Motherhood as a Prism Shaping Financial Literacy for Retirement Among Generation Y Women

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I read your manuscript with great interest and pleasure. The study offers an insightful approach to examining women's economic behaviour, highlighting the centrality of family and the way motherhood is perceived in Israeli society.

By introducing the term “motherhood pension penalty,” the article presents a fresh perspective on financial literacy from a gendered lens, specifically regarding retirement planning. The paper also emphasizes that financial decisions within families are not necessarily made in a purely rational manner, due to the strong emphasis placed on family in Israeli culture.

The manuscript is well-organized, the literature review is clear, comprehensive, and relevant, and the findings chapter presents three central themes that serve as a meaningful rationale for the financial behaviour of the women interviewed.

 

That said, I would like to draw your attention to one key point:

The article does not address previous generations or provide any intergenerational comparison. For example, how do Baby Boomer women (many of whom pursued careers outside the home) or Generation X women (many of whom are still active in the workforce) compare to Generation Y women? Are their financial behaviours significantly different? In what ways do Generation Y women differ from their mothers?

The absence of any discussion on Generation X is particularly notable, as many of these women are now approaching retirement age, making their perspectives on pension planning especially relevant. The intersection between a neoliberal labour market and traditional family norms also applies to women from Generation X. It would be helpful to explain why you chose not to include them in your sample or in the scope of your discussion.

Including an intergenerational dimension could have enriched the findings, shedding light on whether Generation Y women’s financial behaviours reflect a continuation of previous generations, or rather a shift away from the way their mothers approached finances and motherhood (in terms of economic perceptions, gender roles, and the meaning attached to motherhood).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your evaluation of our manuscript titled Motherhood as a Prism Shaping Financial Literacy for Retirement among Generation Y Women (SOCSCI-3387001). We are also grateful for the insightful and constructive suggestions provided by the reviewers. These comments have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our manuscript.

Below, we provide our detailed responses to your comments, with our replies highlighted in red. Revisions made to the manuscript are also marked in red for your convenience.

We will be happy to provide any further clarifications as needed.

Reviewer 1

Dear Authors,

I read your manuscript with great interest and pleasure. The study offers an insightful approach to examining women's economic behaviour, highlighting the centrality of family and the way motherhood is perceived in Israeli society .

By introducing the term “motherhood pension penalty,” the article presents a fresh perspective on financial literacy from a gendered lens, specifically regarding retirement planning. The paper also emphasizes that financial decisions within families are not necessarily made in a purely rational manner, due to the strong emphasis placed on family in Israeli culture.

The manuscript is well-organized, the literature review is clear, comprehensive, and relevant, and the findings chapter presents three central themes that serve as a meaningful rationale for the financial behaviour of the women interviewed .

That said, I would like to draw your attention to one key point:

The article does not address previous generations or provide any intergenerational comparison. For example, how do Baby Boomer women (many of whom pursued careers outside the home) or Generation X women (many of whom are still active in the workforce) compare to Generation Y women? Are their financial behaviours significantly different? In what ways do Generation Y women differ from their mothers ?

The absence of any discussion on Generation X is particularly notable, as many of these women are now approaching retirement age, making their perspectives on pension planning especially relevant. The intersection between a neoliberal labour market and traditional family norms also applies to women from Generation X. It would be helpful to explain why you chose not to include them in your sample or in the scope of your discussion.

Including an intergenerational dimension could have enriched the findings, shedding light on whether Generation Y women’s financial behaviours reflect a continuation of previous generations, or rather a shift away from the way their mothers approached finances and motherhood (in terms of economic perceptions, gender roles, and the meaning attached to motherhood).

Response to the Reviewer

Thank you for bringing up the importance of exploring additional generations beyond Generation Y. We have addressed this in two places:

Literature Review: A concise explanation has been added, clarifying how changes such as partial pension privatization, delayed parenthood and financial technology particularly affect Generation Y, making them a highly relevant group for examining the intersection of cultural norms and emerging financial responsibilities (p.7).

Limitations and Recommendations: We now explicitly acknowledge that our focus on Generation Y limits direct intergenerational comparisons. We also outline future research possibilities, such as comparing Gen Y with Gen X or Baby Boomers, to determine whether the cultural and economic forces identified here manifest similarly across different cohorts (p.30).

These additions clarify the theoretical rationale behind our chosen demographic and acknowledge the potential for expanded comparative work in subsequent research. We appreciate your suggestion, which has helped us better position the study within a broader research agenda

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article ‘Motherhood as a Prism Shaping Financial Literacy for Retirement Among Generation Y Women’ provides an analysis of how the experience or anticipation of motherhood amongst young women in Israel shapes their financial decisions about retirement saving. It is a well-written and well-structured article with strong empirical data.

