Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous



To the people who this is just about bean counting or money, I'd like to see you address the inequality issue. That is the question here. You are addressing this only on the most shallow level and not looking at the real issue.

How is what she is asking for equality? She just wants to have her cake and eat it too. She did not work for 4 months and now wants payment not from her employer, but from her husband. She just sees her husband's money and wants it. Like when they get divorced there will be "her " and "his" money earned while living together/married. There is no larger issue with her and you. Most people can't take 4 months off from work, it's like two to six weeks. Sound like she has it good.

Well, this is some upside down bullshit. She did work during her maternity leave-- As a PP pointed out, she probably did twice as much work on half of the sleep, and she didn't get paid for it. At the same time, she still contributed 50% to the most household expenses. (Oh yeah, hurray for her DH for paying for "incidentals.") Her husband gets to be a dad without doing the work or making any sacrifice. HE is the free rider, not her.

And BTW, "most people" may not take 4 months maternity leave, but 2-6 weeks is absolutely not the norm. Six weeks is the typical minimum. Eight to twelve is more common, depending on whether the baby was delivered vaginally or with a c-section. Or did you also forget that having a baby is also a pretty major medical event for the mother?

God, what an asinine post!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous



To the people who this is just about bean counting or money, I'd like to see you address the inequality issue. That is the question here. You are addressing this only on the most shallow level and not looking at the real issue.

How is what she is asking for equality? She just wants to have her cake and eat it too. She did not work for 4 months and now wants payment not from her employer, but from her husband. She just sees her husband's money and wants it. Like when they get divorced there will be "her " and "his" money earned while living together/married. There is no larger issue with her and you. Most people can't take 4 months off from work, it's like two to six weeks. Sound like she has it good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous



To the people who this is just about bean counting or money, I'd like to see you address the inequality issue. That is the question here. You are addressing this only on the most shallow level and not looking at the real issue.

How is what she is asking for equality? She just wants to have her cake and eat it too. She did not work for 4 months and now wants payment not from her employer, but from her husband. She just sees her husband's money and wants it. Like when they get divorced there will be "her " and "his" money earned while living together/married. There is no larger issue with her and you. Most people can't take 4 months off from work, it's like two to six weeks. Sound like she has it good.

Anonymous wrote:Hi – OP here.

Thanks for your thoughts/insights..

A few of you have asked what I’m trying to accomplish with this. On one hand, I think I’m not sure (hence the post) and on the other hand, I know that I am trying to be cognizant of the fact that I don’t want to unwittingly create resentment by creating a situation where my time or my income (or time or opinions) is less important than his. And this is the first situation in which this dynamic has come to a head.

And let’s just get this out of the way – yes, money is not the most important thing in life. Yes, marriage will require that we each give what we can to benefit the family and it may not always be able to be equal (if I could figure out how to get him to do half the breastfeeding, I would!). Yes, we will both make immeasurable sacrifices throughout the course of our marriage. Yes, marriage is not a business transaction. Yes, I very much value the time I got to spend with our child.

So anyway…

On the topic of non-shared accounts – I’m surprised so many people find it odd. What we were doing as individuals before we got married worked for us so we stuck with it. We both enjoy managing money and have slightly different approaches to it. Keeping our own accounts allows us to both feel in control of our financial future – in a way which we are comfortable. We have never once fought about money in 5 years (how many with a joint account can say that?). This maternity-leave situation is more of an intellectual discussion than an argument for us. He already said he’d transfer the money if I wanted him to and I already said that I was fine with not doing it if it bothered him. It’s more of the principle of the situation that I think is important/interesting/worth discussing and I am trying to make peace with in my own mind.

I do think the word “reimburse” has thrown people. I think of it more as shared sacrifice.

So on the topic of what I’m trying to accomplish…I recently read the follow up piece to the “Opt Out Generation” in the NY Times Magazine ” and it seemed to me that what really bothered a lot of these women 10 years down the road (after opting out of high paying professions) was the subtle inequality that crept into their marriages. A few articulated that their time/intellect/talents/opinions started to feel less important when they began to have a significantly lower income than their partner. I also read “Lean In” which warned against stopping taking on new opportunities at work because of childcare responsibilities. My husband took a new, very demanding job which he loves while I was pregnant (no pay bump) and therefore could not take paternity leave. I also have a demanding job but was able to take some leave so I did it. But while I was out on maternity leave I was offered a new opportunity that would be a bump for me but also a significant amount of more work that would take me away from home. My husband was strongly against me taking this new position for this reason which struck me as a bit unfair given his current employment status. In this situation, I don’t want the job because I don’t want to be away from home that much – but what if I did?

