Do proportional household budgets just perpetruate sexism?

Few of you above have been through a divorce when things do change. Divorce law is interesting in this area. Let's assume there are no children to keep things simple. In England the lower earner is entitled to the same standard of living if it can be afforded. I think that's appalling makes people a chattel of the other. If Miss low pay marries Mr Big bucks or vice versa and she never gives up her career and carries on as before sc rubbing floors or nursing or whatever and has not put aside her career for her husband why should she get by law the right to a similar standard of living after? That just seems unfair to me.

Paul Mc Cartney's wife was found to need £800k a year (he paid a lump sum clean break as I paid my ex husband to buy out continuing maintenance) to maintain her standard of living as it was before the divorce. Why is that right or fair? It implies in marriage two become one and rewards those who in a sense sleep their way to the top. Prostitution really engrained in the law, people as chattels with a chance to a better life solely by whom they married and had sex with.

I don't thnk you did northey, there we win the politest exchange ever conversation:)

Historically a mother got housekeeping, certainly in the working class examples of my grandparents. The move away from that in either financial independence or a philosophy that sees family money with equal access and an expectation that contributions will differ and be negotiated is better either way.

I am not sure that earning less than your maximum is alwysa bad thing, if it is a fully understood choice then it can be empowering. Some friends live very alternative lifestyles, they don't use much cash and have pooled house cash. You definitely need similar values for that and gender doesn't much come into it.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did mean that :)

And I wouldn't claim one system would suit all or indeed that there was only one feminist position:)

We want similar lifestyles, tbh I require this in my dh to some extent. We do and have spent very differently though it is just worked out on a what is in the pot and who has the best plan basis. Neither of us would know, care or be able to work out whose bit of cash was there.

Sounds as though you have the same lifestyle choices though, dyspeptic. It doesn't work so well when life partners have different lifestyles.

I think it as a system it would often, currently, disadvantage women. For us it is our money, our family.

We have always pooled our money, have each been the main earner at different times. It's a relationship that we expect to last, a long game. Who knows what is round the corner in terms of jobs, redundancies, retraining, education, ill health, family responsibilities, ageing parents... And who knows what else.

I won't determine the value or success of my life by the size of my bank balance, I don't want pay to be the sole determiner of career choice for either of us. I am yet to see any correlation between pay and value. We both have chosen at different times to refuse promotion or taken side steps to prioritise our life style choices, more valuable to us than more pay. So to us there is just money, it's a complete non issue.

"If you don't have children then you could suggest that each partner is free to "choose" to do whatever job they like, so it makes sense that they should pay proportionally."

But they aren't necessarily free to choose their job, unless they do a job like hairdressing that is available in every town, or are prepared to commute a long distance or even live apart. When I was a child my family moved from one city to another in order for my dad to get a promotion. What if my mum had been offered a promotion in a different city?

Xenia - if all women (and men) pick careers that pay more than nannies and childminders, who will the nannies and childminders be?

Doesn't really alter the logic that for the period of time when there are preschool children in the family (esp if 2 or more at a time) that it it is full-time job to look after them, so paying someone else to do it whilst both parents work is only going to make sense financially if both parents can earn substantially more than nannies and childminders, or if the government loads the dice so to speak (eg pays parents back 70% of the costs via tax credits)

Could be worth it in the long-run in terms of career progression, etc - but for many people that's a difficult call to make.

There should be other routes to equality than requiring all women to be in the workplace full time so that they can earn the same as men.

My reasoning for wanting separate spending money is so that I don't ever have to think about whether I should or shouldn't spend something.

If all spending money was joint I feel as if I might worry that I was spending too much of it, or feel resentful if I wasn't "getting my fair share".

If you don't have children then you could suggest that each partner is free to "choose" to do whatever job they like, so it makes sense that they should pay proportionally. (I don't necessarily agree but I can see how it could be a valid argument)

If you do have children then one or the other (or both) will have their earning potential or chance of promotion or ability to do overtime curtailed by the demands of having those children, so there is no question (in my mind) that both partners should get equal spending money, no matter what they earn.

