It seems like it should be filed under Crazy Things That Happen in America – but there might be something to this whole ‘wife bonus’ thing.
Last week, we learned that women on New York’s well-heeled Upper East Side were being paid “wife bonuses”.
It turns out that wife bonuses are exactly what they sound like: money paid to women for fulfilment of their “wifely duties”.
The idea has got a lot of people excited/upset/furious/throwing-up over the past month, since the concept was mentioned an excerpt of a forthcoming book about wealthy women in New York called The Primates of Park Avenue. The author of that book, Wednesday Martin, wrote in the New York Times:
“A wife bonus, I was told, might be hammered out in a pre-nup or post-nup, and distributed on the basis of not only how well her husband’s fund had done but her own performance — how well she managed the home budget, whether the kids got into a ‘good’ school — the same way their husbands were rewarded at investment banks.”
It’s money for being a Good Wife. And when I say, Good Wife, this is in the context of a world where men do the working, and women do the working out. Says Martin:
“No ponytails or mom jeans here: they exercised themselves to a razor’s edge, wore expensive and exquisite outfits to school drop-off and looked a decade younger than they were.”
Now this all seemed very foreign and filed squarely in the category of Crazy Things That Happen in America until women started coming forward and saying that they received wife bonuses and they loved them. Including Polly Phillips, a 32 year old woman who lived in Australia. She wrote in a piece titled, “I love my wife bonus – deal with it”:
“[My husband] Al came out in favour of the idea of the wife bonus almost as soon as we moved to Australia. He’s got a very politically incorrect sense of humour and joked it was to reward me for being a “good little wife,” which made me laugh out loud.”
Lols, indeed.
Polly says that she actually heard about the idea in Australia, after she and her husband moved to Perth. The wives of her husband’s colleagues enthused about their jewellery and handbags that they had bought with their bonuses. Designer treats seems to be what most of these bonuses are blown on. Polly described some of her own spending conundrums:
“As I stroll around the mall on a recent trip to Houston, Texas, moving from designer store to designer store, my mind is crunching numbers. Will I splurge on the elegant $750 French navy Chanel ballet pumps that I’ve been lusting after for months? Or shall I be pulling out my gold card to grab a pair of limited-edition $800 Louboutins, with striking red Valentine’s hearts on the toe, to match their distinctive sole? As I tally up the total, I can’t help but smile — I can easily stretch to both pairs of shoes, and still have plenty left of my five-figure bonus.”
Lols, again.
Now, the natural instinct is to call wife bonuses out as anti-feminist and misogynistic.
And that instinct makes a lot of sense: The idea that men are bosses of the household who have exclusive rights to dole out money to wives as long as they are Keeping it Tight is an idea rooted in sexism, inequality and deeply antiquated views of relationships and parenting.
Top Comments
The distasteful thing in the article is the fact that it is a little game being played by only the very wealthy who are in a position to provide a bonus to be spent on designer shoes and clothes. Unless it would be an agreed amount to maintain superannuation as Ellen mentioned below in an equal partnership, then it is degrading. No better than the 'pin money' doled out by husbands years ago.Unfortunately there remains a group of women who are quite happy to be bought by men in this way. They live their lives in fear of putting on weight, developing a wrinkle or ageing one year too many as they know their husbands can purchase a younger model anytime so they are prepared to accept being treated in this way.
What would be the outcome for the wives and partners of average or low income wage earners in the scheme?What would their bonus be? There would be many loving and appreciative husbands and partners who struggle to make ends meet. And many women struggling to raise their children. Equality in marriage means sharing resources.
One partner being in a position to set and give out a bonus is not equality. Any person with self esteem would not accept this insult.
When my parents had children (first was 30 years ago) they used a similar idea except it wasn't based on KPIs. Instead, as my mother was staying at home and no longer earning a wage, my father contributed money to her super and paid her a wage.
The wage wasn't anything to do with her performance or him having control of the money (the large portion of my dads income went to bills and mortgage that my mother organised) but was instead a set amount of money my mum received each week that she could spend on anything she liked without having to ask my dad for money or justify what it was for (this could be brunches or clothes or nights out with the girls).
My husband will be the stay at home half of our partnership and we think it's a great idea for us too.
Definitely a good idea for a single-income family. My partner and I currently both work and pay a set amount into a joint account to cover joint expenses, and the rest is ours to spend as we like. I have often thought how awful it would be if I was at home with young kids and had to justify myself if I bought myself something from the money he earned.