While I welcome more work which provides insight into the cultural models of gender which shape everyday finance, I feel this article needs a stronger conceptualisation and relation to existing literature.

First, the paper is premised on financial literacy, defined as ‘the process of acquiring and enhancing knowledge of financial products and economic decision-making frameworks’. However, this paper interrogates financial decision-making, which ‘involves the application of this knowledge within specific social and cultural contexts’. I think that there could be more critical discussion around concept of financial literacy and specifically the gender gaps identified in light of the social and cultural context for its application. I agree entirely that women ‘shape their own financial literacy for retirement within the cultural structures available to them’ – but what does this mean for the concept of financial literacy as something observable, measurable and de-contextualised? It seems to me that the set-up relies on a very orthodox understanding of financial literacy while the empirical material presented offers a more critical view. These things need to be more clearly aligned.

Second, I’m not sure I agree that there is insufficient in-depth exploration of women’s financial behaviours. Nor do I agree that gender gaps in pensions are only recently coming to attention of research. There is a long history of work here. I will list selected pieces here but would encourage the author to read more broadly around this topic.

Agunsoye, A., and James, H. (2023). “‘I had to take control’: Gendered finance rationality in the UK.” Review of International Political Economy, 30(4), 1486–1509. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2022.2113114

Agunsoye, A., Monne, J., Rutterford, J., and Sotiropoulos, D. P. (2022). “How gender, marital status, and gender norms affect savings goals.” Kyklos, 75(2), 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12294

Foster, L. (2012). ‘I might not live that long!’A study of young women's pension planning in the UK. Social Policy & Administration, 46(7), 769-787.

Ginn, J., D. Street and S. Arber (eds). 2001. Women, work and pensions. International issues and prospects. Open University Press.

Ginn, J. 2003 Gender, pensions and the lifecourse: how pensions need to adapt to changing family forms. Policy Press.

Grady, J. (2015). “Gendering Pensions: Making Women Visible” Gender, Work & Organization, 22(5), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12096

Palmer, E. K. (2017). Structural Disadvantage: Evidence of Gender Disparities in the Norwegian Pension System. Social Sciences, 6(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6010022

Price, D. (2007). Closing the gender gap in retirement income: what difference will recent UK pension reforms make?. Journal of Social policy, 36(4), 561-583.

Settle, A. (2023). “‘Don’t play if you can’t win’: Household disengagement in the Australian pension system.” New Political Economy, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2023.2195159

Suh, E. (2021). “Can’t save or won’t save: Financial resilience and discretionary retirement saving among British adults in their thirties and forties.” Ageing and Society, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X21000337

Willows, G. D., and October, C. (2023). “Perceptions of retirement savings: Through the lens of Black amaXhosa women in South Africa.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 90, 102382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102382

I would also recommend this recent paper on finances and intensive motherhood, which could be useful:

Angsten Clark, A., & James, H. (2025). Motherhood and money: How motherhood shapes everyday financial practices. The Sociological Review, 00380261251320036.

Additionally, I have some points about the framing of the empirical material which currently undermine support for the conclusions drawn:

First, from the table provided, around 20 women who were not mothers or expecting mothers participated in the study (it would be helpful to make clear how many women who were mothers vs were not in the body of the paper). The thrust of the article suggests that all of these women equally applied ideals of intensive motherhood in their accounts of financial decisions (e.g. lines 398-9), yet the account of Tali (line 454-462) suggests that she anticipates her feelings will change upon becoming a mother. Similarly, were any women recruited who did not anticipate motherhood, and how did this shape their financial decisions? More interrogation of how the accounts differed from those who were already mothers would be beneficial here, especially since a lot of conclusions generalise the experiences of mothers to all young women. For example “Even for childless young women, the influence of their mothers’ teachings and the models of motherhood they have observed play a significant role in shaping their perspectives on their (future) children’s financial well-being” - a much stronger case needs to be presented for this. 

Second, no information is provided on what the women are actually doing in regards to saving for their retirement. The empirical accounts appear to quite idealised statements  in response to structured questions and may therefore have some disconnect from what they are actually doing. I think this needs some further interrogation, in particular in regard to how pensions work in Israel. Related to this point, Section 2.5 needs some discussion about how the pension system in Israel works, so that the women’s decisions can be understood in context. For example, is there a state pension which women would be entitled to, and if so what is it worth? It seems to me that some of the women’s positions could influenced by the presence of a strong state pension that they know they will benefit from, so they can consider giving more to their children.

