50/50 Finances

The Sweeper

This thread is inspired by a lot of what I see on the Ladies Lounge and on Personal Issues about couples and their finances.

There is no denying that finances are hugely important in any relationship. Depending what source of divorce statistics you're looking at, money is regularly cited as the number one reason for divorce.

There appears to be a strong sense among young women on boards.ie that their integrity and independence is strongly linked to their own self-sufficiency. That self-sufficiency concept seems to have its concrete foundations in equal financial contribution to a relationship - the 50/50 rule. You pay half of the bills, half of the rent, half of everything.

So here's my question - why do you do it?

This may sound like a stupid question, but I have my reasoning.

First of all, the gender salary gap still exists. As of July 2007, women across the EU were generally accepted to earn 15% less than their male counterparts. While the instance of men and women in similar positions in the same company getting paid different salaries may have lessened, the concept of gender inequality remains. Jobs that are dominated by women, but could be said to have similar skillset challenges to jobs dominated by men, are lower-paid positions - nurses get paid less than police, supermarket cashiers are paid less than assembly line workers etc.

Second, women occupy more lower paid jobs than men - this isn't quite the same as gender inequality within work, but on the same vein. Your man is more likely to be promoted to management than you are. A woman's career path is likely to be shorter, slower and more interrupted than a man's career path. The gender pay inequality increases with years of service - men over 50 are likely to earn an average of 30% more than women over 50.

The third aspect is motherhood. If you choose to be a mother, and you therefore cannot work, your income dries up. Maternity pay is limited and you essentially are reliant on the state or your partner for your income. If you choose to return to work you may well find yourself in the situation that most of your wages cover the cost of child care so essentially you're working so someone else can raise your child.

So here's my question - given that you're likely to earn less than your man while you are working, you're less likely to advance as far as he will throughout the path of your career, your lifetime wages will be far less than your male counterpart's and if you choose to be a mother your earnings will disappear down the swanny for at least six months if not longer, why do women generally feel such a compulsion, a responsibilty, even a duty to represent themselves financially on a 50/50 footing with their man?

What does it benefit you? Have we been that brainwashed into thinking that women who are not completely financially independent are gold-diggers? So you represent yourself 50/50 for the life of a three year relationship where he earns €15-20K more than you do - what do you think you come out with at the end of that three year relationship? A sense of personal integrity and self respect? Or a far smaller savings account than his?

This fascinates me generally - we'd all go bananas if we went into a shop where all of the items had a 15-20% mark-up if they're bought by a woman instead of a man, but we don't bat an eyelid at contributing, say, 80% of our personal income to our joint living arrangements, versus our bloke's 60%.

Is this another curse of the feminism backlash? Are we creating a rod to beat ourselves with? Whose stupid idea was this anyway?

Reku

And yet I still regularly hear worrying statistics about how few of these "finacially independent women" have proper pensions in place and how many are instead clinging to the hope of a partner who will look after them in their pensioner years.:(

But I would have to agree with you that they should probably work out a system whereby each puts the same percentage of their post tax pay towards joint bills (rent/mortgage, utilities, etc...).

(Person 1's net income + Person 2's net income)/x = bills
should let you work out the fraction of each person's income that they should put towards the bills.

jellie

It depends on the situation.

I cant comment much on living costs as I dont live with my bf. But in general if were doing things & have similar amounts of money at the time we spend about 50/50 or take turns paying. This would be when were both working. we're both young & there wouldnt be a huge difference in our salaries when both working.

However last year I was in college while he was working & this year hes gone back to college. Last year he paid for a lot of things because I had no money, & this year its the opposite way. This just happened to work out in a way where its balancing out, but i have no problem spending more money than him because at the moment i HAVE more money than him. & he was the same last year.

If we ever got to the point of marriage, i dont think we would view our salaries as MY money v.'s HIS money. it would be our money, so percentages wouldnt matter so much. (i probably sound a bit naive here, but things like this have come up a few times & i know hed feel the same way about it). Though i can see how it could get v messy depending on 1 persons spending habits. Hmm i dunno. i think ideally in a long term relationship it shouldnt be split like that, it should be joint money

Meathlass

It really depends on circumstances doesn't it. Not all women will earn less than their partner. I agree though that paying a percentage of post tax income is probably a good idea. It can be a personal choice though to earn less and why should the other person compensate for that? I currently earn more than my boyfriend and am in a higher management level in my profession but when I get to the top of the ladder I'll still only be on about 50,000 a year while the top of his ladder would be over 100,000. This is nothing to do with equality but the fact that he works in sciences and I work in humanities.

