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?

DH and I have tried various ways of managing our money and have eventually decided that seperate accounts are the only way we can properly kaeep track. This worked for us when I was earning nothing, less than him, and now I'm earning more.
For us, it was nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with us both being shit with money.

lesley - I did meet a stay-at-home-wife once - no kids. Did seem a strange choice of lifestyle to me (very rich DH though)

But I do think there are lots of reasons why you might not want to share money. Eg - DP and I both have jobs, children, and very different incomes and outgoings. We're looking forward to living together soon, but I don't think either of us could imagine simply pooling our money together. Would lead to far more resentment and issues around who spends what on what. I feel much happier to know that I'll remain in charge of my own income and spending, and not be bothered by him spending money on things I wouldn't.

Why does it make sense to give up the job? Why shouldn't both keep working? The biggest problem in equality is that only the mother can take maternity leave instead of letting the couple decide between them.

You basically use the status quo as a reason for the status quo existing. That should be challenged. And individual incomes, and the feeling of having an individual income I think plays a large part of that. Because it means never having to ask whether the partner is ok with you spending x amount on yourself. And he doesn't have to either.

lesley "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."

I've known a couple of couples who did this: one a Japanese couple who lived here for a while (wife didn't work, maybe didn't have a visa to work, I don't know, butr she was very unhappy); the other lived in the US for a while (again wife had no working visa), now they live in the UK but she still works just a few hours a week. I've no idea what she does with her time, or how they arrange their money.

In both cases though the women didn't work in order to further their husband's careers. Why should they then lose out financially in the relationship? I do think that one partner in a long-term relationship getting less money than the other one is just wrong.

DH and I both have careers, but they have been affected by our relationship (difficulty of moving location, working part-time because of kids, etc). There have been points in both our lives when we could have earned more if we didn't have each other.

shared money?why
my money is my money
dp his is his
we define joint financial responsibilities and ensure that is adequately provided for

widow - for lots of people childcare costs MORE than 1 partner earns. So it makes sense financially to not work and look after kids. Especially if money is tight, this may be the only practical option. There are also many parents who don't believe in ft childcare for young dcs. I'm not judging those that do this, but some parents believe it is detrimental to their dcs and who wants to do something they believe is not good for their dcs?

I pay fulltime childcare for two children, which is painfully expensive and wipes out a huge proportion of my income. If I take into account the benefits and tax credits we lose due to me working for a reasonable wage, working or not working makes no big difference and if there's a difference we'd probably be slightly better of if I (or my husband) didn't work. Now - the continued career path however ensures hat fuls of win in the long run and I don't need to try and re-enter the job market with rusty skills after years at home.

If income is lower usually the help you get with childcare is higher, so unless you've got a huge number of children you should even with a low pay job be able to hang about somewhere at break even point.

Now I believe more should be done to help with childcare and making work worthwile compared to being at home, however, if you insist on the premise that woman = low earner and therefore she should stay in a position where she will always be a low earner, then that's damaging.

I'm not talking about choices here, if someone wants to SAHM because of ideological reasons, and hubby can afford it, yay for her.

I'm talking about finances being used to hold women back, and that the argument that insisting of completely joint resources can add to this holding back, so the opposite of the argument made in the OP, which to me sounds like that men as higher wage earners should compensate their spouses for earning less, without even trying to look into how this traditional set up is selfperpetuatiing.

Its not about compensating anyone tbh. Its about not wanting to punsih your partner for not earning as much as you. I love DP and don't want DP to have less money than me to spend on leisure, clothes, etc.

And tbh I don't judge my partner based on what they earn. If my DP had a very low paid job that would be fine. My DP isn't actually that ambitious and thats fine, because thats not what I value from my DP.

I also resent the fact that people assume that because DH is the higher earner, he must somehow be intellectually superior to me. Not the case. Intellectually, we are equals.

We both have a postgraduate degree, although his is a PhD and mine an MA. He is the higher earner because he works in a specialist field, in the private sector, which pays market rate for the rarity of the skills he possesses. I work in the public sector, in a profession much derided by the current government. Nevertheless, I earn a reasonable wage. Not reasonable by Xenia's standards, but some way above the national average.

If I had married someone who worked in the same profession as me, chances are I would earn more than them, as I am quite senior. We have a regional meeting regularly - out of twelve of us, I am one of two women round the table.

Not having to go to work as DH earns enough to keep both also entrenches sexism. It takes women out of the workplace. It reinforces the view that a successful man needs a woman at home to do the childcare. Despite the disparity in our earnings, my DH does masses of childcare. In fact, he enables me to do the job I do as I can attend evening meetings and do long days where necessary. He's not about to give up his job though. And neither am I.