On this, I would also flag that I don’t agree that the paper introduces the concept of the motherhood pension penalty since it does not directly speak to pension accumulation because we know nothing about what they are saving or what they may be entitled to. I agree that your paper shows “that the financial status of women in their retirement years is not solely determined by the wage penalty, but also by their perceived responsibility for securing their children’s financial future” yet I am not sure the term the motherhood pension penalty accurately conveys the gendered cultural perceptions that your data does speak too.

Third, I would like to know more about the interview approach, were these structured, semi-structured or unstructured interviews? I find some of the questions mentioned in the empirical material concerning, in terms of forcing women to confront very difficult possibilities and also, in leading them towards answers. In particular I flag the following:

Q: Imagine your children have grown up and reached the age for which you have saved everything. However, you suddenly realize that your own pension is very small. Do you think you would keep the savings for yourself?

• This question forces women to confront a harsh yet likely reality for them.

Q: When you imagine working until a late age, is it primarily for financial reasons or because you genuinely want to work?

• This is a leading question, as it puts these two in opposition and leaves little room for other possibilities.

Q: Do you believe you will have enough financial independence in retirement without your partner?

• This is a leading question and again forces women to confront the harsh likelihood of later life without a partner.

I would like to understand how the leading nature of these questions has been accounted for in analysis, as well as what care was taken to support women who may have felt uncomfortable, during and after the interview?

Other specific comments:

• Inconsistency regarding the focus of the paper – in most places it is Gen Y, but others mention millennial women (e.g. line 67, also in the data availability statement).
• Line 116 – typo on citation Price et al., 2016
• Line 127 – sentence ends abruptly - ‘and normative.’ – missing a word?
• Line 177 – two lines about Hochschild’s work seem close duplicates.
• Line 473 – “They prioritize this role over their own economic well-being during their retirement years” – how do you know this, as you did not interview women in their retirement years? These women suggest this is what they will do, yet we do not know for sure that this is what will happen.
• Literature on intensive motherhood is only brought into the conclusion – it needs to be discussed first in the body of the paper. 
• In the third theme – Tammy case – line 525 onwards – the analysis here doesn’t make sense with the quote provided.
• Evidence on the efficacy of financial education is inconsistent (see for example Zokaityte, A. 2017. Financial literacy education: edu-regulating our saving and spending habits. Springer). I would either avoid this as a general policy recommendation or make it more specific as what form of education is needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your evaluation of our manuscript titled Motherhood as a Prism Shaping Financial Literacy for Retirement among Generation Y Women (SOCSCI-3387001). We are also grateful for the insightful and constructive suggestions provided by the reviewers. These comments have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our manuscript.

Below, we provide our detailed responses to your comments, with our replies highlighted in red. Revisions made to the manuscript are also marked in red for your convenience.

We will be happy to provide any further clarifications as needed.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 - Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article ‘Motherhood as a Prism Shaping Financial Literacy for Retirement Among Generation Y Women’ provides an analysis of how the experience or anticipation of motherhood amongst young women in Israel shapes their financial decisions about retirement saving. It is a well-written and well-structured article with strong empirical data. While I welcome more work which provides insight into the cultural models of gender which shape everyday finance, I feel this article needs a stronger conceptualisation and relation to existing literature.

First, the paper is premised on financial literacy, defined as ‘the process of acquiring and enhancing knowledge of financial products and economic decision-making frameworks’. However, this paper interrogates financial decision-making, which ‘involves the application of this knowledge within specific social and cultural contexts’. I think that there could be more critical discussion around concept of financial literacy and specifically the gender gaps identified in light of the social and cultural context for its application. I agree entirely that women ‘shape their own financial literacy for retirement within the cultural structures available to them’ – but what does this mean for the concept of financial literacy as something observable, measurable and de-contextualised? It seems to me that the set-up relies on a very orthodox understanding of financial literacy while the empirical material presented offers a more critical view. These things need to be more clearly aligned.

Second, I’m not sure I agree that there is insufficient in-depth exploration of women’s financial behaviours. Nor do I agree that gender gaps in pensions are only recently coming to attention of research. There is a long history of work here. I will list selected pieces here but would encourage the author to read more broadly around this topic.

Agunsoye, A., and James, H. (2023). “‘I had to take control’: Gendered finance rationality in the UK.” Review of International Political Economy, 30(4), 1486–1509.

Agunsoye, A., Monne, J., Rutterford, J., and Sotiropoulos, D. P. (2022). “How gender, marital status, and gender norms affect savings goals.” Kyklos, 75(2), 157–183.

Foster, L. (2012). ‘I might not live that long!’A study of young women's pension planning in the UK. Social Policy & Administration, 46(7), 769-787.

Ginn, J., D. Street and S. Arber (eds). 2001. Women, work and pensions. International issues and prospects. Open University Press.

Ginn, J. 2003 Gender, pensions and the lifecourse: how pensions need to adapt to changing family forms. Policy Press.