We're not at the paying rent/bills stage yet but when we go out we usually take it in turns to pay for dinner/drinks or cinema etc. I've noticed though that he can get a bit tetchy if I try and split bills for special occasions. This weekend we are going away for Valentine's day, he's paid for hotel and I want to pay for dinner, spa and golf while we're there. He's insisting on paying for it all even though he knows I have more money than him, I just don't get it.

I've just read Sar84 and disagree with the comment that all salaries should be considered joint. What do married people or those living together think? Surely the easiest way is to have a joint account where you put in half the mortage, half the esb, sky etc every month and then what's left over is yours to spend on what you wish, be it paying off loans, clothes, nights out or gadgets!

Crumble Froo

we pay about 50/50ish. say we went to the cinema, i might get both tickets, but he'd get my bus and food.

the reasoning is that we're both equals. neither of us have much money, and usually if we wnat to go out to do something, it has to be both us chipping in, cos it is too expensive otherwise, and i feel crap wehn he does pay for me/my stuff, cos i know he doesnt really have it to give.

we split rent 50/50, same wiht power, split the phone line rental, and then pay for our own calls. we food shop together, and though things like bread and milk could go in either section, we pay for our food individually too. it's just fair, it's how we're kinda used to doing things, and nobody feels like they owe each other or anything.

We split everything 50/50. Up until recently I earned more than my boyfriend so I wouldn't expect it to be any other way.

However we're not the types to adhere to a strict split all the time, on occasion he'll pick up the bill in a restaurant, other times I've booked flights on my credit card and just pay for both of us.

I don't like the 'gold-digger' accusations towards women.
Hopefully some day we'll have kids and I would prefer not to work fulltime then.
I certainly wouldn't consider myself a 'kept woman' to rely more heavily on his salary in those circumstances.

litup

We split mortgage, bills etc 50/50.

The reason? Well firstly, it is fair, so why not. Secondly, I think it is important to be able to support your own standard of living. If next week my partner and I were no longer together I would like to be able to carry on a similar standard of living on my salary, not have a big drop because he was subsidising me.

The way it works for us in practice is bills etc are always split evenly but discressionary spending is usually paid by whichever one of us is earning more at the time.

I don't have kids, if I did this might change.

cold_filter

My Gf earns more than me and its quite a large amount, and most likely within a couple of years she'll be earning probably 30k p.a. more than me. But in about 5 years I'll probably be earning 30k p.a. more than her so it will balance out.


When she was doing her finals she had no money, she was living with relatives so she had no bills but she has a big family and there were a lot of birthdays around that time, I gave her money for them, money for petrol, brought her for dinner etc etc. It didnt bother me as i knew the following year she would have to do the same for me! and she did!

We were renting for a while and I was contracting so earning a lot more than her, we did 50/50 but if she was ever stuck I just gave her money and if we went out for dinner or anything i paid.

We bought a house, going into the house we had pretty much the same cash saved but she had her ssia, i've got a couple of life assurance policies so aslong as i dotn die in the next 10 years that'll get us an extension or pay off some of the mortgage. We have a joint account for bills etc.. its 50/50

neuro-praxis

Maybe me and my other half are different to other couples, but we have always pooled our money and then worked from there. We have joint accounts and have never even really thought about it. I can't imagine being in a situation where I have to pay half of the phone bill and he pays the other. We pay the phone bill with money from our joint account, which we both contribute to. At times I've earned more, right now he does. Surely sharing life means sharing finances. Anything else doesn't make sense to me.

Iago

we split 50/50 but we earn almost identical amounts. If there was a big gap I'd advocate a fair split based on what we take home. Not because I think it's overly important, but more so that we each have our own "pocket money" if there's something that catches our eye.

In reality even if there was a significant difference we would still provide for each other as and when required. Neither of us watches what we spend or who is doing the spending, which is how I think it should be.

Quality

We have a joint account from when we got married but I am allowed to keep the childrens allowance.

Before we were married, He paid the mortgage and bills and I paid for childcare and food. He would always give me money to go shopping or if I was going out with the girls.


I know he would like to provide for me 100%. But I enjoy working, Also the extra money allows us to enjoy life a bit more, Nice holidays etc.

Dragan

No offence OP but your initial posting does not really take into account that lots of blokes end up with girls who are financially in a much better position than they are.

My last two girlfriends have been better paid that me, owned their own cars and their own houses. This is awesome i am proud of both of them for acheiving what they did at a young age.

However, does it give me the right to say "Nah, i'm not paying for cinema tickets because you earn more than me"?

