in defense of girl math

finally putting my niche feminist behavioral economics degree to work!

Earlier this week, we discussed the revolutionary feminist power of girl trends like “girl dinner” and “girl math”, but today I’d like us to explore the backlash to them, because as evidenced by the Barbie movie, sometimes the response can be more interesting than the trend itself. While I could write a whole rebuttal to the claim that “girl dinner” is disordered eating, the negative reaction to “girl math” feels even more potent, so let’s get into it!

I defined “girl math” in my last post, but just as a refresher, it’s a nod to the unique way that women calculate or justify certain expenses. It originated from a segment known as "Girl Math" on the morning show Fletch, Vaughan & Hayley from a New Zealand-based radio station. Examples of “girl math” is that if you pay with a pre-loaded starbucks card, your coffee is “free.” Or that if you buy a 30$ dress and you wear it 10 times, it’s only 3$. Or that if you get the bill after you eat with a group, and they pay you back, you just “made” money.

A lot of people are angry at “girl math” and the visceral reaction has oscillated between concern-trolling to straight-up degrading the women and girls who admit to doing it. It’s lead to a growing pile of think pieces from very worried adults about Gen Z women making poor financial choices. The Washington Post thinks “girl math” is about “young women […] explaining money habits or spending choices that make no mathematical sense.” Financial experts have even weighed in claiming that it the trends is “dangerous” and may “perpetuate the baseless stereotype that portrays women as being bad with money” Some even went so far as to claim it’s "proof that gen z doesn't think money is real.” One particular video of a young girl explaining “girl math” to her dad where he progressively gets pissed off with the logic she’s presenting, went viral, drawing even more scrutiny to girl brains.

Photo by Yarden on Unsplash

But here’s my unconventional take: I don’t think “girl math” is about young women being bad at math— I think it’s about them being good at it. And let me use my extremely niche, and otherwise totally useless masters dissertation about the intersection of behavioral economics of feminism, to explain why!

While working on my masters, I dabbled in behavioral economics, which is the application of human psychology to neoclassical models of economics. I worked as a research assistant for an economist, and spent a lot of time thinking about different ways of incorporating the study of human behavior into social policy. I came to this field after being frustrated by traditional economics.

We often assume that economics is a hard science but once you start studying it (especially if you’re a woman or a minority) you realize that it’s more like an art. Most of the financial models that capitalistic nations swear by, are unrealistic, and economists get away with this by slapping the term “ceteris paribus” onto them. Economic theories rely on imaginary circumstances, like the idea that consumers always have access to perfect information, or that every single person is always trying to maximize their self-interest over anyone else’s, when there’s much more that goes into our decisions. Economic models are cute ideas, but they’re not real!

Behavioral economics on the other hand, is a more holistic and frankly accurate science, because it takes into consideration that consumers are emotional beings, that are impacted by their moods, morality and environments. While most models of economics don’t apply to the humans they’re supposedly for, behavioral economics gives us a more complete picture. In other words, behavioral economics does what traditional economics can’t do: accurately assess and predict how humans actually act, when it comes to money and markets.

So what does any of this have to do with “girl math?” Well if you look closely, “girl math” is not bad economics, it’s just behavioral economics. It doesn’t prove Gen Z women are bad at money, it proves that they have a more sophisticated and accurate understanding of it.

Sunk costs: money that’s already been spent and can’t be recouped is irrelevant

Let’s just take the idea that buying something using your pre-loaded starbucks card feels like it’s “free.” That’s not bad math, it’s behavioral science math! It’s rooted in the concept of a “sunk cost,” which means money that’s already been spent, and can’t be recovered. Of course women know the cup of coffee isn’t free! What they’re referring to when they say that, is the idea that it’s a sunken cost, which means that the transaction is irrelevant because it’s already been made.