Grady, J. (2015). “Gendering Pensions: Making Women Visible” Gender, Work & Organization, 22(5), 445–458.

Palmer, E. K. (2017). Structural Disadvantage: Evidence of Gender Disparities in the Norwegian Pension System. Social Sciences, 6(1), 22.

Price, D. (2007). Closing the gender gap in retirement income: what difference will recent UK pension reforms make?. Journal of Social policy, 36(4), 561-583.

Settle, A. (2023). “‘Don’t play if you can’t win’: Household disengagement in the Australian pension system.” New Political Economy, 1–16.

Suh, E. (2021). “Can’t save or won’t save: Financial resilience and discretionary retirement saving among British adults in their thirties and forties.” Ageing and Society, 1–28.

Willows, G. D., and October, C. (2023). “Perceptions of retirement savings: Through the lens of Black amaXhosa women in South Africa.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 90, 102382.

I would also recommend this recent paper on finances and intensive motherhood, which could be useful:

Angsten Clark, A., & James, H. (2025). Motherhood and money: How motherhood shapes everyday financial practices. The Sociological Review, 00380261251320036

Thank you for your valuable comments. We revised the literature review to include a more critical discussion of financial literacy, drawing on feminist scholarship highlighting gendered constraints and introducing the concept of “gendered financial rationality” (Agunsoye & James, 2023; Angsten Clark & James, 2025) (pp.5–6). In addition, we added a brief reference to this perspective at the beginning of the discussion section (p.23), to ensure theoretical consistency throughout the paper.

 

Additionally, I have some points about the framing of the empirical material which currently undermine support for the conclusions drawn:

First, from the table provided, around 20 women who were not mothers or expecting mothers participated in the study (it would be helpful to make clear how many women who were mothers vs were not in the body of the paper). The thrust of the article suggests that all of these women equally applied ideals of intensive motherhood in their accounts of financial decisions (e.g. lines 398-9), yet the account of Tali (line 454-462) suggests that she anticipates her feelings will change upon becoming a mother. Similarly, were any women recruited who did not anticipate motherhood, and how did this shape their financial decisions? More interrogation of how the accounts differed from those who were already mothers would be beneficial here, especially since a lot of conclusions generalise the experiences of mothers to all young women. For example “Even for childless young women, the influence of their mothers’ teachings and the models of motherhood they have observed play a significant role in shaping their perspectives on their (future) children’s financial well-being” - a much stronger case needs to be presented for this.

 

Thank you for your comment. We have added a clarification in the methodology section: 28 of the 46 participants were mothers at the time of the interview. The remaining participants either expected to become mothers or did not reject the possibility. We also included contextual information about the near-universal expectation of motherhood in Israel and its relevance to financial planning (pp. 13-14).

 

Second, no information is provided on what the women are actually doing in regards to saving for their retirement. The empirical accounts appear to quite idealised statements in response to structured questions and may therefore have some disconnect from what they are actually doing. I think this needs some further interrogation, in particular in regard to how pensions work in Israel. Related to this point, Section 2.5 needs some discussion about how the pension system in Israel works, so that the women’s decisions can be understood in context. For example, is there a state pension which women would be entitled to, and if so what is it worth? It seems to me that some of the women’s positions could influenced by the presence of a strong state pension that they know they will benefit from, so they can consider giving more to their children.

On this, I would also flag that I don’t agree that the paper introduces the concept of the motherhood pension penalty since it does not directly speak to pension accumulation because we know nothing about what they are saving or what they may be entitled to. I agree that your paper shows “that the financial status of women in their retirement years is not solely determined by the wage penalty, but also by their perceived responsibility for securing their children’s financial future” yet I am not sure the term the motherhood pension penalty accurately conveys the gendered cultural perceptions that your data does speak too.

 

Thank you for your comment. We added a brief explanation of the Israeli pension system on pp.13-15, noting the limited state pension and the centrality of employment-based savings. We also revised the use of the term “motherhood pension penalty” to better reflect the cultural context discussed in the data (pp. 28-29).

 

Third, I would like to know more about the interview approach, were these structured, semi-structured or unstructured interviews? I find some of the questions mentioned in the empirical material concerning, in terms of forcing women to confront very difficult possibilities and also, in leading them towards answers. In particular I flag the following:

Q: Imagine your children have grown up and reached the age for which you have saved everything. However, you suddenly realize that your own pension is very small. Do you think you would keep the savings for yourself?

This question forces women to confront a harsh yet likely reality for them.

Q: When you imagine working until a late age, is it primarily for financial reasons or because you

genuinely want to work?

This is a leading question, as it puts these two in opposition and leaves little room for other possibilities.