I think not. People choose to go out with each other.....if money is such a major issue for people then i suggest we all procreate within our own salary benchmark.

ali.c

Dragan wrote: »

However, does it give me the right to say "Nah, i'm not paying for cinema tickets because you earn more than me"?

True but there is a difference between paying for cinema tickets and say buying a house with someone (who presumably you are planning on spending a significant amount of time with if you the rest of your life). So if in a long term commited relationship the incomes are proportionally very varied then what the OP is suggesting does make sense.

For me though eh i like my independence and personally if my bf was paying my rent it would bother me and therefore likely not be healthy for the relationship.

In a marraige I prefer the idea of a joint account with percentage contribuations linked to your earning capacity.
I wouldn't like to have any shared financial responsibilty such as a house outside of marraige.

Dragan

The way i see it is this. Everyone's finances are their own business so i imagine all couples will sort this out on their own.

However, from my point of view, regardless of the difference in payscales everything done between my and my future ( and only 1....whether it works out for every or not.....whoever can give me the suitable John Mayer line wins a prize ) wife will be done 50/50.

We are agreeing to share a life together........everything we do we are agreeing to share. If we get bogged down in the cash then that tells me that our marrige was not worth getting into in the first place. Money will go into accounts, bills paid, things purchased and thats about it. If it boils down to her ever turning around to me and saying something like "well, we have a 7.3% difference in our earning potential now so i have weighted our share of the bills accordingly" then i will be asking myself did this woman marry me for me or for HER wallet.

Thats just me though. My wife will have the same blasse attitude to money as well.....if she didn't i wouldn't marry her.

ali.c

Dragan wrote: »

The way i see it is this. Everyone's finances are their own business so i imagine all couples will sort this out on their own.

Yeah i'd imagine so too

Then you lose me

However, from my point of view, regardless of the difference in payscales everything done between my and my future ( and only 1....whether it works out for every or not.....whoever can give me the suitable John Mayer line wins a prize ) wife will be done 50/50.

So 50/50 split irregardless of earning etc

We are agreeing to share a life together........everything we do we are agreeing to share. If we get bogged down in the cash then that tells me that our marrige was not worth getting into in the first place. Money will go into accounts, bills paid, things purchased and thats about it.

See that seems to be suggesting the opposite or am I reading it wrong.

Anyhow lets go with a 50/50 split your wife earns significantly more that you in this situation should
a.) she live in a small house because you cant afford a larger house
or
b.) you live in a large house and max out all your discretary(sp??) money on your 50% split of the mortage and your wife can take all the foreign holidays cause you cant afford them:D

Dragan

ali.c wrote: »

Anyhow lets go with a 50/50 split your wife earns significantly more that you in this situation should
a.) she live in a small house because you cant afford a larger house
or
b.) you live in a large house and max out all your discretary(sp??) money on your 50% split of the mortage and your wife can take all the foreign holidays cause you cant afford them:D

I don't know, to be honest. I'd need to chat about that with my future wife! Maybe she will hate her high paying job and be made to quit.

SO together we travel to Bali and set up a small shop on the beach selling hand made wood crafts to tourist. Or perhaps she convinces me that i can stop working altogether and continue working on my book. Not because she wants me to be published.....just because she wants to read it.

Or maybe, just maybe.......a million things might happen?

I honestly do not really worry about it too much.....i will marry a woman who is foolish enough to let me love her and we will worry about the money aspect as it happens.....not hypothetically for the sake of a forum!

I guess thats why i say 50/50? it's the easiest answer for what is, in essence.....a bull**** question?

ali.c

Dragan wrote: »

I guess thats why i say 50/50? it's the easiest answer for what is, in essence.....a bull**** question?

True of course it varies with circumstances. Nothing wrong with people expressing different opinions on it though

Dragan

ali.c wrote: »

True of course it varies with circumstances. Nothing wrong with people expressing different opinions on it though

Tee hee hee, can you imagine if all differences of opinion were this polite?

The net would be super dull!!!

ali.c

Dragan wrote: »

Tee hee hee, can you imagine if all differences of opinion were this polite?

The net would be super dull!!!

Damn straight, anyhow personally I'd be making it up as i go along if and when i get to the stage of actually marrying someone!

*or as soon as i find someone dumb enough lol

LouOB

I do 50/50 also on bills and mortgage. But the thing that really annoys me is the fact I would spend more money on food and stuff for the house i.e. towels, soft furnishings etc. Yet the money I would put into these things would not compare to the money that OH would.
For instance I would go food shopping and buy stuff needed for house eg washing powder, soap, as well as food. Yet he would just buy the food that he would eat.
This is where the inequality comes into play. Why should I have to pay more just to have more quality ie new towels and soft sheets? While he gets them for free!

