Do proportional household budgets just perpetruate sexism?

No, but I think that change is generally caused when the disadvantaged party feels their disadvantage, and that that feeling of disadvantage would be masked in this situation. It would be a sort of sticking plaster, rather than tackling the root cause of the inequality. So if the women aren't feeling it so intently, changing it will be a lower priority for them. And if men aren't seeing women feeling it, changing things will be a lower priorit for them, as well.

I think it's the opposite. Sharing out leftover money equally masks the inequality and potentially removes some of the impetus for the female to try to correct the low-female-pay situation (either by lobbying for a certain sort of job as a whole to be taken more seriously and regraded, or by altering her own ambition levels re type of job she does, or the level at which she does something).

SinicalSanta - I agree, it's a team effort and I actually think that in the long run it is easiest to pool all money and to reach agreement on a family budget. It is actually pretty easy to establish if one person is taking the mickey if you run your budgets efficiently!

When I was a PG student I lived with my boyfriend and we decided to split expenses. This was outrageously unfair to me as our major expense, apart from rent, was food and he ate 3x the value of the food I did!

Running a home and family is a team effort. One half of the team shouldn't be priviledged over the other - if either downed tools things would suddenly become very different.

IMO it definitely leads to women having on average less money to spend on themselves than men; in that sense I suppose your suspicion may in fact be correct.

DH and I use a different model - in fact I copied this from my parents: We pool our incomes and pay all our expenses from the joint account. Whatever is left over is divided by two and is ours to spend on ourselves (or save) respectively. At the moment, this works slightly in DH's favour as I earn more than he does. However, he definitely contributed much more while I was studying.

TBH I'd feel slightly apprehensive about declaring all money simply "family money" due to our different spending habits. DH loves going out with his mates and usually spends his money on drinks, kebabs and the extra fuel needed for simply driving around. I tend to save up for bigger investments (e.g. a weekend away, a sewing machine, etc.). If I didn't have my "reserve amount" I could easily see him spending my share at the pub - not out of malice but because he's pretty casual about spending until the money runs out.

Whether a proportional household budget is appropriate rather depends on who is doing the unpaid jobs of housework and parenting, or whether those jobs are outsourced and neither parent is doing them.

That is an interesting question. I think you are right. Me and DH did this for a while. First of all we put the same amount of money in, then we put a proportion in and now we leave the same amount of money in our own accounts and all the rest goes in the joint account. The latter is easier to manage and fairer, definitely.

However, it was more advantageous for me as I was the higher earner but I was also the one that instigated the change to how it is now - as it didn't seem fair that I could accumulate a lot of savings and DH couldn't (that has all change since then too - we now have a joint savings account).

I think it's unfair. Both parties should have the same amount of disposable fun money at the end of the month.
A SAHM / parttimer may be financially dependent on the WOHP, equally the WOHP is dependent on the SAHM in other practical ways. Both contributions are valid, and even if society doesn't value your contribution, your prtner should have enough nous to.

I'm not really a fan of having 'private' money. I prefer everything to go into the family pot, and we spend as required, and consult and agree for big purchases.

I appreciate that for a lot of people though, this doesn't work for them. If there is to be a private money allowance, then I think that both should have the same 'spending' money, not as a proportion.

Interesting question. I think the issue is different before children are involved when many women give up/reduce their earning capacity- but I don't think its the same pre children. At that stage both parties have the same potential earning pwer and if the higher earner was to put in a higher proportion of salary this is in effect subsidising the lower earner and encouraging reliance/dependence