Q: Do you believe you will have enough financial independence in retirement without your partner?

This is a leading question and again forces women to confront the harsh likelihood of later life without a partner.

I would like to understand how the leading nature of these questions has been accounted for in analysis, as well as what care was taken to support women who may have felt uncomfortable, during and after the interview?

 

Thank you for your comment. We added a paragraph on pp. 13-14 in the methodology section addressing the semi-structured interview format, the handling of sensitive questions, and the ethical considerations taken during the interviews.

 

Other specific comments:

 

Inconsistency regarding the focus of the paper – in most places it is Gen Y, but others mention millennial women (e.g. line 67, also in the data availability statement).

 

Thank you for noting this inconsistency. We have revised the text throughout the paper to consistently use the term “Generation Y” instead of “millennial women,” including in the data availability statement.

 

Line 116 – typo on citation Price et al., 2016

Thank you for pointing this out. The citation has been corrected accordingly.

 

Line 127 – sentence ends abruptly - ‘and normative.’ – missing a word?

Thank you for your comment. The sentence has been completed.

 

Line 177 – two lines about Hochschild’s work seem close duplicates.

Thank you for noting this. The duplication regarding Hochschild’s work has been removed.

 

Line 473 – “They prioritize this role over their own economic well-being during their retirement years” – how do you know this, as you did not interview women in their retirement years? These women suggest this is what they will do, yet we do not know for sure that this is what will happen.

Thank you for your comment. The sentence has been removed as suggested.

 

Literature on intensive motherhood is only brought into the conclusion – it needs to be discussed first in the body of the paper.

Thank you for your comment. We added a clarifying sentence on p.9 to emphasize the relevance of intensive motherhood to the financial decision-making processes explored in the study.

In the third theme – Tammy case – line 525 onwards – the analysis here doesn’t make sense with the quote provided.

Thank you for your comment. We revised the analysis following Tammy’s quote to better align with her actual statements, highlighting her ambivalence and emphasis on financial independence without overstating her prioritization of her children’s needs (p. 22).

Evidence on the efficacy of financial education is inconsistent (see for example Zokaityte, A. 2017. Financial literacy education: edu-regulating our saving and spending habits. Springer). I would either avoid this as a general policy recommendation or make it more specific as what form of education is needed.

Thank you for your comment. This has been revised accordingly on p.30.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1 comments

 

Overview

This article summarises a qualitative research study aimed at understanding how Gen Y women think about (or not) their financial security in retirement and the priority they give (or not) to saving for their present or future children. The article suggests there are strong cultural norms that see women prioritise supporting children financially, even in retirement. The authors argue that these cultural norms and desire to support children may potentially lead to reductions in their financial security in retirement (pg. 13 of 20).

 

The authors note that:(1) globally pension arrangements have changed and that responsibility for saving for retirement now increasingly rests on the individual;(2) the retirement income literature highlights significant gender gaps in pension savings;(3) there is a paucity of research on the financial literacy of young individuals and, in particular, their retirement plans (in terms of finances);(4) the literature examining the gender gap in financial literacy is predominantly quantitative and there is a lack of understanding about its determinants;(5) there is insufficient in-depth exploration of women’s economics and reasons for their ‘financial literacy behaviours’.

 

The stated contribution of the article is to address “… this significant lacuna regarding gender gaps in financial status during retirement and related financial literacy … Specifically, we seek to uncover the cultural and moral forces embedded in the construction of financial literacy”.

 

Comments and Responses

(1) Clarity: Is this paper about impact of culture (motherhood intensity) on financial literacy or financial decisions?

I believe the paper has potential and a contribution to make to the literature, however, I would argue that the paper lacks clarity when it comes to purpose. My main concern is that I are mixing up the input (financial literacy knowledge and understanding) with the output (channeling savings to children).

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your insights, especially your distinction between financial literacy as input and the allocation of savings as output. The revised version clarifies in the introduction that the paper focuses on the relationship between intensive motherhood and financial decision-making, rather than financial literacy itself (p. 2, 3).

 

On pg. 2 (section 2) the authors define financial literacy “as the process through which individuals enhance their knowledge and understanding of financial products and concepts”. I agree with this definition.

The definition of financial literacy has been clarified on pages 4-5 to ensure alignment with the established definition provided by the authors. The text now makes it clear that when referring to "making choices about financial literacy," the focus is on women’s choices regarding how much financial knowledge they seek to acquire, rather than their financial decisions themselves.

 

On page 2: “… the study explores how these women perceive and make choices about their financial literacy regrading retirement and how these perceptions and choices align with gendered culture norms”. (emphasis added). It would be helpful to understand what the authors mean by ‘make choices about their financial literacy’. Do they mean choices about how much financial knowledge or understanding of financial products they wish to acquire (back to the definition above)?

