4 ms·

Yup, a lot of these dissolutions are over money and control of the finances. Breadwinners need to treat their stay-at-homes with nice dinners, shopping experien

Yup, a lot of these dissolutions are over money and control of the finances. Breadwinners need to treat their stay-at-homes with nice dinners, shopping experiences and pocket money that feels reasonable. A lot of them get it wrong. It’s all about dignity and respect really. Take that away from your partner and they’ll resent you, no matter how much pove there is between the two of you.

steveBK123 5y ago
Yes, in a way I think it's almost easier to have two incomes and pay for help/services with the excess. Even if there is a 2:1 income ratio, each side can feel they are contributing monetarily and collectively decide what tasks are worth doing vs paying for. I can understand the psychology of both sides - the breadwinner thinks they are doing their job outside the house so why is the spouse not doing all the stuff inside the house. Any subset of tasks breadwinner spouse pick up (like dishes or laundry) they expects a gold star sticker for doing extra. Meanwhile the homemaker spouse feels put upon for the 1000 other things they do around the house and dealing with the kids. Likewise this is akin to the homemaker spouse tutored the neighbors kid for $100/week and then telling the 6-figure breadwinner that they are also contributing to the families income. Each side feels correct and like they are going above and beyond their scope..
- Thlom 5y ago
  Is it normal in the US that only one in a relationship is working? I don’t think I know anyone where only one in the relationship is working. To me it feels like the power dynamics in such a relationship quickly gets really toxic.
  - steveBK123 5y ago
    Outside high cost of living / coastal / urban areas yeah. Even a lot of these people may be two income couples but came from one income households, so they grew up with a father doing nothing/much less around the house and find it normal.
    - antisthenes 5y ago
      Why is it not normal? Modern appliances make housekeeping basically a breeze. Unless you expect perfectly ironed shirts of something ridiculous like vacuuming every day. Now if children are in play, then it's a whole different ballgame. It easily triples or quadruples the work that needs to get done around the house.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Many (mostly) women enjoy caretaking more than working for the machine. Definitely higher quality of life satisfaction is possible if the division of labor is agreed upon. Complementary relationships can be far less stressful if each are sacrificing for the well being of the other.
  - tsol 5y ago
    Honestly it's still common all over the world, isn't it?
Jabbles 5y ago
I think not calling it "pocket money" would be a good step.
- brimble 5y ago
  That seems very neutral to me? I'm struggling to think of a term that's not worse ("allowance") or less accurate. [EDIT] It just means money that's expected to be spent, but not budgeted specifically for anything, and is largely put to personal discretion without any kind of accounting expectation—no? Some phrase using "discretionary" might also work, but that one seems too technical or formal.
  - throwaway821909 5y ago
    Seems this is US-only usage, maybe it's not universal there, for me in the UK pocket money has all the connotations of childhood, I'd only use it to be deliberately patronising, it's like a full reversal where allowance makes me think of a meal allowance from work etc.
- defgeneric 5y ago
  I think you're confusing that with "pocket change" as in a small/insignificant amount of money. Pocket money can just mean that you always have money around that can be spent according to whatever whim or whatever you want to do.
adhesive_wombat 5y ago
It does go both ways, however. Just as the "breadwinner" doesn't get to use their money to diminish the (very substantial) labor of the other at home, the other doesn't get to use their labour to assert complete dominance over how the shared house is used. It's teamwork. Having two warring departments in a company is bad news, so is two adversarial government agencies: there's a common goal at stake. It's no different at home. If you were on a sports team, you'd think carefully about how a teammate wants the ball, and they'll think about how they can make it easy to set up for you to execute that pass. Making a hospital pass doesn't make either of you look better, and doesn't win the game.
HelloMcFly 5y ago
> Breadwinners need to treat their stay-at-homes with nice dinners, shopping experiences and pocket money that feels reasonable. This to me feels like materialistic pandering. Breadwinners need to see their spouses as financial partners in a shared life.
mherdeg 5y ago
> Breadwinners need to treat their stay-at-homes with nice dinners, shopping experiences and pocket money that feels reasonable. This is a fascinating sentence which has stuck with me (after glancing at it a week ago I find myself thinking about it now). This isn't the culture I was raised in but it's a very interesting perspective.

