The subject of marital finances is always popular. When I revealed my antipathytowards joint accounts, a great deal of reader feedback ensued. Some people, like me, preferred to give joint accounts a miss. Yet many people were big fans of these accounts and wondered what was wrong with me.
The latest marital economic controversy centres upon the "wife bonus" which involves full-time mothers getting lump-sum cash rewards from their high-earning husbands in return for running the household and wrangling the sprogs. When the author of a tell-all piece shamelessly boasted of Chanel ballet pumps and Mulberry handbags, she reinforced the idea that the "kept" women who receive such bonuses are shallow and high maintenance.
Do Stay-at-Home Moms Deserve A Salary? asked Vogue magazine. Stay-at-Home Mothers (SAHMs) are sometimes frowned upon for simply existing. In an age when many households need two incomes to stay afloat, it's seen as a luxury to have one partner at home with the children. As noted in the Vogue article, being a SAHM "can be construed as a ... show of wealth ... A sign that your salary is frivolous because your partner is getting paid handsomely." (This is Vogue; it's not a magazine likely to acknowledge couples that struggle and make sacrifices to have a partner at home.)
Mike Hosking may have recently declared that his wife, a SAHM, was worth $98,000 annually but putting even a notional price on such unpaid work raises eyebrows. That's why the concept of wife bonuses is receiving widespread condemnation. It's just not right, you see, to receive payment for tasks you're supposed to undertake for love, for the sake of playing your part. Evidently, it's patronising and demeaning to receive a bonus from your other half.
One reader of an article in The Telegraph wrote: "If you have to pitch your husband for money on the basis you have been a good wife, you've reduced yourself from equal relationship partner to employee and implicitly stated your marriage is a financial transaction." Ouch.
