Do proportional household budgets just perpetruate sexism?

ooh also in 'one partner at home' models isn't it reasonable to assume that a) this saves childcare costs especially nursery that are pretty much the same as a salary b) that other person can focus on career PRECISELY BECAUSE their partner is handling the rest of it - so the working partner is not really making their own money they are handling one aspect that generates income for the couple and the other is handling the other aspect that generates time, saves money and facilitates.

If this is simplified to something like work partner is hunting food, SAH partner is collecting water it would be silly for the working partner to eat food by die of dehydration whilst the 'water' partner dies of malnutrition...

Oh dear I think I need to sit down and have a serious think about how I work things out!!

Hang on I have just realised something - This may just mean that successful women might be better hooking up with men who have been unemployed and used to living on hardly anything for a while so they don't spend our money hehe

OOh I like this discussion! It is making me think that fair should be each puts a 'spending amount' that is equal away each month, but a proportional contribution for the bills instead and surplus to a joint pot to be spent between.

This is what I think roughly. Both men and women prioritise differently, and I wonder how much this too is down to capacity to spend eg (some silly generalisations whilst I understand my own mind!....)

Men tend to (have to) spend less/sacrifice on appearance things eg no make-up, fewer clothes (but some items are more expensive, so perhaps that cancels out), and can get away with a few staples, where I feel judged/my clothes are expected to be/ I like my clothes to be distinctive and many and I am expected/need choice depending on how I feel - men seem to be less concerned about this.

(personally I think really that this is a 'couples cost' in that slight role expectations are sort of jointly expected IYKWIM. )

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 small inexpensive green cars, but prefer new, but also seem much more likely (don't know if its because of being better organised/more affected by poor living environment/hard wired to keep home order a bit more because of child expectations) to spend premium on stuff for the home eg nice dining set v 'at least one or two plates' or 'nice mugs that make me feel good v builders chipped mug etc etc. or decorative things that are not strictly 'necessities'.

Men seem to drink more often and more expensively eg whiskey etc, but I think probably per unit women and men about equal unless you are rigid 'women drinking wine, man drinking pint' person in which case the expense of 'female' drinks probably compensates for the frequency of 'male' drinks.

With children, I think men seem to want big single expenses eg big trip, big toy, day out, and women want BOTH big single expenses AND the raft of sensible everyday stuff - it was me who wanted two styles of nappy bag one practical for carrying about and one comprehensive, me who wanted to get a second car seat for rellies, ( oh no hang on, he totally agreed - where does that go???)

I think this sounds like a great sociological/pop sociology study worthy of women's hour/thinking allowed! Can MNHQ survey and get on to WH??

It does surprise me time and time again when women say on here that childcare costs wipe out their wages. I see that as one of the things that perpetuates sexism as it takes women out of the workforce and generally keeps their earnings lower if they are able to find work after a sustained period of time at home. This is why I think it comes down to a) how much a woman values herself (why is the cost or issue of childcare her sole problem?) and b) thinking through the long term consequences and worst case scenario.

I also resent the fact that people assume that because DH is the higher earner, he must somehow be intellectually superior to me. Not the case. Intellectually, we are equals.

We both have a postgraduate degree, although his is a PhD and mine an MA. He is the higher earner because he works in a specialist field, in the private sector, which pays market rate for the rarity of the skills he possesses. I work in the public sector, in a profession much derided by the current government. Nevertheless, I earn a reasonable wage. Not reasonable by Xenia's standards, but some way above the national average.

If I had married someone who worked in the same profession as me, chances are I would earn more than them, as I am quite senior. We have a regional meeting regularly - out of twelve of us, I am one of two women round the table.

Not having to go to work as DH earns enough to keep both also entrenches sexism. It takes women out of the workplace. It reinforces the view that a successful man needs a woman at home to do the childcare. Despite the disparity in our earnings, my DH does masses of childcare. In fact, he enables me to do the job I do as I can attend evening meetings and do long days where necessary. He's not about to give up his job though. And neither am I.

I pay fulltime childcare for two children, which is painfully expensive and wipes out a huge proportion of my income. If I take into account the benefits and tax credits we lose due to me working for a reasonable wage, working or not working makes no big difference and if there's a difference we'd probably be slightly better of if I (or my husband) didn't work. Now - the continued career path however ensures hat fuls of win in the long run and I don't need to try and re-enter the job market with rusty skills after years at home.

If income is lower usually the help you get with childcare is higher, so unless you've got a huge number of children you should even with a low pay job be able to hang about somewhere at break even point.

Now I believe more should be done to help with childcare and making work worthwile compared to being at home, however, if you insist on the premise that woman = low earner and therefore she should stay in a position where she will always be a low earner, then that's damaging.

I'm not talking about choices here, if someone wants to SAHM because of ideological reasons, and hubby can afford it, yay for her.

I'm talking about finances being used to hold women back, and that the argument that insisting of completely joint resources can add to this holding back, so the opposite of the argument made in the OP, which to me sounds like that men as higher wage earners should compensate their spouses for earning less, without even trying to look into how this traditional set up is selfperpetuatiing.

shared money?why
my money is my money
dp his is his
we define joint financial responsibilities and ensure that is adequately provided for

lesley "I think if couples choose that the woman doesn't work or works par time thats their choice. TBH I don't know anyone this applies to in rl except those who are looking after their kids."

I've known a couple of couples who did this: one a Japanese couple who lived here for a while (wife didn't work, maybe didn't have a visa to work, I don't know, butr she was very unhappy); the other lived in the US for a while (again wife had no working visa), now they live in the UK but she still works just a few hours a week. I've no idea what she does with her time, or how they arrange their money.

In both cases though the women didn't work in order to further their husband's careers. Why should they then lose out financially in the relationship? I do think that one partner in a long-term relationship getting less money than the other one is just wrong.

DH and I both have careers, but they have been affected by our relationship (difficulty of moving location, working part-time because of kids, etc). There have been points in both our lives when we could have earned more if we didn't have each other.

Why does it make sense to give up the job? Why shouldn't both keep working? The biggest problem in equality is that only the mother can take maternity leave instead of letting the couple decide between them.

You basically use the status quo as a reason for the status quo existing. That should be challenged. And individual incomes, and the feeling of having an individual income I think plays a large part of that. Because it means never having to ask whether the partner is ok with you spending x amount on yourself. And he doesn't have to either.

lesley - I did meet a stay-at-home-wife once - no kids. Did seem a strange choice of lifestyle to me (very rich DH though)

But I do think there are lots of reasons why you might not want to share money. Eg - DP and I both have jobs, children, and very different incomes and outgoings. We're looking forward to living together soon, but I don't think either of us could imagine simply pooling our money together. Would lead to far more resentment and issues around who spends what on what. I feel much happier to know that I'll remain in charge of my own income and spending, and not be bothered by him spending money on things I wouldn't.

DH and I have tried various ways of managing our money and have eventually decided that seperate accounts are the only way we can properly kaeep track. This worked for us when I was earning nothing, less than him, and now I'm earning more.
For us, it was nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with us both being shit with money.

It is a valid choice, Lesley, but a massively disadvantageous one, and it's so important that if a woman is choosing to do that, she really understands the financial and career consequences to herself, and arranges things with her partner in such a way that she is appropriately compensated for that disadvantage.

lesley ". Career breaks/ working part time to do childcare have a massive detrimental effect on women's wages on average for the rest of their working life."

Exactly the point I'm making. Why is it in the majority the woman who reduces her hours and does childcare? We need to get away from that default position.

Weirdly, I had two lots of 9 months long maternity leaves which were followed by a new better job/promotion plus payrise within the first week of returning to work.

I don't think that's necessarily true - my parents always put all the money into one pot, with no separate spending money. But my dad did have a few expensive hobbies, whereas I don't think my mum ever really felt that she had a right to any of than money for her. She would spend on the family, but as she hadn't earned much of it, it wasn't really hers - that was how she saw it.

So I think it's got more to do with how much women earn rather than how you formally allocate it within the household.

Suspect that the reason more people do it that way these days is because more women have jobs and also it's more common to get together later in life when you may both have existing outgoingings (hobbies, investments, children, etc) - which make it hard to see it all as one pot of money.

lesley33 no, it's a bit more complicated than that. But from having read way too many relationship threads on this and other forums than is healthy, I have often read statements such as "I do not need to work because my husband earns enough, and he likes me being at home" or "I only work a few hours, because my husband is earning enough" - this is stifling female ambition by financial means. I find it worrisome.

There are plenty of reasons why there is a gender pay gap, but that doesn't negate the above.

What are the other reasons, lesley?

I agree with widow, actually, in a non-devils-advocate way. I think the incentive to tackle those reasons is disguised by the sticking plaster approach of sharing money equally at the domestic end of things. .

partner and I both student at uni when met
no idea of earning potential
but I did expect both work,no mummy track whilst he got to work

Xenia "Very few women will actively seek someone who is less bright, worse educated and earns half what they do"

I find the insinuation that earning less equates to less bright and worse educated a bit off. Brains and education don't always mean huge money, nor does huge money neccessarily equate to brains and education.

I didn't look at my husband's income when we got together, but found his brain appealing. The idea of doing a credit check on a potential partner is appalling.