Sakura- I see nothing controversial in my statement. I did not say that you had to feel unhappy if you decided on this arrangement.
I would say that I knew a few families (maybe three, which is high considering proportionally how few families seem to keep joint finances in this situation) where the sharp division of tasks combined with an inadequate "allowance" and low self-esteem can major ructions in the relationship.
I am not talking about any situation in which the stay at home parent has a part-time job. I am talking about situations in which one parent goes out to work to bring in money, and the other strictly stays at home and is given a proportion of what is earned. How much the proportion seems as though it could be the source of friction and cause for resentment.
For example: say the working outside the home half earns 60,000 pounds pa, and pays the bills, and whilst he brings home expensive gadgetry galore, gives his partner only 500 per month to buy food for the house and clothe three children and herself. No exceptions. It is a genuine case btw, of people in their thirties. The 500 pounds may be perfectly adequate for what she does with it, but it's the disproportion, the lack of trust and the lack of communication about money that get her down, even though she probably wouldn't spend any more if they had joint finances.
It also certainly helps me, as a very well-educated professional underachiever, to know that I probably save the household money by not working as much as I could, and that what I do every day actually has a value in a society, which frankly, is very money-oriented. I've been "at home" now for 9 of my oldest child's 13 years, interspersed with periods of employment during which the entire family suffered from my being out at work, and which despite the extra income were definitely not "worth" it. It's not just about the money, and no more is the joint finances thing. It's about role and status.