Dragan

LouOB wrote: »

I do 50/50 also on bills and mortgage. But the thing that really annoys me is the fact I would spend more money on food and stuff for the house i.e. towels, soft furnishings etc. Yet the money I would put into these things would not compare to the money that OH would.
For instance I would go food shopping and buy stuff needed for house eg washing powder, soap, as well as food. Yet he would just buy the food that he would eat.
This is where the inequality comes into play. Why should I have to pay more just to have more quality ie new towels and soft sheets? While he gets them for free!

Eh, maybe say it too him?

LouOB

OH I have - but there is only so many times before you start sounding like you are 'nagging'. So I have to be more stealth like in future ie I dont have wallet with me etc. Silly but when you are spending 100+ more a mth on 'home' stuff it really annoys me.
Does anyone else have this too?

Dragan

Personally i just cannot understand how these situations even arise?

Money is earned, bills need paying, so money is put towards the bills. When my Dad was the only one working full time when Mum was looking after us nippers he would come home on Friday, hand mum his pay check and that was it.

Dad didn't drink, smoke or have any expensive habits because he couldn't afford them. Thats the way it has always been, Mum get's handed the paycheck.

Every live in relationship i have had everything was dealt with as a couple. Money was offered when needed to cover stuff. Bills had kitty's, as did the groceries.

It is completely alien to me to think that a couple would argue about money, to be honest.

smurfbaby

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

There appears to be a strong sense among young women on boards.ie that their integrity and independence is strongly linked to their own self-sufficiency. That self-sufficiency concept seems to have its concrete foundations in equal financial contribution to a relationship - the 50/50 rule. You pay half of the bills, half of the rent, half of everything.

So here's my question - why do you do it?

I live with my boyfriend, we own our house jointly. My view is-why shouldnt I pay half if it is something that we use equally? For example, if he earns more than me, should he subsidise my mortgage payment by paying a greater percentage than me? This doesn't make sense-if he paid more of the mortgage he would simply own a greater share of the property. Similarly why should he subsidise the rest of my lifestyle? If I lived alone and couldnt afford a particular luxury I would have to live without it. If I shared a rented house with friends who earned more than me I wouldn't expect them to pay more rent than me. Life just doesn't work like that! At least I know I can afford to live the life I live, and so a break up wouldn't affect my standard of living.

However if he wants to treat me by taking me out to dinner, or buying me perfume then that's fine too. It's nice to be treated, but I don't expect to be 'kept'. I also like to save up and treat him to a holiday or a present. We don't think about finances as being strictly 50/50, for example we would never split a bill, but we both like to pay our own way.

litup

LouOB wrote: »

OH I have - but there is only so many times before you start sounding like you are 'nagging'. So I have to be more stealth like in future ie I dont have wallet with me etc. Silly but when you are spending 100+ more a mth on 'home' stuff it really annoys me.

As mentioned earlier money issues can cause serious relationship problems so I think rather than 'nagging' each time it happens sit down and have a discussion about it in general and explain your feelings. I don't think its a good idea to have to resort to 'stealth' tactics in a relationship.

The way we work it is we each put €x into a joint account each month and out of that comes bills/mortgage etc but we also use a laser card from that account to buy food and household stuff.

NextSteps

We divide food, bills etc 50/50 - we write dow all expenditure and carve it up at the end of the month. It works fine as we earn more or less the same amount.

But I do worry about if we have children - part of me would want to give up work and rear them but a very large part would object to being supported financially. Now I know that I'd be doing half - and probably the difficult half - of the family's work, but I still wouldn't feel that it was my money. And I'd hate to be relying on pin money for every little expense, or to be accountable for everything. Plus, I'd feel I was letting the side down by leaving the workforce (with my qualifications).

I dunno, is there a satisfactory solution?

