Not sure I really agree, to me it just seemed as if she's speaking to a wider trend of people mismanaging their finances and speaks to the reasons (culture, lit

Not sure I really agree, to me it just seemed as if she's speaking to a wider trend of people mismanaging their finances and speaks to the reasons (culture, literacy, short-term bias etc). It's quite common for journalists to try to touch on societal trends, whilst doing it through the lens of a personal story, it makes the writing relatable to the reader and thereby potentially useful. But even if she wasn't doing that and was indeed looking to normalize financial illiteracy by saying it's common and she's not the only one, I think that's a pretty healthy perspective. Yes she fucked up, which she acknowledges. But it can be healthy to not seek fault in you as a person or your character, but rather to seek fault in your behaviour, your lack of education on a topic, your views which may have been too biased for the short-term. After all, those things can be changed, it gives the individual agency and a feeling of control. I think the entire article acknowledged that the solution lied with her changing her views, her habits, her financial literacy, her financial management. I found it to the contrary of removal of the subject. > I fucked up. Was she not saying exactly those things? For example she says "I saw my folly" or "How was I ever going to afford a kid’s college fund? It wasn’t just that I’d only ever lived for my youth; maybe I’d only ever lived for myself. No wonder I was alone." It's quite clear she felt she fucked up and saw the issue with herself. > I used to be bad with money. Now I do this: __ __ __. Again, I felt she touched on this throughout the article, e.g. by saying things like "I’d started reading personal-finance books, analyzing my spending, and making budgets. I also started wearing sunscreen."