It does surprise me time and time again when women say on here that childcare costs wipe out their wages. I see that as one of the things that perpetuates sexism as it takes women out of the workforce and generally keeps their earnings lower if they are able to find work after a sustained period of time at home. This is why I think it comes down to a) how much a woman values herself (why is the cost or issue of childcare her sole problem?) and b) thinking through the long term consequences and worst case scenario.

OOh I like this discussion! It is making me think that fair should be each puts a 'spending amount' that is equal away each month, but a proportional contribution for the bills instead and surplus to a joint pot to be spent between.

This is what I think roughly. Both men and women prioritise differently, and I wonder how much this too is down to capacity to spend eg (some silly generalisations whilst I understand my own mind!....)

Men tend to (have to) spend less/sacrifice on appearance things eg no make-up, fewer clothes (but some items are more expensive, so perhaps that cancels out), and can get away with a few staples, where I feel judged/my clothes are expected to be/ I like my clothes to be distinctive and many and I am expected/need choice depending on how I feel - men seem to be less concerned about this.

(personally I think really that this is a 'couples cost' in that slight role expectations are sort of jointly expected IYKWIM. )

Men seem to (oh the generalisations!) push for things like bigger cars, expensive hi-fis and tellys, games consoles, tools etc. women I know seem to desire small inexpensive green cars, but prefer new, but also seem much more likely (don't know if its because of being better organised/more affected by poor living environment/hard wired to keep home order a bit more because of child expectations) to spend premium on stuff for the home eg nice dining set v 'at least one or two plates' or 'nice mugs that make me feel good v builders chipped mug etc etc. or decorative things that are not strictly 'necessities'.

Men seem to drink more often and more expensively eg whiskey etc, but I think probably per unit women and men about equal unless you are rigid 'women drinking wine, man drinking pint' person in which case the expense of 'female' drinks probably compensates for the frequency of 'male' drinks.

With children, I think men seem to want big single expenses eg big trip, big toy, day out, and women want BOTH big single expenses AND the raft of sensible everyday stuff - it was me who wanted two styles of nappy bag one practical for carrying about and one comprehensive, me who wanted to get a second car seat for rellies, ( oh no hang on, he totally agreed - where does that go???)

I think this sounds like a great sociological/pop sociology study worthy of women's hour/thinking allowed! Can MNHQ survey and get on to WH??

Hang on I have just realised something - This may just mean that successful women might be better hooking up with men who have been unemployed and used to living on hardly anything for a while so they don't spend our money hehe

ooh also in 'one partner at home' models isn't it reasonable to assume that a) this saves childcare costs especially nursery that are pretty much the same as a salary b) that other person can focus on career PRECISELY BECAUSE their partner is handling the rest of it - so the working partner is not really making their own money they are handling one aspect that generates income for the couple and the other is handling the other aspect that generates time, saves money and facilitates.

If this is simplified to something like work partner is hunting food, SAH partner is collecting water it would be silly for the working partner to eat food by die of dehydration whilst the 'water' partner dies of malnutrition...

Oh dear I think I need to sit down and have a serious think about how I work things out!!

WorriedBetty, your post encapsulates all the reasons I became a feminist in my teens. Sorry, but I absolutely hate your way of thinking. As a teenager, I related to feminism because its message then was all about the similarities between men and women, not the differences. Women could be selfish, ambitious, want sex, hate housework, just like men.

I totally repudiate the gender distinctions you outline, but it is a way of thinking that seems prevalent in the mumsnet version of feminism. Mumsnet feminism has actually started to lessen my identification as a feminist, because I do not fit the female stereotyping that seems the usual currency on this board.

ithaka - There have always been different strands of feminism. This has included there are no gender differences and the strand ofwomen are softer, nicer, if all the leaders were women we wouldn't have wars belief - although the latter belief rather died a death after Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister and went to war!

But there has never been 1 strand of feminism. That is why feminism has always been full of constant debates and arguments.

I think worriedbetty's point is sound - what's to hate? She isn't saying that women should stay at home and men go to work, just that in some families it may make sense for one person (of either gender) to go to work, and the other to do most of the other things that need doing, including childcare.

This isn't in itself a sexist thing to say - if you were to say it had to be the man who goes to work, that would be different. But saying that they only way for women and men to be equal is for them to both do the same % of wage earning and domestic work is rubbish too. People are different - what suits one couple isn't going to be the same as what suits another.

The problem is not that women more often do domestic work and childcare, but that society doesn't value this work as much as paid work.

purpleroses, it was worriedbetty's riff on men wanting fast cars, women little ecomical run arounds; men drinking whisky, women liking wine etc etc that made my teeth itch. It just makes me feel that I am obviously not a 'real' woman, as that seems to involve gender defined traits that I obviously lack.

