American woman even those who is husband’s could afford it never had a legal claim to any portion of

domestic money as long as spouses lived together the author of a 1935 lord review article explain the
ways to write to support is not a write any definite thing or two any definite amount whether the wife
will get much a little is not a matter of legal right but is a matter for the husband to decide as a result
the allocation of domestic money depended on an official rules and informal negotiation at the return of
the century married women the majority of home depended on their husbands they check so incomes
obtain their castes in a variety of forms a special Monies.upper and middle class files received an
irregular Deol or more really a regular allowance for from their husbands for housekeeping expenses
including household goods and clothes working class wise on the other hand will given their husbands
paycheck can you expect to administer and distribute the family money these official money is have for
supervised and even in the case of working class women ultimately owned and controlled by the
husbands in a letter to the advice Kollam of women’s home companion in 1905 a 13 year old woman
complaint that join her husband all the liberal in a way keeps the pocketbook himself as the provisions
preface to purchase the drivers to choose the clothes and does not see that I need any money when he
gets whatever I won’t even if a woman manage to save some money from her house keeping expenses
the law ultimately considered that money as a husband’s property for instance in 1914 men Charles
Montgomery sued his wife for $618.12 she had saved from the household expenses during the 25 years
of marriage justice black man of the supreme court Brooklyn rule for the husband a given that no matter
how careful and student has been the wife of the money belong to the hospital to sell his property and
less the evidence was that it was a gift to his wife does a voice channels to additional cash is limited to
variety of persuasion techniques asking downright bagging call Evan practicing sexual blackmail in 1890
an article in the forum denounced the amount of fraud and double dealing with which grew out of the
administration of the family finances just to obtain a few dollars they can call their own women
routinely engaged in systematic domestic flight some get their millionaires to send enable for $40
instead of 30 the real price in order to take the extra 10 to themselves overall their tired eyes and
exhausted bodies by taking in showing without their husbands knowledge and farmers wives smuggle
Apple sin x into town. Other methods were even riskier. In another case, Theresa Marabella 40 year old
was sentenced to 4 months in a county jail for stealing $10 from the trousers of Frank marabella a
labourer and her husband she had spend the money on a trip to New York .Mrs gray grandmother
married for 20 years but without any money she could call her own adopted a systematic policy of
deceit and fraud towards her husband when she wants to give a little money to help by a store for a
poor family or to assist some sick or starving create to pay his rent should Elsa husband the floor is out
of that the sugar is low and so gets the needful amount does this structures member who never told a
falsehood cheats and disease the man she has sworn to love and obey. there were other ways to
circumvent the holder of the purse women bag and with dress makers shopkeepers to add extra items
to the bills that when the bill was paid the rich man’s wife may get a rake off I am purchase a few dollars
in search of cash some women eventone to their servant selling them their old furniture.

The traditional doling out method of supplying women with money came under attack by the late 19th
century in a battle that continue during the first three decades of the 20th centuryanonymous letters to
the editor of the women magazines convey the money troubles of housewifeeven the courts
occasionally agreed refusing to treat domestic feeling as real theft in a 1908 case of a wife charged with
Robin her husband of small change judge for long of a Brooklyn court supported the thief declaring the
two wife has a perfect try to go through her husband’s pocket at night and take his money if he fails to
provide for a properly for some the best solution for penniless wives was the dowry for every daughter
wives is seemed to prefer a regular weekly or monthly allowance in 1910 good housekeeping survey of
300 wives is found that 120 supported the allowance system. Women’s magazines increasingly in
rosedale events in their article and even in the fiction. Mary W Abel an editor of the journal of Home
economics assailed the dole system arguing that to achieve the best results in the spelling of the family
money the mother should have such control of the income as well in short hair efficiency as manager
and buyer.still converting female currency from Dhol to alliance was not easily achieved a 1928 survey
of 200 upper class men and women found that while 73 used the allowance system 66 still relied on the
old fashion systems of husbands taking charge of all the money paying all the bills and doling out funds
to the Wife as she asks for them.husbands registered the allowance because it official account out a
separate portion of the rain come and made it hurts thereby increasing of women's financial control.