The thing with childcare costs is that I think that couples (but in particular women) don't focus on is that they ease after children turn 3 and then again when they go to school. The average age for a woman to have her first child is 29, retirment age is 67 and on average we live until we're 82. Despite these stats, a lot of women take such a short term view on childcare costs without thinking of long term impact of their decision. If it's a concious decision that's one thing but it's almost like women sleep walk into forever being the lower/non earner because childcare costs wipe our their salary.

I can't remember where I have read it, but I am fairly sure that at the time that a couple have their first child, there is very little difference in income if they are the same age, but the disparity arises because women tend to marry someone 2/3 years older and therefore they are 2/3 years more established in their career. i.e. the woman would probably be in the same position given that time.

I agree WW which is why women (and men) should try to pick careers where they will earn more than a nanny or childminder otherwise unless they find a man able to keep them they will struggle. Financial independence is a principal aim for most feminists. Also many many careers have progressively higher income - you can become a senior surgeon from a junior doctor, you can start on £60k as a lawyer and end up on even £2m, same in accountancy. You can progress from new teacher to head. So the childcare decisions we took when I was 22 and we were paying half a nanny's cost each were looking forward 40 years (I am nearly 30 y ears on from there now) and look at whole career earnings. Even if one of us worked at a loss for a year if you think about retaining and sustaining a lucrative career for decades thereafter even to age 70 or 80 then the calculations are different than if you are saying I am on the minimum wage and for 40 years I would never earn more.

I agree that childcare is a joint expense, and as such is not paid out of the woman's salary alone, however when assessing overall finances, it still plays a role, if the childcare cost is close to the amount of earning of one of the parents, as it changes the amount of income in total which is available to cover the outgoings, and hence, what both partners have left over after paying into the joint account.

If you're unlucky enough to earn so much that you're not eligible for the childcare element or any other benefits any more, but your childcare bill is so high, that it is the same or close to the amount of one of the parents' incomes, then it does wipe out that proportion of the household income, and it is possible, that due to the entitlement to benefits you lose as a family you're worse off than if one of the parents didn't go to work.

Morris - the choices are not always quite so straightforward. So for example, my DH is disabled and too ill to work. By definition, therefore, all the money is 'my money'. He checks with me before he buys anything expensive but that's because I do the household budget, not because it's my money.

And in many couples, both with and without children, there may be a distinct difference in earnings. This may change substantially over time. So there are many ways of divvying up incomes and expenditure to be fair to both parties - yours is the way we did it when we first met and were both working. That worked fine, too - then.

No way.

We split bills and keep the rest to ourselves.

I want my own money, not his. Christ, I can't think of anything worse. It's bad enough having him take the mickey out of my shopping choices - if it was his money he could tell me not to buy it.

I'd rather be single than live like that.

worldb's views are distincitve. I know loads of women who buy expensive sprots cars. i bought an island. I don't want stereotypes that women want lipstick and men buy islands which is the only reason I ever mentino mym island really (and it's fun to have). Also men I know spend as much if not more than women on clothes. I don't spend much at all on clothes and I suspect that's a better feminist position to be in although air heads who love fashion I suppose can take their decorative place as long as it's at a distance from me.

Childcare cost have always been something men and women pay. If we could pay half each in the 80s when we started this large family I think it's a great pity if women in 2012 think it is only their expense.

'I realise that clearly there are vast amounts of couples who think that childcare is the sole issue of the woman in the relationship. While women continue not to stand firm against basic assumption in their own relationships, it perpetuates sexism more generally and is one of the factors that keeps men in control of the purse strings in a lot of households'.

Yes, I absolutely relate to this comment. I have always resisted being forced into a female gendered stereotype, so I suppose I feel a bit betrayed when it sounds like 'feminists' are trying to do that to me.

I saw worrieds comments as being true a lot of the time, not as any innate part of women and men, but society as it is at the moment. Goods are marketed to the genders and people do believe what they own says something about them and in a sexist society this is going to result in pressure to conform to stereotypes.

