Op-ed: Allowances are for kids — not your spouse

To many, the term “allowance” evokes the realm of parents and children.

However, this concept has also emerged between romantic partners, particularly when one partner earns an income and the other cares for the household and children.

This arrangement, often referred to as an “allowance” by couples, is rooted in the antiquated notion of one partner granting permission to the other to spend money.

However, the term is problematic for several reasons: 1.

**Infantilization of Women:** It perpetuates the stereotype that women need permission from men to exercise financial autonomy, undermining their sense of agency.

2.

**Power Imbalance:** An “allowance” system creates an unequal distribution of power and control within the relationship.

The partner providing the allowance holds dominance over spending decisions.

3.

**Disregard for Non-Monetary Contributions:** It fails to recognize the value of the stay-at-home partner’s contributions to the household, which are just as crucial as monetary income.

4.

**Strain on Household Finances:** Restricting funds for the partner responsible for household purchases can lead to conflict and unfairness.

5.

**Erosion of Trust:** Denying financial freedom can fuel secretive spending and undermine trust within the relationship.

Instead of resorting to “allowances,” couples are encouraged to establish “check-in numbers.”

This approach involves setting a mutually agreed-upon dollar amount that each partner can spend without triggering a conversation.

Check-in numbers foster communication, trust, and a team-like dynamic.

They replace the arbitrary notion of permission with a collaborative approach where both partners contribute equally and make decisions together.

It’s important to emphasize that these check-in numbers should be equitable, regardless of who earns more.

The value of contributions should not be tied to income.

Both partners deserve financial autonomy and should be treated with respect.