Meathlass

While personally I would just split bills 50/50 and have the money come out of a joint account regardless of individual salaries how to people cope with the problem mentioned where one person spends money on soft furnishings that the other mightn't be too pushed about? I like to buy nice stuff for the house but I know most guys wouldn't care but they still get to use the towels, nice sheets etc anyway. At the same time I don't think one person should use all of their disposible income buying furniture and cushions. Maybe set a monthly allowence or something like that (btw unless you're furnishing a new house 100 euros a month seems a lot to spend)

LouOB

Ok - I would pay 100+ more on food and household. But would also buy stuff for house ie sheets, duvet, candels, towels etc. Now usually I would ask for half if say I spent 160 on particular shop or item. But amounts add up during month with 20 or 30 here and there on food. It starts getting mad.
I would be first to be home in the evening as my job is closer to home so I would get in stuff needed. But this is usually the case. All extras add up. I dont mind now and again and its usually myself that likes diff things but when you left with no cash at end of month. Then start to analysis where money gone it kinda mad when all goes on food, petrol and house. I know its not just me its everyone.
I refuse to get joint account - where all monies poolled together. I have one with bills ONLY. I worked in bank branch and auld one gave me best advice ever - never get joint with spouse.

ali.c

LouOB wrote: »

I refuse to get joint account - where all monies poolled together. I have one with bills ONLY. I worked in bank branch and auld one gave me best advice ever - never get joint with spouse.

could you not work out a budget for household items (including food) and get a kitty going? Each transfer in 50% at the start of the month or however you get paid and work out of that for everything. Honestly though IMHO your talking to the wrong people about this

watna

Everything gets aplit 50/50 with us i.e. rent and bills. We have a joint account and pay an equal amount in to the account each month for groceries/petrol. It works out very well and we never fight about money. If we go out for the night we split the cost and if we go on holidays we work out wha we each spent and make sure it's even(ish). I earn a bit more than my bf but no matter what we'd still pay 50/50. I wouldn't have it any other way. My bf wants to go do a masters soon and I'll be earning a lot more. I may contribute more to household expenses but that will even out some time in the future. I'm happy to support him doing that because he'd do the same for me. As long as we both feel we're equally contributing, we're happy.

jellie

Meathlass wrote: »

I've just read Sar84 and disagree with the comment that all salaries should be considered joint. What do married people or those living together think? Surely the easiest way is to have a joint account where you put in half the mortage, half the esb, sky etc every month and then what's left over is yours to spend on what you wish, be it paying off loans, clothes, nights out or gadgets!

I didnt mean from day 1, i meant more at a stage of being married with a mortgage & kids. id feel weird keeping money for myself like its MY money only for ME. & i didnt say all salaries SHOULD be considered joint, just that its the way i would see my life going as i have no problem sharing my money with my bf & hes the same with me.

Generally we split costs unless one of is particularly low on money, then the other will pay a bit more.

Black Swan

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

So here's my question - given that you're likely to earn less than your man while you are working, you're less likely to advance as far as he will throughout the path of your career, your lifetime wages will be far less than your male counterpart's and if you choose to be a mother your earnings will disappear down the swanny for at least six months if not longer, why do women generally feel such a compulsion, a responsibilty, even a duty to represent themselves financially on a 50/50 footing with their man?

Fair enough, I think I see the point you are attempting to make, but let's put the shoe on the other foot?

Before going back to being a starving uni student on scholarship, in the last serious relationship that I had, I made many times more income than my male counterpart (and that was when he was employed and not unemployed). Although this lad seemed to handle it OK (well, most of the time), why do so many males feel cowed by a female that brings more bread home than he does? In other words, are these feelings by females attempting to measure up, achieve equality, contribute their share (or whatever), just female feelings about the very real structural inequality in our employment systems, or are there male feelings that contribute to the way females feel? For example, why are women perceived as the primary childcare giver and required to stay at home for years, when the male could equally take (or share) that role after nursing has been satisfied? (Mr Mom?)

You made some very good factual arguments for women to buy into their Durkheimian division of labor scheme, to where their lesser lifetime earnings potential should justify contributing less than 50/50. But that does not preclude the unfair (material world) social perception in our capitalistic societies that women are worth less, because they bring in less income than their male counterparts? "HE who makes the gold rules?" These factual arguments also ignore structural change, which is occurring as we speak, to where women are entering the monied professions in increasing numbers and may someday come closer to earning equality with their male counterparts, or even surpass them as I did for one moment in time?

Structural change, although gradual, is occurring in the USA. According to an issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education (some months ago), there are now more women in the USA enrolled in universities than males. Further, they also reported that women have passed men as declared business majors and are now the majority of students in college and university business schools. There still is a long ways to go, but "times are changing!"

Reku

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

For example, why are women perceived as the primary childcare giver and required to stay at home for years, when the male could equally take (or share) that role after nursing has been satisfied? (Mr Mom?)

