Can you be a feminist housewife?

no not similar wages.at all

But then I've also read the "cocklodger" threads, so there you go!

A few assumptions flying about here...

Got to be rich to start with (LRD) - nope. I'd say we are comfortable now but that is due to hard work, we both started with nothing. Realistically I'd have to admit I've probably delayed having children for 10 years so I can be in this comfortable position. Haven't been with OH that long.

Similar incomes (becky) - depends what you mean by similar? After pension payments I have about 25-30% more disposable income. We don't find that awkward, we've talked about it. I have more commitments elsewhere helping family so it evens out by end of the month.

It's a shame this thread has sunk into a slanging match (bit harsh maybe) - I'm really interested on whether those living different choices feel their feminist principles are undermined at all?

wiggly you don't sound spoiled at all! It is only natural to wobble when things change. Believe me I wobble when I think of my extended mat leave. Will I feel different about my status when my pay stops?

But that would be "dipping into someone else's wages" though, surely Lenin?

SM - are your incomes similar? I can see how it would work if both earned a similar reasonable wage (and you say you can pay for holidays etc) so I assume you do. but otherwise, well, I've read the threads too!

im unmaried and have robust legal agreements and wills too
all the legal stuff is tied up.did it when we moved in and prior to children

plumber,home maintenance all sourced out of joint account.no one individual takes that financial hit solely

kids ill,aye it happens we share it.whomever is available frankly.both pull our weight and responsibilities equally

really,you are over thinking this

2individual accounts
1 joint
i spreadsheet,actual and planned

no specific expectation that i do as i am the mum

People post a fair bit about situations like that becky, and it never seems there's an easy answer.

(Oh, to be in a position to worry about 100k, eh? )

But if I earned £80K and my partner earned £20K, and we split joint costs down the middle, he would have much less than me left over, and I wouldn't be able to have (for eg) and fancy holiday with him as he couldn't afford to pay his half. We would live within his means, rather than mine IYSWIM?

But SM, you seem rich enough to discount - or at least not worry about - the stuff like who benefits from the other person being able to drive, or being able to stay in for the plumber, or whose income takes a dive because they're puking three months out of nine. I think those things have to matter if they mean one partner, or both, can no longer afford things. If they just mean you juggle finances a bit, I can appreciate it may not seem very important.

lenin,partner without stake in house.you mean unwaged sahp? that could happen regardless of whether have individual accounts or not.home ownership depends upon deeds and if tenants in common or joint ownership

so a sahp who is not in joint tenancy could also end up withno stake

no how money is.arranged doesn't alter the amount received
so whether you have ,say,£1000pm and out goings still receive same monies whether or not there is one big pot or individual accounts

we not rich at all.
this is not as hard as its being made out.we live within means

most folk i know married or not have separate monies
there was mn thread on it, v common
always provokes a but that is no way for a family to live response

but i suppose if you dont earn then you're going to want/need access to money other than cb or state benefits.so will find shared money advantageous

x post with LRD, with whom I agree.

May I ask if those posters who have the strict yours/mine/joint expenses model have broadly similar incomes to the partners? I wonder how it would work if you and your DP were both working FT, but one was earning considerably less than the other. I would find it quite awkward to have a lot more money at my disposal than my partner did I think.`

I'm getting the impression it's something you can probably only do if you're already pretty rich - maybe the small imbalances don't worry you so much then.

im not dependent upon someone else wage.im not wageless
i dont need him to earn so i can have home,money or holidays
yes we share our home,our joint expenses. but if he upped and off id be financially ok.and if i upped and off hed be financially ok

you are making this seem harder than it is
2 ft salary
1 joint account
1 spreadsheet of joint all outgoings.planned and actual

he keeps his money in individual account
i keep my money in individual account

I accept it works for you SM, and I agree it is important and sensible to think about finances and not just trust blindly - but honestly, do you really have 'financial autonomy'? If so, how?

Unless you live apart, I would imagine there are going to be masses of expenses you just can't quantify as 'his' or 'mine', surely?

i didnt feel burdened or hard done to having children. we chose to
i certainly dont want remuneration,that would feel like a push prize or some such.

i saved and planned ttc, had nursery booked 12wk had it all worked out.an adequate mat leave package and i did not want financial remuneration from partner

is it really so hard to understand that i value and maintain my own financial autonomy

and im not encumbered by what other people apparently do,or the right/proper thing of how famiklies mange money

and too any women are left high and dry if their relationship breakdown. wage earner gone.no recent work experience.no savings.as i said too risky and precarious.not for me

i do my thing.that suits us and me

I can buy as many whisks as I want with my share of the money. So can Dh. But why should I curtail my whisk buying habits when he doesn't, when we jointly decide to start a family?