Few subjects remain as charged as women’s relationship with money. Yet for Stéphanie Chasserio, Professor and Director of the SKEMA Business School Globalisation Academy, it is familiar territory – one she explored in a masterclass for the Greater Lille Chamber of Commerce and Industry, where her research on women’s careers took centre stage.

When did the prejudice towards women and money begin?

With the Ancient Greek myth of Danaë! Her father locked her away in a tower because an oracle predicted that he would be killed by his grandson. However, Zeus still managed to get to her and seduced her in the form of a shower of gold coins that enveloped her body. Since then, women’s bodies have been associated with money, a corrupting force that destroys their innocence. Based on this myth, artistic representations have almost always linked money and women negatively.

What are the main prejudices that arise from this?

The idea of a venal woman; a woman who cannot count, or who spends money like water. This explains why the subject is taboo: a woman who talks about money is flighty or sometimes even a prostitute. Likewise, women have been largely dispossessed of their wealth and budgetary responsibilities. Historically, it is quite shocking to read advice given to husbands on how much money they should give their wives to restrict their independence. Controlling money is a way of controlling women’s lives. When a woman asks for or “wants to make money,” people are always suspicious: what does she want it for? Even now, these historical prejudices still play a part in the under-representation of women in finance. However, little research has been conducted on this subject.

You pointed out that in the West, women have historically worked more in the service sector; does this mean their work is considered an unpaid contribution?

It’s Danaë again: a woman gives herself; she is self-sacrificing. Therefore, the concept of remuneration is not given. For hundreds of years, healthcare was carried out by nuns who were not paid. It was free labour. This still resonates today. Economists such as Gary Becker (the 1992 Nobel Prize winner) have developed a theory of “human capital” and analysed the modern family as a “production unit” in which domestic work creates economic value, even if it is unpaid work. The fact that women take on more of these tasks can be monetized; it has a cost, yet it is performed by women for free. However, when they perform these tasks, they do not do anything else. No one else performs these tasks in their place. What would we obtain if we expressed the domestic and care services performed by women as a percentage of GDP?

Does entrepreneurship have an emancipatory function for women that does not necessarily apply to men?

Absolutely! Women are in control. They designed their own projects. However, even there, we still find a certain degree of conditioning. First, they do not ask for enough money to get started, so their projects sometimes develop more slowly. Second, the businesses they start do not always pay. They are really up against it financially but sometimes say, “Yes, but I’m doing something I love.” That is all well and good, but the primary goal of a business is to make money. Real work on assistance is needed to help them build viable business models that can be sustained.

How can women entrepreneurs rethink their relationship with money?

First, it is vital to realise that money is not dirty. It is the fuel that drives a business. Women must break free from learned behaviours and be bold enough to negotiate. They will not be judged for negotiating. If they are, then what? Women must dare to charge a fair price for their work: nobody should work for free.

They should also stop apologising, work on their attitude and mindset, and present themselves effectively as leaders, truly inhabiting this position. However, many women do not undergo this procedure.

Finally, they should boldly share their stories and experiences. Many women do not feel comfortable doing this. However, if they are asked to do so, it is because they are considered the right people to do so.