In general, women tend to be far better at relating to people then men are, men tend to relate better to things (hence why such a big contrast in the numbers of male and female students in Engineering and, in the opposite way, in Nursing). There's also the generally held belief that women want babies more than men do, that men don't get broody whereas once the biological clock starts ticking women do. As such to try take motherhood away from the woman like this would be a unforgiveable sin in the eyes of some women I've known (they've said as much WRT if the man tried to stay home). As such both genders need to move with the times on this issue, it's good that some employers are now allowing fathers to negotiate extra days off on a regular basis, so that they can have more quality days with their kids.

Sleepy

LouOB wrote: »

This is where the inequality comes into play. Why should I have to pay more just to have more quality ie new towels and soft sheets? While he gets them for free!

What's unequal about it?

You're spending your discretionary income on these items. If he wanted them, I'm sure he'd fork out for them too.

ali.c

Sleepy wrote: »

What's unequal about it?

You're spending your discretionary income on these items. If he wanted them, I'm sure he'd fork out for them too.

Ah now its bloody towels and bed clothes her OH is clearly getting the benifit out of her buying. If it was shoes or something you'd have a point but normally household expenses are a joint expense.

Macha

farohar wrote: »

In general, women tend to be far better at relating to people then men are, men tend to relate better to things (hence why such a big contrast in the numbers of male and female students in Engineering and, in the opposite way, in Nursing). There's also the generally held belief that women want babies more than men do, that men don't get broody whereas once the biological clock starts ticking women do. As such to try take motherhood away from the woman like this would be a unforgiveable sin in the eyes of some women I've known (they've said as much WRT if the man tried to stay home). As such both genders need to move with the times on this issue, it's good that some employers are now allowing fathers to negotiate extra days off on a regular basis, so that they can have more quality days with their kids.

Sorry I have to take you up on the gender stereotyping in this. Why, why, why can't we drop the whole 'women are generally better at X, men are generally better at Y' thing?

Why do we have to continually analyse the similarities/differences between men and women? I really, really find this dividing of society down the middle and attributing certain characteristics generally to both halves extremely pointless and unhelpful.

As an individual and I may be crap at parking but I have a very analytical and numeric mind and am physically very strong but I love cooking. My point? Generalisations over entire swathes of people are useless because when you come down to the level of the individual, no one fits neatly into one side or another. I just want to be treated as an individual not as a 'woman'.

(Also, I find it sad that boards needs a special forum devoted to women because some female posters don't feel comfortable in other forums. )

Sorry - totally off topic.

OP - 50/50 all the way. And if I give up work to look after the kids, 50% of my partner's money is mine (and vice versa )

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry I have to take you up on the gender stereotyping in this. Why, why, why can't we drop the whole 'women are generally better at X, men are generally better at Y' thing?

Sadly generalisations will always be the way that a lot of people will operate. And worse still is the more people you get in a group, the more the generalisations will flow.

At the end of the day........for a massive, massive tract of human history the simple fact is that women WERE the primary child carer. Now before anyone starts jumping on me and saying "we were forced into it, men controlled everything" you are, by and large, spot on.

But it is pointless in pointing the finger and saying "men did this and that", men did what they male part of the majority of species on the planet did. Dominated through the attritutes that.....for a few million years.....helped us all to survive.

In general.......bigger, faster, stronger, more cruel and more cunning.....by and large. And in the grand scale of things it is really not that long since i would have been able to tell you to cook my dinner or that you couldn't vote!

Believe me, it is a fantastic thing that we are finally starting to move towards equality and such but jesus we have a fine history of doing the wrong thing ( for now, but was it the wrong thing at the time? ) for a long while and it's going to take some time to get over that.

There really is no use in being suprised when people still consider the mother to be the primary care giver and child carer......it's the way it's always been and nothing is ever harder to change than that.

Reku

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry I have to take you up on the gender stereotyping in this. Why, why, why can't we drop the whole 'women are generally better at X, men are generally better at Y' thing?

Why do we have to continually analyse the similarities/differences between men and women? I really, really find this dividing of society down the middle and attributing certain characteristics generally to both halves extremely pointless and unhelpful.

As an individual and I may be crap at parking but I have a very analytical and numeric mind and am physically very strong but I love cooking. My point? Generalisations over entire swathes of people are useless because when you come down to the level of the individual, no one fits neatly into one side or another. I just want to be treated as an individual not as a 'woman'.

(Also, I find it sad that boards needs a special forum devoted to women because some female posters don't feel comfortable in other forums. )

Hence why I said "in general", generalisations are a fundamental part of how the human brain operates, we need to put things into catagories and so learning patterns of these things tend to fall under this catagory is a basic operation of the brain as it simplifies future encounters with similar objects. If we didn't do this we'd need to learn how to pick up a pen and write a letter completely from scratch for each letter, the generalisation of "right, I'll need to be holding my pen to write a letter" would not exist. Worse still what about the generalisation of that the same process for writing applies regardless of location?
Objecting to people not understanding that they are generalisations is smart, objecting to the fact that generalisations is just stupid.