Mental accounting: we sort money into different accounts in our head

Another belief under the “girl math” umbrella is that if you get the bill at dinner, and that your friends pay you back, you feel like you just made money. This rationalization is just “mental accounting,” a term coined by the father of behavioral economics, Richard Thaler. It’s the idea that we give money mental labels, and judge it based on the quantified satisfaction we get from it because of its “transactional utility.” So if you got the bill, getting paid back feels like extra money you hadn’t accounted for and that feels good! Again, women know they’re not making money, what they’re saying is that it feels like they did!

Mental accounting also explains the “girl math” principle that spending more money to get free shipping, feels like it’s cheaper. Yes, if you were perfectly rational, you’d just pay the 10$ shipping fee and you’d be spending less overall than if you added items to your original order, but since you’d be getting a “good deal” by getting it for free, that choice feels superior.

Hyperbolic Discounting: we prefer a small reward now over a bigger reward later

Spending more money to get free shipping, can also be explained by another behavioral economics theory called “hyperbolic discounting.” It’s the idea that we prefer an immediate reward, over a long-term one. We prefer to feel good about getting free shipping in the moment, rather than having more money in our bank account later. And as some women have pointed out in the comments of some of these videos, it can also make more financial sense if you’re spending more on stuff you needed anyways. "The free shipping one makes so much sense tho because at least you’re paying $10 for an item rather than $4 for nothing," pointed one female user under the video of the dad gasping at “girl math.”

And some “girl math,” is just savvy consumer spending. Let’s take the “girl math” practice of dividing the price of a dress by the amount of times you wear it. Before it was known as “girl math,” it was known as CPW (cost per wear). It’s not stupid, it’s a way of assessing the value of a product when deciding whether to buy it or not. Paying attention to CPW, is also one of the many ways that women have been building a more sustainable and affordable wardrobe and reduced their ecological footprint.

“Girl math” is just behavioral science— it proves money in not actually fungible

So “girl math” is not dumb, it’s self-aware. It reminds us that we’re just emotional creatures, trying to have a rational experience. Traditional economics might tell us that one dollar may always be worth one dollar, no matter when you spend it, and what you spend it on, but because our decision-making is influenced by so many other forces that we’re not often even aware of, we all come to treat money as far less fungible as it actually is.

Being self-aware of our cognitive biases when it comes to our spending doesn’t make us foolish, it makes more informed consumers! It’s when we pretend that we’re rational and that emotions never factor into our financial decisions that we are vulnerable to corporate marketing tactics that take advantage of us. So god bless “girl math” for being honest about how our brains work. It’s by being vulnerable enough to know ourselves, that we become stronger in the face of corporations that take advantage of us.

A new way to fight patriarchy: pretend like it doesn’t even exist

But my favorite thing about “girl math” is that it’s in on the joke. Women know that they’re less likely to be trusted with money (especially if they’re Black), despite being better at handling it and men historically being far less responsible with it. There’s a reason 70% of microloans in developing countries have gone to women— they’re more likely to pay them back. Men disproportionally cause financial downturns, and women are often the ones who get us out of it. Women still earn less than men, and yet have less credit card debt, have bought more homes and are more financially independent than men.

Women (especially those of color) have also been viciously and systematically undermined in the field of math and economics, despite excelling in those fields, sometimes more than the men who are the majority in those fields.

Women are done proving that they’re just as good as men, because even acting in defiance of a sexist stereotype, gives it the decency that it doesn’t deserve. Women are even taking the risk of sharing something they do privately that could earn them ridicule publicly, because they don’t care anymore. As we discussed last week, I believe this kind of fearless sharing represents a pivotal shift in feminist consciousness. Women know they’re good at math, and frankly they don’t care if you don’t.

“Girl math” has nothing to prove. It’s just another way that women and girls are putting their stake in the ground, and outlining their own culture, unbothered with the way that patriarchy perceives them. The playfulness, humor and levity of “girl math,” despite its witty roots in behavioral economics, is my favorite part. The girls who get it, get it. And those who don’t, just won’t. Girls are gonna keep mathing no matter what.

x

Liz