Thank you for your comment. We have clarified this and revised the sentence on page 3.

 

On page 4 they write “… this study examines women as economic subjects who construct their own financial literacy regarding retirement from available cultural structures”. I’d like to see this explained.

The revised text (p. 9) now explains the phrase “construct their own financial literacy”.

 

• Are the authors saying that women’s the level of financial knowledge concerning retirement (.e., their understanding of retirement income/savings products and concepts) is affected by the motherhood prism? In other words, the motherhood prism affects how women acquire financial knowledge? [that said, I actually don’t think that’s what they are saying].
• I can follow and agree with the arguments that if women prioritise giving savings or financial support to their children over the life-course (e.g., by saving less for retirement) or in retirement (eg drawing down pension but keeping some aside for children as inheritance) then they will have less financial security in retirement.

O What I don’t understand or follow is how their financial literacy is impacting on this, however constructed.

O As noted above, financial literacy can be thought of as a skill (knowledge / understanding). One may be highly financially literate and still decide to support children over the life-course or keep $ aside in retirement as an inheritance. Such a decision is not necessarily a product of poor financial literacy.

Thank you for your comment. We have clarified that our study does not examine how women acquire financial knowledge, but rather how they navigate financial decision-making within socio-cultural norms, particularly intensive motherhood. To enhance clarity, we revised the text accordingly in the Introduction, Literature Review and Discussion sections. We clarified the distinction between financial literacy and financial decision-making and emphasized that prioritizing children's financial security reflects cultural norms rather than financial knowledge levels.

 

In a nutshell, I can’t grasp what the authors mean when they their study will “learn how women construct their own understanding of financial literacy for retirement”. What does this mean? Does this mean that each individual can have different ways of thinking about financial literacy and so we have more than one definition? I think the authors are mixing up the input (financial literacy knowledge and understanding) with the output (channelling savings to children).

To my mind this lack of clarity limits the usefulness of the paper in its present form.

I’m therefore not inclined to agree with the authors (at page 15) that their analysis “reveals that the cultural construct of intensive motherhood plays a fundamental role in shaping the financial literacy of young women concerning retirement”. I don’t think the prism of motherhood shapes their financial literacy. I think it shapes their decisions (whatever their financial literacy) on what they do with their savings (during the lifecourse and in retirement).

Thank you for your comment. We have clarified that our study does not argue that intensive motherhood shapes women’s financial literacy, but rather how cultural norms influence financial decision-making regarding retirement. The phrase ‘construct their own understanding of financial literacy’ refers to the way in which women apply financial knowledge within their socio-cultural context, not to redefining financial literacy itself. We have revised the text on pages: 2, 4, 5, 10 and page 27 to reflect this distinction more clearly.

 

(2) Motherhood pension penalty

I agree that their findings “underscore the persistent dominance of the ideology of intensive motherhood”

The authors “… introduce the concept of the motherhood pension penalty”. This wouldn’t be the first paper to highlight that mothering can impact on pensions savings. The authors not that the literature on this point typically highlights the channel of motherhood on wages and thus pension savings. In this paper they argue that it is motherhood that is shaping financial literacy and in turn retirement savings. As before, I would argue that they are mixing concepts. In this paper much of the discussion seems to show us how motherhood is shaping financial decisions, not financial literacy per se.

Thank you for your comment. We have clarified that our study does not argue that motherhood shapes financial literacy itself, but rather that it influences financial decision-making regarding retirement savings. While the existing literature links the motherhood pension penalty to wage disparities, our contribution highlights how cultural norms surrounding motherhood shape financial priorities and choices. To enhance clarity, we have revised the text accordingly.

 

(3) Household decisions

The authors say little about household decisions regarding pension savings and decisions to channel some retirement savings (or savings during the life course) to children. They talk of one case where the interviewee wants financial independence. I’m interested to know how their decisions are made not only as an individual but within a family context. For example, if we are operating in a world where there is a traditional division of gender roles and greater importance is placed on the role of 3 women as mothers, is part of the social (or at least household) compact that fathers provide for the family (male breadwinner). Does that mean that any savings that the mother has can be directed to children in the comfort of knowing that some other partner will provide for them in retirement?

Thank you for this insightful comment. While our study primarily focuses on individual financial decision-making, we acknowledge the importance of household dynamics in shaping retirement savings choices. Our findings suggest that financial decisions are embedded within gendered family structures, where expectations regarding the male breadwinner model may influence how women allocate their savings. To address this, we have expanded the discussion to consider household financial negotiations and the role of spousal expectations in shaping women’s retirement planning.

 

(4) Policy

The paper is silent on policy.

