Do proportional household budgets just perpetruate sexism?

[lesley33]

By proportional household budgets I mean any arrangement where partners put a proportion of their salary into a pot to cover household expenses and the rest is the individual's to spend as they wish. This arrangement seems to be becoming more common these days rather than having just family money.

Now I know there are individual reasons why this might be a good idea. And I know some women earn more than men. But most women and especially mothers earn less than their male partners. So this proportional allocation means in most cases the man gets more money to spend on himself and the woman gets less.

And I can't help thinking that in most cases this arrangement just perpetruates the sexism in this society around women, mothers and part time work being lower paid than many men and thus having less money to spend on themselves. So what do you think?

"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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

hmm.... tricky question... i would say that having separate 'spending' money is becoming more popular but i would also say that in the past the man had money to spend and the woman if lower paid generally just didn't have any disposable income or any income she could call her own outside of 'treats' that her husband 'gave' her.

we have private 'spends' because it's how we budget - we're lucky enough to have money for leisure and hobbies so we put our necessary money into one account and savings into another and keep our 'spends' for our own use separate so we have no danger of ever going into the 'necessary' money or family savings.

i think you're issue is not really about this concept, but about the exact proportioning of it? is that right? and it's only an issue IF the woman has taken a lower income due to family/childcare role? (we're not in that situation).

We actually have a communal pot, philosophically speaking. We have independent current accounts, and a joint one for bills and things. We buy what we feel we need up to the limit of the money coming in.

I am currently Head of Procurement and DH is Head of Finance, but mainly because I am better at planning expenditure and sniffing out deals, while he is a bit better on Excel.

arrrggghhhhhh your not you're

We have always had a joint account even when I was not earning any money into which all money is paid I manage the money and we have always had the same "spends" in the budget I do. To us its just a pot of money that belongs to both of us equally.

retreating to stereotypical gender roles perpetrates sexism

I think the OP meant perpetuate, scottishmummy. But in any case, what you seem to be suggesting is a stay-at-home version of the quota idea for board members, where a certain percentage would be required to be women. Quite how society would enforce a certain percentage of all stay-at-home parents being men, in order to challenge gender assumptions, I'm not sure . I do know that in Sweden a few years back it was mandated that each parent had to take at least 3 months of the parental leave period in a bid to tackle the idea that combining work and childcare was solely a female issue.

I read somewhere seperate monies is norm for couples
I suppose it's preference
but certainly I've never wanted or sought shared monies in our relationship

We have had a joint account since early twenties. I earn 3-4 times what he earns, but I couldn't do it without him, so its not just mine.

Behind every most high earning woman, is either herself, or a partner who isn't a twat. or maybe a combination.

There are other systems that aren't twatty but if one of you spends more money on yourself than your partner can spend on theirself, that's a sign your a twat.

lol,what a bizarre summation trib
erroneous and harrumphing
with spelling pedantry
nice

quotas?nope didnt go there
you did though

a lot of this also depends on how tight money is.
i know this might be sickening for some people but we are lucky enough to be in a situation where i choose to earn less in order to work in a field that i believe in (hippy that i am) and i am happy to buy less 'stuff'.. DH works in a higher paid field and also has a more expensive hobby.
obviously we have the same home, and holidays and meals out etc (so basically the same standard of living) the difference is he owns a bunch of his hobby equipment and i don't have any equivalent (through choice, i hate shopping).

scottishmummy, I made no comment on my personal views on the quota system idea. And if you meant perpetrates rather than perpetuates, that's up to you.

You seem to have a view that the problem is that women give up work to have children. My alternative argument would be that the problem is that men don't.

at least you're consistently erroneous in harrumphing
why did you introduce talk of quota?I didn't mention quotas
and yes raising children isn't automatically female domain
just as family finances isn't automatically male domain

DH and I share all our money. He earns 3x what I do. We have never thought about doing it any other way. We have separate savings accounts, mainly because he is a 40% tax payer and I'm not. The money in them isn't for the person named on the account's personal use though. We have spent the money in my savings account getting us through DH going freelance and not being paid for 2 months. I'm not bothered, that sort of situation is what its there for.

I do think separate money perpetuates women being in a worse position than men as they are generally the lower earner. This is exacerbated when the man expects all the things for the DCs to come out of the woman's money, not his. It can also be about power and control, where a man is able to go off and do whatever he wants as he can afford to do so, whereas the woman can't.

We don't have that with shared money. We both spend what we feel we need to on whatever we feel we need to, discussing large purchases with the other one before buying.