Still from Materialists (2025)

Have you seen 2025’s latest, much talked about Dakota Johnson starrer, The Materialists?

It’s a romantic comedy or maybe drama, that focuses on the love life of a New York City based confident, successful and extremely attractive but single, match maker. On the one hand she meets an equally confident, successful and extremely attractive man – who also turns out to be a perfect match – on the other, she bumps into her previous boyfriend, who is everything but.

Dakota Johnson’s character Lucy, is shown as being a practical individual who is financially stable and understands the importance of having a monetary cushion in life. Not just that, she unabashedly admits to desiring the good life and wants to be with a life partner who shares the same desire for comforts that money can buy. But, she is also a romantic and predictably in the end, goes back to her broke soul mate, who works as a forever budding theatre artist cum catering party server.

While it was not easy to agree wholeheartedly with the idea of marriage being a business deal, expressed so lucidly in the film, there is merit in recognising that love and fresh air alone may not be enough to have a fulfilling, long term relationship. There is nothing amiss with prioritising love and romance over money, but towards the end, the story makes the same seminal mistake which is also the most limiting narrative of modern society. At climax, the dialogue between Lucy and John (the broke, love of her life) almost feels game changing when Lucy embraces her ability to take care of herself financially rather than needing John to provide for those fancy, rich, moments in life. But then, just as you would expect, most predictably, John embraces the reality that he must do better to be able to provide not just for himself but for his family too.

This is where we are once again telling women that it’s not their job to manage finances for the rest of the family. Lucy clearly says she can take care of herself, without offering any help for the family. Whereas, John’s light bulb moment is the realisation that he must do better in order to financially provide for his family.

Money doesn’t care about your gender

This is a repeated message we may hear subtly or obtrusively but consistently; managing family finances is a gender based role, society believes men should do it. But money itself doesn’t have a gender. Shouldn’t every individual be able to land on their financial feet and be knowledgeable and capable enough to earn, save and invest gainfully for their present and future life? If this equation involves a larger family who is dependent on you, then it’s accurate to say that every adult must be capable enough to provide for their family too.

Come to think of it, from the very start, The Materialists was about the woman choosing a well settled man for a life time match. Indian parents with their arranged marriage system and advertisements seeking a “…well earning boy from a respected family for a well-educated girl…” would be proud of Lucy, who understood the importance of marrying well.

Unfortunately, for many women, marriage becomes an excuse to shrink and shirk financial responsibility. With an already full plate – a home to run, a job to show up at, children to take care of – who would blame them. In reality, being incompetent in your ability to manage and invest your money along with earning it or at least having a say in the process shows up later in life when many women feel financially bullied, abandoned or burdened thanks to events like death, divorce or bankruptcy, which, immediately bring the hitherto spinning wheel to a halt.

It’s not just that. It’s also women feeling irrelevant, invisible and small when it comes to discussions around the financial matters of the family and their financial future. The conditioning around gender roles of who the provider is and who the caregiver is, have somehow become so cemented in our minds that dislodging this idea or trying to make it more fluid is a relentlessly tiring task.

The danger in avoiding financial decision making

In Money & her, I write about this very idea of women owning their financial future by either actively managing their money or at least participating in major financial decisions made within a family set up. Especially in a family set up, not participating in financial decisions means, at some point in future, being forced to accept whatever monetary condition your life takes on. If things are financially upbeat, you are lucky, if not, you are doomed.

Why hand over this control of your life’s outcomes and your desired lifestyle to someone else? Earn, save and invest, these three together make up the robust foundation of financial independence for all individuals regardless of gender. It also means that each of us needs to take on this financial responsibility independently.

You may choose to have joint financial responsibility when in a family structure, but being in that structure does not mean women can shirk this responsibility.

Its more than ok to want the good things in life but it’s not a man’s job to provide those for a woman. Every relationship, marriage or otherwise, is in some form a give and take. Unlike for Lucy, for many other women it becomes not just about giving rather, it’s giving up on their time, emotional needs, financial desires, health and most importantly identity, all in exchange for the promise of financial security. 

Is it really worth it?

---

If you like what you have read – don’t forget to leave a comment and share your thoughts!

Also read: