Do proportional household budgets just perpetruate sexism?

completely agree both partners need to do money and childcare
retreating to stereotypical gender roles perpetrates sexism

Childcare and money earning BOTH have to be done to keep the show on the road. Automatically pushing one role onto one gender and de/over valuing that role is what perpetuates the inequality.

It goes that way vice versa though. Some women go out and earn and OH goes PT or stays at home.

Fact is that for most people, having children ends up meaning that one of them take a step back from the wage earning to concentrate on the child rearing. Right or wrong that's the way it is. And as a family, having decided that is the route you want to pursue (together, for the children that you both have), it seems churlish to go ner ner I'm earning all the money here's your housekeeping and a tenner to treat yourself.

female responsible for childcare
male wage earner
that perpetrates sexism
and is more far reaching than money management as it sends message that's it's women's work and role

I'm not sure about perpetuating sexism but the proportional budget the OP describes does seem to perpetuate unfairness. I suppose partly it comes from the vastly different spectrums of relationships in which people co-habiting find themselves. If you're a young couple, perhaps living with someone (in the 'living with someone' sense) for the first time, it might seem a bit overly-commitment-y to pool all your income and then share out the left over cash evenly. But in that case you'd be more likely to split the bills 50:50 and accept that the higher earner had a bigger disposable income in the same way you would if you were just flat-sharing with someone.

But to split proportionately implies somehow that the costs are being incurred proportionately as well. Which seems odd. Is the higher contributor using more electricity? No, probably less if you were going to be madly pedantic about it (being usually less in the house). But for a long term couple, with or without children, I can't see why you wouldn't put it all in the one pot (at least conceptually, not literally in the same bank account) and then share out the disposable income according to a basic fairness of 50:50 give or take a bit. You are sharing a life, and a lifestyle. Not just a house.

I'd imagine shared would be the favoured option if one partner vastly outearns the other, also.
Everyone knows it's a tough balancing act being a working parent - you never stop, it seems and sacrifices have to be made. What higher earner would on the one hand bask in having that burden greatly lightened, yet on the other would see the person that's carrying that burden having to scrimp and scrape while they don't?

Childcare, housework etc need to be done. A person can do it themselves or take a financial hit by compensating someone else to do it.
Or get a slave, but that's frowned upon these days.

if one chose sole wage model be aware it is imo risky
of course a responsible parent provides for family, I'm not suggesting otherwise
but don't kid self on it's earned money for housewifery

Shared will obviously be the preference of the unwaged partner and children.
Otherwise they have no-where to live and nothing to eat.
Obv.

We have a joint account, DH earns more than me because I am part time. We've pooled our money since we got together, there has never been a question of 'my' money or 'his' money. I think it makes us less likely to waste money, as you don't want to have to justify it to the other person (although both of us are pretty much 'let's just get it' people). I can't imagine doing things any other way.

shared will of course be favored option of the unwaged partner
given they don't financially contribute
is it equitable to expect the sole waged adult to shoulder all financial responsibilities.it's burdensome that one person solely be financially responsible.and for the unwaged partner,makes them beholden and dependent upon The wage. eg if the job location changes they need to relocate etc. having no recent work experience and being wholly financially dependent upon partner is IMO risky strategy

Bottom line is that most systems are fair and reasonable if the people operating them are fair and reasonable. If as a couple you feel inside that everything is shared, then how you actually go about that doesn't matter, as the result will be fair and work for you. Problems only occur when people do not feel fundamentally that everything should be shared, and are not fair and reasonable.

"I mean if you are going to be that individualistic about things then surely you need to take everything into account. If one partner earns less but does more in the home they should bill for their time and services. "

If that is the case, then I guess there needs to be a way to make the split more even, e.g. by tweaking the proportions.

But it's an "if" - the ideal, in my eyes is an even split in household chores, childcare etc so noone is forced to give up their own career to prop up their partner's. If a couple decides an uneven workload, than it's up to them to negotiate what split of income as well as chores is acceptable.

We are exactly the same as Scottishmummy.

Big expenses like holidays we each agree how much extra to put into the joint. If the joint runs low we each top it up.

It helps that we earn roughly the same amount.

billing for housewifery?
risible

it's not a job

I actually much preferred having joint savings when our mortgage was offset.

I hate the new hsbc system which means I can't get an overall picture of how much we have saved and instead have to ask DH to log onto his accounts. He does without quibbling, but still.

Slighy overuse of "actually" ...

I wouldn't find the billing for childcare situation depressing at all, beachcomber. To me it's actually the most honest and clear cut way of all to do things. It's actually what I would prefer

we do proportional budgets but from the other side. We worked out how much we needed to pay into the joint account to cover mortgage/bills/ childcare etc and then allocated the same amount of spending money. DH pays about 65% of the joint account money each month.

Important point is that if you can save then ISAs are usually a good bet and they are individual.

Plus as a cautious person I like to have my own savings, DH has his too. Although not at the moment as we cleared them out for work on the house. And actually I do all the finances so I was the one who set them all up and had all the passwords and stuff and he didn't have a clue. So actually I could have cleared out with the lot

we have separate money,separate personal account
joint for mortgage,nursery fees,groceries etc
I actively like having my money,and don't want one pot arrangement. I chose not to have shared finances
frankly if woman wants more money and autonomy get a job don't be beholden to the other adult wage. don't give up work

We have a joint account and then exactly the same amount of personal money each month. We both know what each other earns and worked it out together. We are more likely to argue if we don't have personal money that is our own.

DH is paid more than I am, so pays more into the household pot.

If you're going to split it up like that then better to both have the same spending money and all else into the pot. Spent on the usual stuff and hols and any leftover into savings.

I find the separate money thing to be highly problematic and not a little dishonest.

If one partner is out earning the other, and is facilitated in being able to do so, because their partner takes on more childcare, surely they should be billed?

I mean if you are going to be that individualistic about things then surely you need to take everything into account. If one partner earns less but does more in the home they should bill for their time and services.

That would soon even a lot of things up. Bit god-awful depressing though.

So what would be fair? My husband and I have always prorated what we put into the joint account according to our incomes. Some years I earned more, some years he.

When I was on SMP only he paid a much larger proportion in than me, and I did the same when he was on JSA.

I prefer us having both our own money and a joint pot, because if I want to treat myself to something then I've saved for it and it's mine. If I want to buy him a present, it's not just me spending joint money, but a present from me to him.

Also, we both have relatively expensive hobbies. By both of us having our own accounts, we can buy stuff for them without thinking twice about it whether it's fair on the other.

A complete joint account is something I guess which appeals to the lower earner in a couple with a huge differential in pay, but having my own on top of the joint gives us more independence and I value that.