New sections have been added discussing policy implications and financial education policies and retirement planning (p. 28).

 

(5) Literature and referencing

The paper misses several important references. The Journal of Consumer Affairs is probably the most important journal in terms of paper on financial literacy. There are numerous papers in that journal that cover the matter of culture, gender and financial literacy. I suggest they have a closer look at recent issues.

Paragraph two of paper the authors write: Research on the gender gap in financial literacy with respect to retirement has predominantly focused on quantitative analysis (Cupak et al., 2018). This paper uses data from the OECD-INFE study to quantitatively examine how much of the gender gap in financial literacy may be explained by gender differences in observed characteristics such as education, age, being employed etc. They show there is a large unexplained gap which they attribute to normative forces (eg gender norms) that are not controlled for in the regressions. A paper that is arguably closer to the mark is Preston, A. and Wright, R.E. (2023), ‘Gender, Financial Literacy and Pension Savings’, Economic Record, Vol.99(324), pp.58-83.

We appreciate the suggestion to include Preston and Wright (2023). Their study offers valuable insights into the connection between gender, financial literacy and pension savings. We have integrated their findings into the Literature Review and Discussion sections (p. 7 and p. 24, respectively), strengthening our analysis of the gendered dimensions of financial decision-making.

 

(11) Formatting

Table 1 has been moved to an appendix, improving readability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a well-executed qualitative study that makes a significant contribution to the understanding of how cultural models of motherhood shape financial literacy and retirement planning among millennial women in Israel. The research is timely, addressing critical gaps in the literature on gender disparities in financial literacy and retirement planning, while offering theoretical advancements through the lens of cultural schemas and feminist perspectives.

The paper integrates feminist perspectives with cultural schema theory, providing a novel and effective framework for analyzing gendered financial behaviors. This approach enriches the discourse on financial literacy by situating individual decision-making within broader social structures. And, the introduction of the concept of the "motherhood pension penalty" represents a valuable theoretical contribution, building on the established literature on the motherhood wage penalty. This innovation opens up new avenues for examining the long-term economic impact of gendered caregiving roles. By highlighting gender disparities in financial planning, the paper aligns with growing scholarly and policy interest in addressing the systemic barriers women face in achieving economic security.

The paper's focus on Israeli familism and intensive motherhood provides a rich cultural context that grounds the findings. This specificity enhances the paper's contribution while offering a springboard for comparative analysis--although it may limit its generalizability into other national or cultural contexts.

The literature review could better integrate international perspectives on retirement planning among millennial women:

While the Israeli context is well-explained, more comparative discussion would strengthen the paper's broader relevance. Including Lusardi and Mitchell (2014) on global gender gaps in financial literacy would enhance the discussion of broader structural disparities. In the Israeli context, you may also want to consider citing Hayes and Miletzky (2024) on economic socialization in religious Haredi community, which could provide a valuable comparative lens, particularly in illustrating how cultural schemas intersect with economic behaviors even within the same national context. See also Sharabi and Kay (2023).

Also perhaps consider Gneezy et al. (2009) on gender norms and economic behaviors in matrilineal societies could highlight how cultural variations produce divergent financial behaviors, strengthening the paper's theoretical framing).

The theoretical framing could also be strengthened a bit. For instance, Bourdieu's concept of habitus complements the study’s argument that financial decision-making is shaped by embedded social and cultural structures. His emphasis on the interplay between individual agency and structural constraints would deepen the analysis of how cultural schemas of motherhood influence economic behaviors. And, Hochschild’s (2012) work on the “second shift” demonstrates how traditional caregiving roles create financial vulnerabilities for women, reinforcing the manuscript’s discussion of the "motherhood pension penalty." You cite one of Julie Nelson's papers, but perhaps also look more extensively at her contributions as well.

Finally the Zelizer (2012) tradition (e.g., Bandelj, 2020 etc.) could be used, as they often discuss the relational work angle that intersects with gender and financial choice.

Some smaller notes:

The methodology section could benefit from more detail about the specific analytical procedures used to identify and validate themes.

The discussion could more explicitly address potential policy implications, particularly regarding financial education programs targeting young women.

The limitations section could be expanded to address potential selection bias in the sample and better speculate on the generalizability of findings beyond the Israeli context.

Over all, I think that with an expanded lit review/theoretical framing that fills some of gaps noted above, this manuscript would be an even more compelling contribution to the field. The current version already provides a strong foundation by addressing critical issues of gender, culture, and economic decision-making, but situating the study within a broader comparative and theoretical context would amplify its relevance and impact.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This manuscript presents a well-executed qualitative study that makes a significant contribution to the understanding of how cultural models of motherhood shape financial literacy and retirement planning among millennial women in Israel. The research is timely, addressing critical gaps in the literature on gender disparities in financial literacy and retirement planning, while offering theoretical advancements through the lens of cultural schemas and feminist perspectives.