As I've said in another thread, the desire that we all be viewed as identical cannot work, the idea that we are all equally deserving of repect and the same rights while accepting and embracing the differences can. Or would you rather that males treat females exactly like they do males and walk up, deliver a punch to the upper arm and ask "How's it hanging?", then respond with absolute horror and disgust if the female makes any attempt at a PDA beyond a drunken hug or post team-score hug? We'll be a rather short lived species if that's what you want.:rolleyes:

Dragan wrote: »

But it is pointless in pointing the finger and saying "men did this and that", men did what they male part of the majority of species on the planet did. Dominated through the attritutes that.....for a few million years.....helped us all to survive.

Problem with the logic of "it was all the male's doing" is that women's bodies are rather more adapted to childcare than men, or did people think the breasts were just there for aesthetic effect?
That aspect is now moot since few kids are breastfed for even a week these days, instead baby formula is abundant and as such men can equally take care of a baby as women can, it's just about having the right mental state and not some BS macho-stand-offishness with regards the child just because he is a man.

watna

ali.c wrote: »

Ah now its bloody towels and bed clothes her OH is clearly getting the benifit out of her buying. If it was shoes or something you'd have a point but normally household expenses are a joint expense.

I don't know about this one. I've recently got in to household/kitchen things (a sign of my maturity!). My bf wouldn't be nearly as interested although if we need something for the house he will comment on it/agree and we'll buy it together. If it's just me wanting nicer towels when we already have towels that function perfectly well I'm happy to pay for it. It's a want, not a need and our household budget is too tight to buy that kind of things with it. It's for groceries.

ali.c

watna wrote: »

If it's just me wanting nicer towels when we already have towels that function perfectly well I'm happy to pay for it. It's a want, not a need and our household budget is too tight to buy that kind of things with it. It's for groceries.

True but LouOB also said that she spent more on food and stuff too, i figured that sheets and towels and the like are once off purchases rather than a weekly thing. Presumably that wasnt what she meant though i am assuming. I am sure you know yourself that the weeks you buy detergents and cleaners and maybe restock the freezer are more expensive than the weeks you dont. That to me was what i took from the post and i was purely responding to sleepy on his point.

Macha

Dragan wrote: »

Sadly generalisations will always be the way that a lot of people will operate. And worse still is the more people you get in a group, the more the generalisations will flow.

At the end of the day........for a massive, massive tract of human history the simple fact is that women WERE the primary child carer. Now before anyone starts jumping on me and saying "we were forced into it, men controlled everything" you are, by and large, spot on.

But it is pointless in pointing the finger and saying "men did this and that", men did what they male part of the majority of species on the planet did. Dominated through the attritutes that.....for a few million years.....helped us all to survive.

In general.......bigger, faster, stronger, more cruel and more cunning.....by and large. And in the grand scale of things it is really not that long since i would have been able to tell you to cook my dinner or that you couldn't vote!

Believe me, it is a fantastic thing that we are finally starting to move towards equality and such but jesus we have a fine history of doing the wrong thing ( for now, but was it the wrong thing at the time? ) for a long while and it's going to take some time to get over that.

There really is no use in being suprised when people still consider the mother to be the primary care giver and child carer......it's the way it's always been and nothing is ever harder to change than that.

*sigh* you're right. It just reminds me too much of the social stratification of the 1800s (blacks tend to be stupider and stronger, yellows are more sneaky, cunning). You might as well take a stab at assigning attributes according to eye colour. I really think generalisations of any kind are pointless in this fragmented, post-modern world (yuk - never thought I'd use that word).

Sleepy

My point was watna's. In general, women are more fussy about the tea-towels, cushions, napkins etc than their partners. If it's detergents and the like surely that's just part of the grocery shopping?

ali.c

Sleepy wrote: »

My point was watna's. In general, women are more fussy about the tea-towels, cushions, napkins etc than their partners. If it's detergents and the like surely that's just part of the grocery shopping?

True but she did comment that when her partner went food shopping he only both food that he liked (which i took to mean pretty much that he wasnt doing a proper shope) esp since its an ongoing issue i mean she i hardly buying sheets every week??