I don't think it is by chance that men are encouraged to make higher value purchases, as a reflector of their 'masculinity'. Household finance is very political in a family with limited funds. He generally gets the lions share.

I think worriedbetty's thoughts and perspectives are just as valid as anyone elses on this thread as they are her thoughts and perspectives and doesnt mean that everyone has to agree with them.

Dh and I are in similar fields and he's fairly senior in his organisation as am I. Approx 90% of our peers at our level in our industry/profession are male and the norm seems to be for the men to have a stay at home wife and in fact anyone who has a working wife is seen as unusual. His peers are always surprised that if we have a childcare issue that it is just as much his problem as mine. (E.g. our nanny had day off last month and I had important meetings on that day so it was dh who took the day off work). Whenever they are surprised, I realise that clearly there are vast amounts of couples who think that childcare is the sole issue of the woman in the relationship. While women continue not to stand firm against basic assumption in their own relationships, it perpetuates sexism more generally and is one of the factors that keeps men in control of the purse strings in a lot of households.

When dh and I first lived together we had separate accounts but earned the same to the penny and had plenty of disposable income so never really an issue. Then I changed jobs and earned less but that was my choice and I had more free time so we still paid the same for household expenses but dh sometimes picked up the bill for things I couldn't afford to do. Everything changed when we had kids - I insisted on joint account as my earning power is now much reduced as I have to work fixed hours around the kids. - well, one or both of us have to, it fell on me (whole other issue) if I worked the hours he does I could earn what he does but neither of us wants that for our children. So we have a joint pot, each get a set amount out which is just ours to save/spend on frivolities but little things like clothes, nights out etc come out of the joint account. I'm not financially dependent, if we had to the kids and me could have a nice lifestyle on just my income without me changing my work just not as nice as we have now. I do think not being completely financially dependent is very important for both in a couple though.

"Men seem to (oh the generalisations!) push for things like bigger cars, expensive hi-fis and tellys, games consoles, tools etc. women I know seem to desire ... stuff for the home eg nice dining set v 'at least one or two plates' "

This is where our feeble attempts to divide up spending failed. DH wants upgrades for the computer, telly etc - I couldn't care less. But I spend money replacing duvet covers, chipped plates etc. that he's not bothered about. Both are household spending I guess - but I don't want a new computer, so is that from his budget? If he doesn't want a new saucepan is that from my budget?

purpleroses, it was worriedbetty's riff on men wanting fast cars, women little ecomical run arounds; men drinking whisky, women liking wine etc etc that made my teeth itch. It just makes me feel that I am obviously not a 'real' woman, as that seems to involve gender defined traits that I obviously lack.

I think the opposite to you - I think it is a problem that women often do more domestic work and childcare, probably because I hate domenstic work and to be honest, I don't value it.

Childcare is different, but again, why should it be women's job? Oh yes, they can't earn as much a wonderful clever men, so it is not worth their while. How convenient for men.

I think worriedbetty's point is sound - what's to hate? She isn't saying that women should stay at home and men go to work, just that in some families it may make sense for one person (of either gender) to go to work, and the other to do most of the other things that need doing, including childcare.

This isn't in itself a sexist thing to say - if you were to say it had to be the man who goes to work, that would be different. But saying that they only way for women and men to be equal is for them to both do the same % of wage earning and domestic work is rubbish too. People are different - what suits one couple isn't going to be the same as what suits another.

The problem is not that women more often do domestic work and childcare, but that society doesn't value this work as much as paid work.

WorriedBetty, your post encapsulates all the reasons I became a feminist in my teens. Sorry, but I absolutely hate your way of thinking. As a teenager, I related to feminism because its message then was all about the similarities between men and women, not the differences. Women could be selfish, ambitious, want sex, hate housework, just like men.

I totally repudiate the gender distinctions you outline, but it is a way of thinking that seems prevalent in the mumsnet version of feminism. Mumsnet feminism has actually started to lessen my identification as a feminist, because I do not fit the female stereotyping that seems the usual currency on this board.