside, it is in fact the conviction itself which I found revealing.

There is contempt. Anger. Resentment. Righteousness. Superiority… all at play. The prosecutors, James Comey, who would later go on to become Director of the FBI, publicly suggested the case wasn’t about insider trading, but about sending a message about lying - and that too about something which she was not legally being convicted of.

Not about the stock trade. Not about legalities or mortality. But the idea that a lesson needed to be taught.

It was not lost on me that this woman, whether one admired her or not, had raced to the top of her field, built a commercial empire around a domain many dismissed as trivial and, in doing so, moved decisively into territory that had long been dominated by men in suits who were convinced her vision amounted to very little.

If ever you need a contemporary example of how the world may react when a woman accumulates power, influence, and financial authority outside the boundaries society finds comfortable, this would be it.

Women, money and power: The systems that kept women financially dependent

Historically, women were entirely dependent on other people for their survival and comfort. Whether you were dependent on your father taking care of you and the wider family structure, or your husband and then your in-laws, traditionally women's safety, security and financial protection was at the mercy of other people.

It wasn’t until the 1970s that women’s rights around work, education, voting and employment started to mobilise. Combine that with the laws of the land which denied the passing of inheritance to daughters, wives and women of the families, what we have is the aftermath of a feudal system that made women completely invisible.

If anyone was wondering, this is why women are financially ‘behind’. Not for any lack, inability or even appetite towards financial risk as many credible voices have claimed. 

I was not impressed by a ‘study’ which proclaimed more women are starting to take on higher financial risk, as if reinforcing the sweeping stereotype that it is women who are cautious and not men. I was not impressed because I can assure you in my world, I have seen it to be the complete opposite where men are conservative and the women are the risk takers. Meaning, financial ambition isn't gendered, just as you can have some men who are ambitious and others who clearly aren’t, the same is applied to women.

It must also be said - emphatically - there is nothing wrong with being well taken care of, and no woman who is well kept should ever be apologetic for it. There are lines of women (and I know men of this kind too) who would love to be in that position. 

I’ve never been against the idea of privilege, what I'm against is people not using their privilege opportunistically. If, as a woman, you have the safety net of someone else's finances, then more power to you.

But what about those who don't? And even more considerably for those who are privileged, what happens when the good favour of the people you're dependent on runs its course? What happens when the support is conditional?

The unspoken reality is that financial agency of women has often been seen as a threat or an act of distrust. The concept of money comes laden with heavy implications, for both women and the people around her. Such as: to become financially independent must mean you have to forgo your femininity, and quite possibly harden? Or it’s distasteful and makes the woman seem cold and unapproachable. 

It’s often framed as a responsibility women are not fit to uphold because of the supposed womanly wiles, most notably emotion. As if emotion is incompatible with judgment and both men and women do not act from fear, pride, impulse or ego.

In reality, emotion is not the disqualifier. At its core, this resistance to women’s financial agency is about ego and control which fundamentally stems from an insecurity because any man, or woman, who is truly self assured, would have no need to project or exercise anything.

If we add toxic, cultural connotations to this: the woman is undeserving, will become overly independent, run off and jeopardise the family’s reputation. But perhaps the most uncomfortable belief of all, rarely voiced  but deeply thought….she’s not of our blood, not our biological daughter therefore not fully owed protection. Her security becomes conditional to her marital status. Her claims become negotiable. Her wellbeing becomes secondary to lineage, optics, or legacy that does not include her and never intended to.

Like with many larger than life topics, there is no one factor contributing to the current state of affairs of women and finances. It’s an amalgamation of various social, economic and cultural issues that have created layers upon layers of convoluted complexity. For this reason and many more, it's often easier to only address the effect, never the cause.

For example, the plight to close the gender pay gap doesn't look into the underlying factors that have caused the gender pay gap in the first place, and therefore still continues to maintain it. One of these reasons is regarding the different ways men and women work, how output is received and measured within a patriarchal, and alleged meritocratic, system. 

People are naturally drawn to those of their own kind. Which means those at the top, those with power and influence to promote and open doors, are always more likely to relate to people like themselves.

If you need such a real life example, I have come across directors who have hired men over women simply because they could imagine themselves having a drink with them down the pub. I am not against this sentiment per se; the importance of connection, collaboration and shared culture is more important than people might think. 

The questioning is regarding the consideration needed from people in authority who make these decisions. People are wired with subconscious biases and preferences, and we all should lean into our strengths, but by doing so we must admit with humility where we fall short.

Defining financial agency for women

Stepping back from it all, the heart of the question is:

What does financial agency for women look like?

Ultimately, financial agency for women is being able to remain who you are when circumstances change, and not having your dignity, safety or future contingent on someone else’s mood, health, loyalty or survival.

Nor is it just about having access to capital or making some pocket money on the side. It’s about knowing how, and being able to, provide and sustain yourself completely independently. And that is not to say independence is the prerequisite, but it should be an option if necessary. One of the biggest drawbacks of the modern era is the notion of hyper independence, detachment and ceasing to create, and get help, from our ‘village’ of people.

The second question which immediately follows the above, but no one voices despite it being permeated within all cultures, and ingrained in most women’s psyche (and even men, if they might care to admit):

Can women be feminine and successful? 

The simple answer is undeniably… yes. But why does it need to be asked in the first place? Because traditionally both the concept and the output of success have been intrinsically associated with masculine qualities.