steveBK123 5y ago

Yes, in a way I think it's almost easier to have two incomes and pay for help/services with the excess. Even if there is a 2:1 income ratio, each side can feel they are contributing monetarily and collectively decide what tasks are worth doing vs paying for. I can understand the psychology of both sides - the breadwinner thinks they are doing their job outside the house so why is the spouse not doing all the stuff inside the house. Any subset of tasks breadwinner spouse pick up (like dishes or laundry) they expects a gold star sticker for doing extra. Meanwhile the homemaker spouse feels put upon for the 1000 other things they do around the house and dealing with the kids. Likewise this is akin to the homemaker spouse tutored the neighbors kid for $100/week and then telling the 6-figure breadwinner that they are also contributing to the families income. Each side feels correct and like they are going above and beyond their scope..

Thlom 5y ago
Is it normal in the US that only one in a relationship is working? I don’t think I know anyone where only one in the relationship is working. To me it feels like the power dynamics in such a relationship quickly gets really toxic.
- steveBK123 5y ago
  Outside high cost of living / coastal / urban areas yeah. Even a lot of these people may be two income couples but came from one income households, so they grew up with a father doing nothing/much less around the house and find it normal.
  - antisthenes 5y ago
    Why is it not normal? Modern appliances make housekeeping basically a breeze. Unless you expect perfectly ironed shirts of something ridiculous like vacuuming every day. Now if children are in play, then it's a whole different ballgame. It easily triples or quadruples the work that needs to get done around the house.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Many (mostly) women enjoy caretaking more than working for the machine. Definitely higher quality of life satisfaction is possible if the division of labor is agreed upon. Complementary relationships can be far less stressful if each are sacrificing for the well being of the other.
- tsol 5y ago
  Honestly it's still common all over the world, isn't it?

Jabbles 5y ago

I think not calling it "pocket money" would be a good step.

brimble 5y ago
That seems very neutral to me? I'm struggling to think of a term that's not worse ("allowance") or less accurate. [EDIT] It just means money that's expected to be spent, but not budgeted specifically for anything, and is largely put to personal discretion without any kind of accounting expectation—no? Some phrase using "discretionary" might also work, but that one seems too technical or formal.
- throwaway821909 5y ago
  Seems this is US-only usage, maybe it's not universal there, for me in the UK pocket money has all the connotations of childhood, I'd only use it to be deliberately patronising, it's like a full reversal where allowance makes me think of a meal allowance from work etc.
defgeneric 5y ago
I think you're confusing that with "pocket change" as in a small/insignificant amount of money. Pocket money can just mean that you always have money around that can be spent according to whatever whim or whatever you want to do.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago

It does go both ways, however. Just as the "breadwinner" doesn't get to use their money to diminish the (very substantial) labor of the other at home, the other doesn't get to use their labour to assert complete dominance over how the shared house is used. It's teamwork. Having two warring departments in a company is bad news, so is two adversarial government agencies: there's a common goal at stake. It's no different at home. If you were on a sports team, you'd think carefully about how a teammate wants the ball, and they'll think about how they can make it easy to set up for you to execute that pass. Making a hospital pass doesn't make either of you look better, and doesn't win the game.

HelloMcFly 5y ago

> Breadwinners need to treat their stay-at-homes with nice dinners, shopping experiences and pocket money that feels reasonable. This to me feels like materialistic pandering. Breadwinners need to see their spouses as financial partners in a shared life.

mherdeg 5y ago

> Breadwinners need to treat their stay-at-homes with nice dinners, shopping experiences and pocket money that feels reasonable. This is a fascinating sentence which has stuck with me (after glancing at it a week ago I find myself thinking about it now). This isn't the culture I was raised in but it's a very interesting perspective.