Girl math: Harmless fun or reckless spending?

Girl math's trivialisation of financial decisions harks back to a time when women had to justify their spending to their husbands. (Source: Getty) (Samantha Menzies)

If you buy something for $5, it’s basically free. If you buy something and get a refund, that’s free money. If you spend $200 on a jacket but wear it 20 times, it actually only costs you $10. Welcome to girl math, the money trend we can’t stop talking about.

But what’s the deal? Is it a harmless bit of fun, or a sign of something more sinister? Frankly, I’m torn.

I’m a Financial Behaviour Specialist so, of course, part of me was always going to suck all the fun out of girl math within seconds of seeing people justify unnecessary spending. But I’m also a Millennial who will drive to KFC to save the $8.95 delivery fee and deem my popcorn chicken effectively free as a result. Consider me stumped.

Also by Emma Edwards:

• 5 ways to make your budget easier to stick to

• 4 psychological traps of buy now, pay later - and how to escape

• How to manage financial overwhelm when money is tight

My own cognitive dissonance on girl math is demonstrative of the many different shades of the trend. On the one hand, considering refunds or $10 in an old coat pocket as ‘free money’ isn’t anything new. It’s actually a normal part of the way our brains make sense of money, known as mental accounting.

Girl math is based on mental accounting

Mental accounting refers to our tendency to treat money in different ways depending on where it came from or what it represents. If you get paid $1,000 from your employer as part of your normal wage, that money probably gets split between bills, savings, groceries and a small amount of leisure spending. If you won $1,000 out of the blue, you’re more likely to spend that on something more frivolous because your brain sees that money differently.

Girl math’s trivialisation of financial decisions risks minimising the progress we’ve made [...] and harks back to a time when women had to justify their spending [...] in a way that stripped them of their independence.

Personally, I find this lighter side of girl math quite enjoyable. Anything that highlights the silly little quirks of the human brain gets a robust chortle from me, especially with so much darkness in our social feeds. I embrace the side of girl math where getting a discount off my restaurant bill absolutely means I can order an extra dish (it’s basically free). And yes, I can absolutely help myself to the minibar at a hotel if I’ve earned cashback when booking (also basically free). But that’s where my love of girl maths runs out.

Women shouldn’t be seen as ‘bad with money’

Given that only 50 or so years ago, women weren’t allowed to have their own bank accounts, girl math feels like somewhat of a regression. Patriarchal gatekeeping of financial autonomy and economic opportunity created and cemented the stereotype that women and girls are bad with numbers and bad with money.

Girl math’s trivialisation of financial decisions risks minimising the progress we’ve made with women’s financial participation and harks back to a time when women had to justify their spending to their ‘breadwinning’ husband in a way that stripped them of their independence.

The issue is not that women are buying things. Men aren’t ridiculed for frivolous spending on golf clubs or games, nor are they sold endless solutions to manufactured problems in the same way women are at the hands of diet culture and beauty standards.

Women need to be afforded the same autonomy over their spending decisions but, unfortunately, the trivialisation and simplification that girl math endorses isn’t the way to achieve it.

Savvy spending isn’t about justification

Then there’s the consumption aspect of girl math. This part sees people justifying just about any purchase by making the cost of it sound more palatable. And it really gives me the ick.

Justifying a $200 dress as only costing $20 per wear if you wear it 10 times sounds great – but will you? Or will you be tempted to buy something new once the novelty has worn off? With so much available to spend money on, and so much temptation to consume at all hours of the day, we really don’t need any more encouragement to buy things we don’t need, especially amid a rocky economy and a climate crisis.

While assessing an item’s ‘cost per wear’ could be considered savvy spending, this only works if you’re truly trying to make a balanced decision. If there’s no outcome that sees you not buy the thing, you’re not assessing, you’re justifying. And if we’re looking for reasons to justify buying something, it’s probably a sign we don’t need it.

Follow Yahoo Finance on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and Twitter, and subscribe to our free daily newsletter.