The paper integrates feminist perspectives with cultural schema theory, providing a novel and effective framework for analyzing gendered financial behaviors. This approach enriches the discourse on financial literacy by situating individual decision-making within broader social structures. And, the introduction of the concept of the "motherhood pension penalty" represents a valuable theoretical contribution, building on the established literature on the motherhood wage penalty. This innovation opens up new avenues for examining the long-term economic impact of gendered caregiving roles. By highlighting gender disparities in financial planning, the paper aligns with growing scholarly and policy interest in addressing the systemic barriers women face in achieving economic security.

Thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We appreciate your recognition of our study’s contributions and theoretical advancements, and we are grateful for your careful review.

 

The paper's focus on Israeli familism and intensive motherhood provides a rich cultural context that grounds the findings. This specificity enhances the paper's contribution while offering a springboard for comparative analysis--although it may limit its generalizability into other national or cultural contexts.

The literature review could better integrate international perspectives on retirement planning among millennial women:

While the Israeli context is well-explained, more comparative discussion would strengthen the paper's broader relevance. Including Lusardi and Mitchell (2014) on global gender gaps in financial literacy would enhance the discussion of broader structural disparities. In the Israeli context, you may also want to consider citing Hayes and Miletzky (2024) on economic socialization in religious Haredi community, which could provide a valuable comparative lens, particularly in illustrating how cultural schemas intersect with economic behaviors even within the same national context. See also Sharabi and Kay (2023).

Also perhaps consider Gneezy et al. (2009) on gender norms and economic behaviors in matrilineal societies could highlight how cultural variations produce divergent financial behaviors, strengthening the paper's theoretical framing).

Thank you for your suggestion. We have expanded the literature review to include a broader comparative perspective. Lusardi and Mitchell (2014) now highlight global gender gaps in financial literacy, Sharabi and Kay (2023) and Hayes and Miletzky (2024) provide insights into economic socialization in the Israeli Haredi community, and Gneezy et al. (2009) illustrate how cultural variations shape financial behaviors in matrilineal societies. These additions enhance the paper’s comparative scope. Revisions can be found on pages 6 and 11.

 

The theoretical framing could also be strengthened a bit. For instance, Bourdieu's concept of habitus complements the study’s argument that financial decision-making is shaped by embedded social and cultural structures. His emphasis on the interplay between individual agency and structural constraints would deepen the analysis of how cultural schemas of motherhood influence economic behaviors. And, Hochschild’s (2012) work on the “second shift” demonstrates how traditional caregiving roles create financial vulnerabilities for women, reinforcing the manuscript’s discussion of the "motherhood pension penalty." You cite one of Julie Nelson's papers, but perhaps also look more extensively at her contributions as well. Finally the Zelizer (2012) tradition (e.g., Bandelj, 2020 etc.) could be used, as they often discuss the relational work angle that intersects with gender and financial choice.

Thank you for your insightful suggestions. We have strengthened the theoretical framework by incorporating Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, Hochschild’s (2012) 'second shift,' and Zelizer’s (2012) relational work framework to deepen the analysis of gendered financial decision-making (pages *).

Some smaller notes:

The methodology section could benefit from more detail about the specific analytical procedures used to identify and validate themes.

Thank you for your comment. We have provided a detailed explanation of the analytical procedures used to identify and validate themes on page 13.

 

The discussion could more explicitly address potential policy implications, particularly regarding financial education programs targeting young women.

Thank you for your comment. We have addressed the selection bias and the generalizability of the findings on page 29.

The limitations section could be expanded to address potential selection bias in the sample and better speculate on the generalizability of findings beyond the Israeli context.

Thank you for your comment. We have addressed the selection bias and generalizability of the findings on page 29.

 

Over all, I think that with an expanded lit review/theoretical framing that fills some of gaps noted above, this manuscript would be an even more compelling contribution to the field. The current version already provides a strong foundation by addressing critical issues of gender, culture, and economic decision-making, but situating the study within a broader comparative and theoretical context would amplify its relevance and impact.

Thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the study’s contributions. We have expanded the literature review and theoretical framing to address the noted gaps and further strengthen the study’s impact.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a revised version that purportedly addresses comments raised in an earlier review. While the author(s) claim that the revised version is clearer in terms of focus "the paper focuses on the relationship between intensive motherhood and financial decision making, rather than financial literacy itself", this is not reflected in the title, the abstract and much of the discussion. 

The lack of clarity means that it is not an easy paper to read and this detracts from any contribution that the paper might make. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see earlier comments about clarity.