I think the opposite to you - I think it is a problem that women often do more domestic work and childcare, probably because I hate domenstic work and to be honest, I don't value it.

Childcare is different, but again, why should it be women's job? Oh yes, they can't earn as much a wonderful clever men, so it is not worth their while. How convenient for men.

"Men seem to (oh the generalisations!) push for things like bigger cars, expensive hi-fis and tellys, games consoles, tools etc. women I know seem to desire ... stuff for the home eg nice dining set v 'at least one or two plates' "

This is where our feeble attempts to divide up spending failed. DH wants upgrades for the computer, telly etc - I couldn't care less. But I spend money replacing duvet covers, chipped plates etc. that he's not bothered about. Both are household spending I guess - but I don't want a new computer, so is that from his budget? If he doesn't want a new saucepan is that from my budget?

When dh and I first lived together we had separate accounts but earned the same to the penny and had plenty of disposable income so never really an issue. Then I changed jobs and earned less but that was my choice and I had more free time so we still paid the same for household expenses but dh sometimes picked up the bill for things I couldn't afford to do. Everything changed when we had kids - I insisted on joint account as my earning power is now much reduced as I have to work fixed hours around the kids. - well, one or both of us have to, it fell on me (whole other issue) if I worked the hours he does I could earn what he does but neither of us wants that for our children. So we have a joint pot, each get a set amount out which is just ours to save/spend on frivolities but little things like clothes, nights out etc come out of the joint account. I'm not financially dependent, if we had to the kids and me could have a nice lifestyle on just my income without me changing my work just not as nice as we have now. I do think not being completely financially dependent is very important for both in a couple though.

I think worriedbetty's thoughts and perspectives are just as valid as anyone elses on this thread as they are her thoughts and perspectives and doesnt mean that everyone has to agree with them.

Dh and I are in similar fields and he's fairly senior in his organisation as am I. Approx 90% of our peers at our level in our industry/profession are male and the norm seems to be for the men to have a stay at home wife and in fact anyone who has a working wife is seen as unusual. His peers are always surprised that if we have a childcare issue that it is just as much his problem as mine. (E.g. our nanny had day off last month and I had important meetings on that day so it was dh who took the day off work). Whenever they are surprised, I realise that clearly there are vast amounts of couples who think that childcare is the sole issue of the woman in the relationship. While women continue not to stand firm against basic assumption in their own relationships, it perpetuates sexism more generally and is one of the factors that keeps men in control of the purse strings in a lot of households.

I saw worrieds comments as being true a lot of the time, not as any innate part of women and men, but society as it is at the moment. Goods are marketed to the genders and people do believe what they own says something about them and in a sexist society this is going to result in pressure to conform to stereotypes.

I don't think it is by chance that men are encouraged to make higher value purchases, as a reflector of their 'masculinity'. Household finance is very political in a family with limited funds. He generally gets the lions share.

'I realise that clearly there are vast amounts of couples who think that childcare is the sole issue of the woman in the relationship. While women continue not to stand firm against basic assumption in their own relationships, it perpetuates sexism more generally and is one of the factors that keeps men in control of the purse strings in a lot of households'.

Yes, I absolutely relate to this comment. I have always resisted being forced into a female gendered stereotype, so I suppose I feel a bit betrayed when it sounds like 'feminists' are trying to do that to me.

worldb's views are distincitve. I know loads of women who buy expensive sprots cars. i bought an island. I don't want stereotypes that women want lipstick and men buy islands which is the only reason I ever mentino mym island really (and it's fun to have). Also men I know spend as much if not more than women on clothes. I don't spend much at all on clothes and I suspect that's a better feminist position to be in although air heads who love fashion I suppose can take their decorative place as long as it's at a distance from me.

Childcare cost have always been something men and women pay. If we could pay half each in the 80s when we started this large family I think it's a great pity if women in 2012 think it is only their expense.

No way.

We split bills and keep the rest to ourselves.

I want my own money, not his. Christ, I can't think of anything worse. It's bad enough having him take the mickey out of my shopping choices - if it was his money he could tell me not to buy it.

I'd rather be single than live like that.

Morris - the choices are not always quite so straightforward. So for example, my DH is disabled and too ill to work. By definition, therefore, all the money is 'my money'. He checks with me before he buys anything expensive but that's because I do the household budget, not because it's my money.

And in many couples, both with and without children, there may be a distinct difference in earnings. This may change substantially over time. So there are many ways of divvying up incomes and expenditure to be fair to both parties - yours is the way we did it when we first met and were both working. That worked fine, too - then.