I think the crux of my question is how does one maintain equality in a marriage when child-rearing tends to demand (physically, socially, economically) so much more from women?

Anonymous wrote:So many judgmental pearl-clutchers on this thread. Oh yeah, this is DCUM.

I am with you OP.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the previous poster about striving for overall balance but history shows that child-rearing and the economic/physical/social consequences of it fall more heavily on women. So unless they are vigilant about the inequality and create shared sacrifices when they easily can (like this situation), then how can they ward against that?

Anonymous wrote:OP, my problem with your proposition is the notion that DH should reimburse half your salary. A better approach would be for him to have first paid his usual contribution plus your usual contribution to the joint account, and then temporarily split whatever of his compensation is leftover with you. Realistically, you were a SAHM while on maternity leave and that arrangement only works when the breadwinner's income is treated as joint/family income. Given that you keep separate accounts, splitting the income is consistent with the spirit of your arrangement.

Realize, though, that once kids come along, one partner in the marriage usually takes on more than his/her share at home and suffers a financial/advancement hit at work as a result. You should really be pooling more of your income or, if you want separate accounts, fund the joint account and college savings first, pro rata based on your income, then split the residual household income between your personal account and DH's personal account.

Anonymous wrote:

Hi – OP here.

Thanks for your thoughts/insights..

A few of you have asked what I’m trying to accomplish with this. On one hand, I think I’m not sure (hence the post) and on the other hand, I know that I am trying to be cognizant of the fact that I don’t want to unwittingly create resentment by creating a situation where my time or my income (or time or opinions) is less important than his. And this is the first situation in which this dynamic has come to a head.

And let’s just get this out of the way – yes, money is not the most important thing in life. Yes, marriage will require that we each give what we can to benefit the family and it may not always be able to be equal (if I could figure out how to get him to do half the breastfeeding, I would!). Yes, we will both make immeasurable sacrifices throughout the course of our marriage. Yes, marriage is not a business transaction. Yes, I very much value the time I got to spend with our child.

So anyway…

On the topic of non-shared accounts – I’m surprised so many people find it odd. What we were doing as individuals before we got married worked for us so we stuck with it. We both enjoy managing money and have slightly different approaches to it. Keeping our own accounts allows us to both feel in control of our financial future – in a way which we are comfortable. We have never once fought about money in 5 years (how many with a joint account can say that?). This maternity-leave situation is more of an intellectual discussion than an argument for us. He already said he’d transfer the money if I wanted him to and I already said that I was fine with not doing it if it bothered him. It’s more of the principle of the situation that I think is important/interesting/worth discussing and I am trying to make peace with in my own mind.

I do think the word “reimburse” has thrown people. I think of it more as shared sacrifice.

So on the topic of what I’m trying to accomplish…I recently read the follow up piece to the “Opt Out Generation” in the NY Times Magazine ” and it seemed to me that what really bothered a lot of these women 10 years down the road (after opting out of high paying professions) was the subtle inequality that crept into their marriages. A few articulated that their time/intellect/talents/opinions started to feel less important when they began to have a significantly lower income than their partner. I also read “Lean In” which warned against stopping taking on new opportunities at work because of childcare responsibilities. My husband took a new, very demanding job which he loves while I was pregnant (no pay bump) and therefore could not take paternity leave. I also have a demanding job but was able to take some leave so I did it. But while I was out on maternity leave I was offered a new opportunity that would be a bump for me but also a significant amount of more work that would take me away from home. My husband was strongly against me taking this new position for this reason which struck me as a bit unfair given his current employment status. In this situation, I don’t want the job because I don’t want to be away from home that much – but what if I did?

I think the crux of my question is how does one maintain equality in a marriage when child-rearing tends to demand (physically, socially, economically) so much more from women?

This does not apply to you. You keep your money sperated. You are not in this together, each person has one foot out the door. If he was forced to take a pay cut or was fired, would you make up the difference in his account? No. Just as he, by your arrangement, should not make up the difference in your account when you have a baby and take four months off. It sounds like you want to keep your money seperate when it favor you and when it does not favor you, you want to pool the money. By your arrangement, you owe him money for the joint account. Are you planning to pay for that or just take his money and put it in your account? If the roles were reversed, you would not give him "your" money to cover his retirement while paying all the bills. PS the pooling of money favors the women..longer life, having childern, and men averaging more money for the same work to list a few. He should be pissed.