Camille Van Vyve
30 Apr 2025
Where is women’s money? A personal reflection on money and relationships
At Easyvest, we don’t often write in the first person. But for this topic, it seemed necessary. As a woman, as someone in a relationship, and as someone who works in finance, I felt compelled to share my personal reflections on Lucile Quillet’s eye-opening book. I’m convinced it’s not just relevant to women — though many will feel directly concerned — but to anyone who shares their life and finances with a partner.
We are all concerned
Reading the book stirred in me two simultaneous and somewhat contradictory feelings: that I had been spared, and yet that I was deeply involved. Spared, because in my relationship, money has never created a power dynamic — one of the central issues Quillet analyzes with great depth. We’ve always talked about it openly, made decisions together, and prioritized fairness over strict equality. Involved, on two very real levels:
- My husband’s career took us abroad. That move, while exciting, gave his trajectory a new momentum… while mine has been rather steady (I still consider myself lucky that it wasn't just paused). I chose it — but Quillet helped me understand the invisible mechanisms behind such “choices.”
- I spend my days promoting index investing — a rational, accessible investment strategy suitable for all. By encouraging women to invest, I like to think I’m contributing to the very emancipation Quillet is advocating for.
In the end, this book helped me realize something simple and profound: money should not be a taboo topic in relationships. When we don’t talk about it, we fall back on societal defaults — often unequal, often outdated.
Gender scripts: the hidden blueprint that costs us
The central thesis of Quillet’s work is that heterosexual relationships follow a social script — a prewritten play we start rehearsing from childhood. In this script, women nurture and give, men provide and protect. Even those who think they’re escaping it often unconsciously reproduce these patterns — particularly when it comes to money. The easy objection is: “But you’re free — you made those choices.” That’s not entirely false. I chose to reduce my work hours before moving abroad. My husband didn’t. I don’t regret it — but I now realize how shaped that decision was by internalized norms and expectations about what it means to be a “good woman.” A “normal” woman gives: time, energy, love… and yes, money too.
Motherhood: a triple financial penalty
According to Quillet, motherhood is the moment when inequalities crystallize. The woman often adjusts her work schedule, scales back her career, or stops working altogether. She becomes the shock absorber of the couple. And here, Quillet offers a powerful reframing: instead of talking about work versus non-work, she speaks of egoistic time (used for yourself) and altruistic time (used for others). Where does work begin? Her answer is both radical and simple: any activity that benefits someone other than the one doing it is work. If you shower, only you benefit — it’s not work. But if you do the grocery shopping, cook, tidy, play board games with the kids — that’s altruistic time. That’s work. It’s unpaid, often invisible, but economically real:
- It replaces paid services like childcare or housekeeping.
- It enables the other partner to have more egoistic time, often to work more and earn more.
- It leads to a loss in income, experience, pension contributions, and long-term wealth for the one doing it.
Women’s money is there — just elsewhere
Because they so often take on the altruistic roles, women’s earnings tend to decrease — and their money behaves differently. It’s more likely to be spent on children, shared household needs, or daily expenses. Less often does it go into wealth-building vehicles like investments or real estate. That’s why the real question is: what’s the fairest way to manage finances within a couple?
Four relationship money models — and their impacts
1. The 50/50 split
On the surface, it’s pure equality: each partner contributes equally to shared expenses — rent, groceries, vacations, kids’ activities. It’s popular with people who want to feel independent and avoid “living off” their partner. But if one person earns twice as much, they still come out ahead — they remain twice as rich after those payments. It’s a mechanism that silently maintains inequality.
2. Proportional to income
This model adjusts contributions based on earnings. It seems fairer — but often hides a bias: the higher earner usually sets the couple’s standard of living. They choose the house, school, holidays — often unilaterally. The lower earner must stretch their budget to keep up. Even if expenses are fairly split, wealth continues to accumulate disproportionately. The one who earns more repays more of the mortgage, invests more, and ends up owning more.
3. Everything shared
This model expresses a willingness to build a shared life — risks and rewards included. It acknowledges that unpaid, altruistic time is part of what allows the couple to thrive. It’s the model my husband and I adopted when we had children. Though our incomes diverged, our assets — financial and real estate — are equally owned. This feels right for our life stage. Its limitation? It can blur individual autonomy. Most decisions are made jointly, and that’s great — but there’s little room for personal financial freedom (a spontaneous splurge, a riskier investment, etc.).
