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?

My parents pay all their income into a joint account then allocate themselves equal "spending money" out of that. What's left in the joint account covers all joint expenses including holidays, cars etc, their spends are for their own leisure activities - buying books or craft supplies for example. I think it's a good way of doing it, they've gone through stages of both working, to Mum SAH with us and doing voluntary stuff too, to a period of unemployment and now both working again. I think their arrangement demonstrates that all their resources are shared iyswim, no matter who brought what in or did what unpaid work, they are equals. I'd probably want to use a similar system if I ever lived as part of a couple again.

I think the system the OP refers to though, where both contribute an equal amount regardless of income is unfair on the lower earner though. Both should be left with the same amount of spending money imo.

I agree with the poster that said that any system is fair and reasonable if the people are fair and reaasonable.

This is a touchy subject for me, as I earn more than my OH and have a vastly expensive hobby (horses) so lots of my cash goes on that. I would not want him to know how much money I waste on my horse habit, so I don't want my salary going into a joint pot. Yes, I am hugely selfish, but for me the advantage of working to earn money is that I get to spend it how I want.

This means I am also happy for my husband to spend what he wants, when he wants, so we live in a relaxed house and don't argue about money.

Bills/mortgage etc are all covered by DD, so no need for squabbles over that and we are responsibe for our own cars etc.

I hate these sort of feminism posts which always seem to end up wanting to financially value 'women's work'. I just can't relate, at all, I hate the thought of 'women's work'. If I want money, I go and earn it.

I think how the money and assets are divided up in a relationship gave a good indicator of how the value that each places on the other's contribution and on themselves and that this is true irrespective of whether both, one or neither person is working. If a woman agrees to a system that is unfair on her then I don't think it perpetrates sexism per say, I just think that she either doesn't sufficiently value herself or her contribution or hasn't thought through a worse case scenario.

My mother agreed to a system that was unfair, she believed my dad when he made out that he knew more about finances, mortgages etc than she did. This was in an age where it was hard to educate oneself about these things as no internet etc. When it went horribly wrong the impact on her and us children were devasting. My brothers and (in particular) sisters and I have learned some hard lessons from this which I am sure we will pass on to our children (especially girls).

We earned the same for quite a while. Ultimately I earned 10x what he did. On the divorce he got more than half. It depends on the couple how things are divided but we both had the same work ethic, neither spent much and a similar attitude to money and never argued over it so everything in joint names worked fine for us.

Actually, yes, I think to answer OP's question, it does perpetuate sexism. Because currently, men do still tend to earn more than women. And the result is that men have more financial power in the relationship. If joint expenses cover the basics, the one who has greater spending power is likely to do things like "treat" the other one - to a night out, a shopping trip, a weekend away. Simply because he has more money.

I know this because before DH and I were married, this is how we worked things. At his insistence. Becuase I earned significantly more money. But the result was that at birthdays I did go out and spend more on him, because I could. And I did "treat" him regularly and that did not make our relationship feel equal. And when it's the man who earns more, I think it just reinforces stereotypes of the man being in control of the money.

DH gets very frustrated as he is often out with male friends on weekends, and they'll make comments like, "Oh, DW is out with my credit card. Guffaw guffaw" and it annoys him because he can't understand how these men are a) oblivious to the fact that he earns less than me so it's not a universal man thing and b) married to women who think its okay to have to get permission to go shopping with the man's credit card.

One final point, in most cases, I have no doubt that neither the man nor the women see it as a sexism issue. But sadly, that doesn't change the subtle reinforcement that is going on.

I think the idea that the only women who prefer a shared approach are unwaged, or low waged is a bit sweeping.

When we met, both me and my DH earned similar incomes. He is now paid much more, whilst I am PT. However, even my PT wage is substantially far above the national average.

Like Xenia (I never thought I would type these words) joint money is not much of an issue, as me & DH have the same spending priorities. It would be different if we had different views on spending / saving.

Most of my time with DP I have been the higher wage earner. We have always shared money jointly and don't account for how much each of us spend on ourselves i.e. it doesn't have to be equal. We have had very little money and also been pretty well of, but always done this since we lived together - even pre children.

If we had very different attitudes to money i.e. DP was a spendthrift, I would want the same amount for each of us as our money and the rest on household expenses.

LOL.. in view of the continuing gender pay gap (for whatever reasons that may be) maybe we should charge our DHs a "willy tax"!

Lots of women on this thread earn more than their other half which is great and a growing trend.

I do think those who say it depends on your attitude to money are right. If you both are pretty good savers as we were then everything joint is fine and it worked well for us. If one of you runs through money like water and the other is very careful it could be a recipe for disaster.

Plenty of women choose to live without men of course and many are lesbians.

In a sense the entire premise of the thread is sexist because it assumes women will choose to live with men which many don't.

Of course not all women live with men. But most couples are still male/female and women still earn on average less than men. TBH MNers do seem to be a wealthier lot than the average family, but stats about % of women in householdsw ho earn more than male DP are available and back up what I say.

"I do think those who say it depends on your attitude to money are right. If you both are pretty good savers as we were then everything joint is fine and it worked well for us. If one of you runs through money like water and the other is very careful it could be a recipe for disaster."

That's a key point. Keeping a private account plus the joint can stop a lot of resentment.

Yes, I think it is 4 in 5 who choose to live with a man earn less than he does. Many of them prefer to marry up , someone a bit better educated and older,. Very few women will actively seek someone who is less bright, worse educated and earns half what they do although I would hope this eventually could become a gender neutral issue. A lot of men do marry women who earn half (and let's not forget women earn more than men in the UK up to age 26 when many of these unions are made).

To play the devils advocate - doesn't a completely shared income also perpetuate sexism as it removes incentive for the woman to try and get a better paid job (or WOH altogether)?

Yeah widow because the only reason women earn less than men on average is because they have no incentive to get a better paid job .

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.

Women on average earn less than men for a number of reasons:

1. Girls are more likely to be guided into careers by family, school, media that are lower paid.
2. Sexism at work - men in traditionally lower paid women's careers are promoted on average much faster than childless women.
3. 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.

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

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. .

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.

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.

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. And choosing to stay at home with kids if you can afford to is a valid choice. Although the assumption shouldn't be it is automatically the woman.

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.

tbh as well if both partners are reasonable I do struggle to understand why you wouldn't want shared money. I want my DP to be happy and am quite happy for DP to spend money on clothes for example without me checking that I am spending the same amount roughly.

widow - Because most women earn less it makes sense financially for the woman to give up her job. And because of sexism that the woman is best placed to look after kids.

Getting a promotion in returning to work was great, but unusual.

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.