It should be noteworthy, psychologically ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are categories which refer to a set of attributes, not gender per se. And both are present in men and women, though biologically each ends up present in its own identified gender. 

Given we are amidst a new world order, it makes sense to look back and recognise that so much of success, triumph, leadership and competence were intrinsically associated with the masculine qualities; emotional intelligence was unheard of, rest was seen as weakness and to prioritise soft skills was laughable. 

Times have changed and are continuing to do so. Though we still have a long way to go, the present times are more enduring and accepting. 

This piece is not about financial strategies as such. There is much of this out there already and it is a different matter entirely. Instead, this is about the considerations around financial independence for women, whether you're privileged with provision and inheritance, or not. These considerations are to be voiced so by directly acknowledging them we can enable agency with intent where it is applicable.

Cultural silence around money is intentional - know your rights

People avoid implementing the parts of legal, familial and moral terms that protect women. Whether it’s intentional or not, it stems from wanting to forgo any accountability and responsibility, as I alluded to in invisible grief. 

In many cultures women are discouraged from asking questions about money because silence preserves existing power arrangements. In order to maintain this it's framed as being improper or disrespectful to bring up finances, even if it is within your right. 

‘Rights’ might seem like an archaic term, and is often weaponised to advocate subjective preferences rather than moral alignment. Additionally, our ecosystem does not uphold what is legally binding, like most things, if it is inconvenient or unprofitable, the side with power and influence can distort, bend and outright break ecosystems in their favour.

In such a climate it can be easy to fall into cynicism or to disengage entirely from one’s rights. But here, ignorance is not bliss. Even when exercising those rights feels impractical, risky, or socially costly, internal and external alignment with the truth becomes companionship; one that helps chart a way forward for women who may find themselves up against entrenched systems, obstruction, or power structures that benefit from their silence.

Being provided for vs being protected

Provision is regarding current comfort. Protection is regarding future resilience. 

To some this could be a very hard pill to swallow because on the surface it can imply skepticism of your provision, and therefore question the motives of the people who are giving it to you (be it your spouse, partner or family) as well as raise a sense of distrust which would translate into defensiveness from your providers. Accusations of ingratitude are rife in this context, as if raising additional considerations, especially those which have not been thought of by the provider, are a form of accusation.

Given such provisions are so close to home, it can also be understandable that the idea of it ever seizing could seem alarming or unrealistic. I’m afraid it is here where I must call out naiveté. If you are provided for today, what happens when tomorrow something changes, through whatever means? The reality is, even if you have the privilege of having your provision from an infrastructure which genuinely does prioritise you, life events have a way of completely transforming both people and circumstances. Meaning, even from whatever provision you may have, it is wise to use that to strategise for your own future protection. 

For women who are well provided for, or who expect inheritance, it becomes especially important to consider how present provision can be translated into future protection.

The interplay of independence and dependence

There is a misconception of independence and its relationship with dependence. Being independent shouldn't make it compulsory for one to do everything themselves, just as being dependent shouldn’t automatically mean you are not allowed to have some agency. Independence is really about having self assuredness and not losing oneself even when you're being dependent. 

In order to maintain this balance requires knowing oneself and where one stands in the first place. However, even this knowledge can often come from needing to pass through a naiveté phase where there is significant imbalance and turbulence in the first place. Meaning, navigating this intersection certainly comes from experience which requires learning about oneself and familiarising with the environment you’re operating in. It is not given or acquired, but lived through.  

Financial agency is not about leaving. It’s about staying without fear

Financial agency is often misunderstood as preparation for departure as if independence is a rehearsal for abandonment. This misunderstanding is precisely why so many women resist it, and the ones who embrace it can unknowingly end up rehearsing departure (indirectly through defensiveness and projection). But financial agency does not mean you plan to leave, it means you are no longer trapped by the consequences of staying. It means your dignity is not contingent on endurance, your safety is not reliant on goodwill, your future is not suspended on another person’s capacity, mood, health or loyalty.

This distinction becomes even more critical when children are involved because staying without fear changes how decisions are made, how boundaries are held, and how power is negotiated. Whilst agency may weaken your bond from the providers who might be insecure, it will steady and strengthen others. When a woman stays because she chooses to rather than because she must, something fundamental shifts in the way she lives and operates, a shift which aligns herself internally, but also creates sincerity and harmony in relationships.

Beyond independence: what financial agency really means

There’s a class of people who instantly show some kind of reverence towards affluence. Some kind of admiration which snowballs into ‘respectability’. However, what’s often missed is that it is not wealth per se that evokes these sentiments amongst an impressionable audience.

With wealth comes agency, independence, the confidence to navigate life, explore options and pursue choices independent of anyone or anything. When wealth has been your own, or you have steering over it, it evaporates reliance and the need to depend or abide by someone else.

It is this sense of self-conviction which your nervous system detects, and then appropriates to wealth being the reason why these people are ‘revered’. When in actuality, it is the temperament that wealth can bring. 

In which case, your financial affairs don’t have to be the ruling factor towards agency. Should a defiant and unwavering spirit be able to embody such a temperament without financial backing, wealth becomes a capability, not a necessary catalyst for agency. I would even go as far to say it is necessary to start here in the first place; embodying and truly believing in your agency, without financial independence in the first place. 

Because true agency is not about optics, it’s simply to ensure when circumstances change - as they always do - a woman remains intact.

---

Kindred reflections