LouOB

True - woment are fussier. But... why should the person who wants more quality end up spending more, then the OH benefits. You cannot ask OH or BF for say 7.50 because you bought a towel worth 15, whether it needed or not. It just starts sounding petty. My point is that all the 7.50 or 15 add up over the month, be it in groceries or additional household items.
The 'inequality' is the fact OH benefits from extra luxuries I would purchase - be it even cake that he would not buy or the egyptian cotton towel. Its the little things that add up without you knowing it.
You cannot honestly budget for the fact that you like a certain duvet cover, reduced in sale etc etc

Meathlass

Just becuase it's on sale doesn't mean it's a bargain If my OH was buying stuff for the house, gadgets, etc I would go mad if we were on a budget and couldn't really afford them whether they were on sale or not. No one needs to buy new towels, duvets every month. Sounds like you need a budget for discretionary household items. I love buying candles but pay for them myself, wouldn't expect himself to contribute as doubt he even notices them. Of course all household products like degergent, polish etc should be counted as normal grocery shopping and split equally. Similarily if you liked to buy lots of cosmetics in weekly shop I wouldn't expect him to pay for them or you to pay for his razors. I suppose that all evens out though.

watna

Yeah, I agree with meathlass. If he was buying loads of gadgets and things with the household budget I wouldn't be impressed, unless we actually needed it because something had broken etc. The same goes for linens and the things he doesn't notice. If we had not towels to dry ourselves or they were all falling apart then it comes out of the joint account, if I see a nice towel set in Arnotts that I think would look nice in the bathroom then I pay for it.

With cosmetics/cleaning products etc. If we buy them in the supermarket, it comes out of the joint account, regardless. Small things like that aren't important in the long run really. It all evens out. Although he's always giving out about me buying cleaning stuff. He doesn't see the point of half of it and keeps reminding me that we have a cupboard full of cleaning stuff at home.. I don't listen!

justsomebloke

I have to say my gf would earn more then me and chances are that she will always will, yet we will pay for everything 50/50. How we do it though is that we put equal money into a joint account each month and we use that to pay all the bills or if we are going out for dinner together or shopping.
However as we still have our own separate accounts to this we can use that for our own personnel expenditure.
I think if you are doing the 50/50 option the only way to avoid situations like Lou's is to use a joint account other then that it will can easily lead to resentment if both pay equally if using separate fuinds

watna

jsb wrote: »

I have to say my gf would earn more then me and chances are that she will always will, yet we will pay for everything 50/50. How we do it though is that we put equal money into a joint account each month and we use that to pay all the bills or if we are going out for dinner together or shopping.
However as we still have our own separate accounts to this we can use that for our own personnel expenditure.
I think if you are doing the 50/50 option the only way to avoid situations like Lou's is to use a joint account other then that it will can easily lead to resentment if both pay equally if using separate fuinds

+1. I meant to say this to you in my post above but got distracted. Get a joint account and pay an equal amount in each month. Any groceries/cleaning stuff etc then comes out of it. Tis very handy!

LouOB

ahh cosmetics are diff as OH is bald. Not going into Arnotts every mth like but issue is all additional extras -NEEDED (thread bare towels, t-towels) add up.
Also the fact that the BIG shops for cleaning stuff, bulk food shopping etc is all done by me. He would just buy for himself with the odd pint of milk. But the fridge and cabinets are always full because I buy - if not he would just live on dried soup - no messing here. Where my weekly spend on food is 50 his would be 20 as he only gets what he wants, but use all mine. Like for instance would buy chicken breasts and freeze for week - say 5 pack. But when I went to get a chicken only one left - Mad. Food is most expensive stuff in house.

watna

LouOB wrote: »

ahh cosmetics are diff as OH is bald. Not going into Arnotts every mth like but issue is all additional extras -NEEDED (thread bare towels, t-towels) add up.
Also the fact that the BIG shops for cleaning stuff, bulk food shopping etc is all done by me. He would just buy for himself with the odd pint of milk. But the fridge and cabinets are always full because I buy - if not he would just live on dried soup - no messing here. Where my weekly spend on food is 50 his would be 20 as he only gets what he wants, but use all mine. Like for instance would buy chicken breasts and freeze for week - say 5 pack. But when I went to get a chicken only one left - Mad. Food is most expensive stuff in house.

Hmm, I wouldn't be happy with that at all. If me and my OH do a shop with our own money (e.g. at the end of the month when the joint account is occasionally empty) we get half the money from the other person. Maybe you should do this. If you spend €50 on household food ask him for half. Or again, get a joint account or even a kitty and both of you buy food from there. I don't think it's fair you pay more for food you both eat.