4. The “yogurt cup” model
The worst of all. Here, the woman pays for everyday needs (food, clothes, doctor visits), while the man builds wealth — in real estate, ETFs, pensions, etc. The idea is: “it balances out.” And since he “knows about finance,” he handles it. Except — it doesn’t balance out. Over time, he ends up rich, and she ends up broke. Lucile Quillet calls her the “poor bourgeois woman”: educated, well-dressed, in a nice house — but with nothing to her name.
What separation makes visible
Breakups are the moment of truth. The one with the career, the assets, the pension rights — typically the man — moves on in full financial health. The other — typically the woman — faces gaps in her CV, reduced rights, little capital. Worse still, all the unpaid work she did is rarely considered in financial negotiations. Quillet describes a familiar pattern: “What’s the maximum the man can give without reducing his lifestyle?” and “What’s the minimum the woman can accept to get by?”
Real estate and the problem of unequal contributions
An especially thorny issue is when one partner receives an inheritance and uses it as a down payment on a home. This often results in unequal ownership (say, 70/30). Even if the mortgage is repaid proportionally – which could be seen as a magnanimous proposal from the wealthiest – the person with less wealth becomes poorer over time. Why? Because their money often goes into consumption — groceries, daily life — rather than appreciating assets.
So, what can we do?
If there's one thing this book taught me, it's that there's no ideal, universal model for managing money in a relationship. While they do exist, differences in assets and income are a knot whose management will depend on each partner's personal beliefs and the level of dialogue established on the subject between the members of the couple. But here are my conclusions:
1. Unpaid work = strategic value
This isn’t about asking for a paycheck for parenting. It’s about acknowledging the economic and strategic value of that time. Raising a family means making resources’ allocation and investment decisions — and unpaid time is part of that equation, which at the end of the day benefits the whole “family business”.
2. Distribute wealth and time fairly
Fairness isn’t abstract. The wealth built through combined efforts — paid and unpaid — should be shared fairly. Alternatively, a more equal distribution of altruistic time (e.g., both partners working 80%) could help reduce income gaps at the source. Is see that happening more an more among younger generations.
3. Encourage investment for the less wealthy partner
In cases of unequal ownership, paying the loan equally allow the ownership imbalance to decrease gradually. This can be written into the notarial deed. It’s not perfect, but it offers the less wealthy partner a pathway to ownership. And ultimately, it allows both partners to benefit from long-term returns.
4. Every euro has marginal value
I often hear women say: “I earn so much less, my salary doesn’t matter.” I get the feeling — but it’s wrong. It’s not about how big your salary is in total. It’s about what that extra cash can enable: faster mortgage payoff, better vacations, higher monthly investments. Every euro adds value. Your salary should not, under any circumstances, be reduced to low utility (= non-productive current expenses) just because it is a small proportion of the total.
5. Stay financially engaged
I co-manage our wealth. I don’t delegate — I discuss, challenge, decide. Even with a lower income, that’s the only way to have a voice. Today and tomorrow. In good times — or if things go wrong.
Love shouldn’t make you poor
Quillet’s core message is that love should never impoverish. Couples and families shouldn’t be inequality machines. This isn’t a battle of the sexes — it’s a call for justice. Financial justice means being aware of social biases, engaging in financial management, and empowering each partner equally.
Index investing: a tool for emancipation
Of course, I can’t end this reflection without mentioning index investing. Am I biased? Probably. But honestly — index investing is simple, rational, and accessible. I’ve explained it over dinner tables countless times: “When you buy a global ETF, you’re buying tiny pieces of every company in the world, in proportion to their market weight. More Apple than LVMH, more LVMH than Colruyt — but you get all three. And since you’re buying the whole market, you don’t need to guess which stock will win. You get the market’s return — which over the past century has been around 7% per year.” Too often, women avoid investing because it seems complex. But once you explain it simply, confidence follows.
A strategy that aligns with women’s strengths
I wrote this in an earlier blog: while women invest less, they tend to outperform men. A study by the University of Warwick (2.800 investors over 3 years) found that women’s portfolios outperformed by 1,8% annually. Why? Because they take less risk, think long term, make fewer trades. Exactly the mindset index investing encourages.
Shared financial knowledge = shared power
Index investing levels the playing field. It removes the excuse of “it’s too complicated — I’ll handle it.” It becomes something couples can learn, discuss, and implement together: What risk level are we comfortable with? How much can we save each month? What’s our long-term financial goal? This shared management is the key to true emancipation. Because should one partner die or leave, the other will have both the knowledge and the confidence to take charge.
Be the investment driver
Unlike real estate, you don’t need a large sum to get started. Begin small. Build your portfolio month by month. Whether it’s in your name or joint, if you take the lead, you build both your credibility and your confidence. And since no one beats the market in the long run, you might just get a heartfelt thank you in 10 years 😉