There’s also a dominance of ‘fear propositions’ in men’s magazines that are used to trigger actions such as investing or saving. Articles will rely on masculine stereotyped aspirations, leveraging codes of combat, strength, power, competition and performance. For example, the financial landscape is depicted as easily ‘conquered’ by those ‘daring enough’ to give it a go.

Both genders are thusly pigeonholed by the everyday sexism inherent in language, and whilst it would feel good to supply anecdotal evidence that counters one or two of these points, the gendering of language around money is colouring our understanding of our capabilities and value as individuals.

For women, the idea that your economic contributions are lesser, or that you’re less astute when it comes to managing your finances, or that you need to rely on anyone but yourself financially – simply because you’re a woman – is absurd. Likewise, the assumption that a man in debt or who doesn’t want to make possibly risky investments is less of a man, is just as damaging as the idea that men should face emotional upheaval or distress in silence.

Both feel like the kind of sexism we all wish had been left in the 1950s, and they’re both unconscious biases that we need to overcome if we’re ever to see true progress in closing the gender pay gap, the investment gap, or the confidence gap.

After all, it’s no wonder that investment in female founded start-ups is so low, if investors of both genders are being taught that women are less reliable with money. And it’s unsurprising that women don’t consider themselves investors, or use as many investment apps as men, when they’re being told to scrimp and deny their ‘urge to splurge’.

When we don’t view women as legitimate earners, but rather ‘spenders’ whose contributions are tied to the domestic rather than the professional – is it any wonder there’s still not equal pay for equal work? Or that industries where women dominate still command lower salaries?