You don’t need to search social media for #Tradwives and #SAHGs (stay-at-home girlfriends) who glamorize the extremes of domesticity, or wives in Dubai who film their extravagances. such as picking one up. Cartier bracelet and stop for face on the way home.

At all ends of the wealth spectrum, there’s a common thread that connects these women: permission. Someone, usually a man, is giving them away.

The term “allowance” will make you think of money that parents give to a child. Yet, it also arises in the financial arrangements of these partnerships. This gesture is right in our faces, women who have children by keeping their freedom to spend under the thumb of their partner’s permission.

Most financial experts and professionals grapple with this concept, and it should come as no surprise that this topic has been covered far and wide.

But there’s also the fact that social media is going to social media — a lot is put on for show. The most extreme content often gets the most attention, leaving open the question of how many are real and normal “allowances” between couples.

Do people really act this way?

Recently, we thought, no. But it turns out, we were wrong.

While interviewing couples for our upcoming book on love and money, a few people have used the word. Typically, the dynamic involves a male partner who earns the income and a female who takes care of the children at home.

Listening to him through Zoom during real people’s real conversations about money felt worse than sensational snippets on TikTok. The sense of permissiveness took on a broader meaning with double negative implications: these women the need Permission to spend money from your partners, and that Is Permission to not engage around important decisions in your financial life as a couple.

It’s certainly disappointing, but we think there’s something to save beneath the surface.

Most people who adopt this archaic terminology don’t really intend to create a proportional balance of power and control in their relationships – at least that’s what we’ve observed.

Feel safe knowing there are guardrails to what they really want.

They are not trying to take away anyone’s sense of agency. They just want to know that their partner isn’t heading to Cartier for a bracelet and stopping for a facial on the way home (figuratively, of course). However, they can also be a little slow to accept the simplest word, from their own lives and the lives we observe online.

Just because it’s easy doesn’t make it right. “Allowances” have the disadvantage of perpetuating gender stereotypes and widening the wealth gap and knowledge gap around personal finance.

Worse, they reduce the amount of work done at home. We do a terrible job as a society of valuing the non-monetary contributions of a spouse, and they are just as important to maintaining household stability as the income stream.

Not to mention, restricting funds to the person who likely buys most of the household necessities when their partner has a different view of what is considered a “need” versus a “need.” This is a set up for constant conflict and a dynamic relationship that is completely unfair.

There is also an element of trust in the game. Creating unilateral restrictions around spending can easily lead to lies. According to a Bankrate survey, the leading cause of financial infidelity among couples, 30%, is spending more than your partner.

A better way to build trust is not through authorization, but through communication, establishing reasonable guts around spending. Couples can set a check-in number, which is a dollar amount they are both willing to spend before discussing it with each other.

There is no correct number. We’ve talked to couples who chose $100 and couples who chose $1,000 based on their personal circumstances and comfort level.

Consider carefully what the number should be, though. Choosing too high a number can risk blowing your budget, defeating the purpose. But choosing too low a number can reduce your partner’s agency to spending, which may not reflect the reality of the costs to effectively carry out the responsibilities of his or her daily life.

For example, it probably doesn’t make sense to set the check-in number at $50 when your spouse buys all the housewares, school supplies, and clothing for your growing children. She may also become resentful if she feels her judgment lacks weight, which, based on data, can clearly erode trust over time.

But most importantly, the check-in number should be the same for both partners, regardless of who earns more.

Our idea of ​​partnership shouldn’t be tied to salary and dictate who has more financial freedom. We all contribute in our own way, and every contribution counts. Your husband shouldn’t be able to afford a $2,000 golf club while you check in for a $110 pair of shoes. It is the inequalities that metastasize. They just don’t go away.

Remember, setting a check-in number is not an “allowance” by any other name. This is an amount that you and your partner are free to spend without having to negotiate each time. It replaces authorization with communication. It builds a team that plays by the same set of rules and fosters an environment of mutual respect.

– By Douglas and Heather Boone of Parth Joint accountA money newsletter for couples. Douglas is a certified financial planner and president of Bonfidence Wealth in New York City. Heather, an attorney, is the firm’s director of business and legal affairs. Douglas is also a member of the CNBC Financial Advisor Council.