in 1927 as popular support for allowances intensified there was also a growing criticism of the alliance
system from those who saw it as an in equitable and even degrading form of domestic money Frederick
a leader of the popular household efficiency movement rejected the allowance as an and business like
scheme that undermined the modern goal of running the home as rationally as a factor or an office the
new improved domestic money was to be shared does minimising gender as well as is inequality the
new financial system would also include a specified sum for personal expenses for each family member
to be considered as a budgetary l entitlement and not as a gift. Harpers 1928 study marriage and money
found that of 200 respondents only 54 had what’s the magazine described as the more feminist financial
arrangement joint Bank account or common purse.

Inin working class families the lions was usually for husbands and children not wives.husbands and
childrens babies band almost exclusively for food clothing shelter and insurance and being the cashier
put a heavy burden of responsibility on wise household money troubles could be conveniently blamed
by family members as well as outsiders onfemale mismanagement rather than on a tight budget or an
irregular labour market while the ideal good husband was indeed expected to turn over all his wages in
Tak to his wife receiving one or two dollars a week for his personal use many did not.a study of unskilled
Chicago wage earners in 1924 found that when are about their husbands weekly earnings over two third
of the wise care of lesser amount in the actual earnings found on the payroll the investigator concluded
that the man may not give his entire earnings to his wife but main simply give her the amount he thinks
she should spend for the family.does the idealized view of solidarity family economic coordinated and
controlled by the wife concealed completing internal creams for money the husbands pay envelope was
not always intact on arrival Visa for the children’s day light they cheated they hit away the nickel and
dime the doctored there pay envelope while working girls were more likely than their brothers 200
wages over intact not all of them did Italian working girls on the New York website told investigators
how easy it was to knock down a paycheck when they made overtime whatever you make is written
outside in pencil that’s easy to fix you have only two rabbit output on whatever it usually is and pocket
the changeeven the portion of money that the wife did receive and control was limited to the house
keeping money as with velvia women the working class wife had no right in much less access to personal
fund pocket money for personal expenses was the mail prerogative or walking child’s write the working
class husbands allowance was does a very different kind of money from the alliance of middle class wise
although partlyare located for useful expensive food or clothing or transportation it was also legitimate
fund for personal pleasures indeed Kathi piece study of leisure among the working class women in the
turn of the century New York clearly shows that while main cutoff for to pay for their amusements
drinking in saloons attending movies and the theatre or buying Tobacco day wise had no money left for
personal recreation does womens money return a collective identity while mens and children’s money
was differentiated and individualized.studies of English working class family suggest there was a shift to
the middle class system of housekeeping allowances for wife in the 1920 when the lynds studied
muncie,indiana the reported that it was real for husband to turn over his teacher can allow his wife to
control over the household economy but class differences seem to have persisted by 1938 according to
the ladies home journal National survey on money only 38% of the women in income groups under
$1500 received and allowance compared with 62% of those in groups over $1500.

in the working class for instance a married womens income usually earned by caring for boarders taken
in laundry or among farm families by selling butter eggs or poultry do not have the same visibility as a
husband speech at as her label was part of moments traditional repertoire of domestic tasks the
moneyshe made was merged into the families house keeping money and usually spend on home and
family for clothing of food legally in fact until the early the case of the 20th century doors domestic
earnings belong to the husband and the courts staunchly a post converting a wise money into her
tangible property in a growing number of personal injury cases where the law had to decide with the
husband of the wife is entitled to recover for a woman’s inability to work as well as the wife was entitled
to recuva for a woman's inability to work as well as in claims brought up bycreditors the courts insisted
on distinguishing between the domestic dollar and and and weight if a wife worked at home even if a
label was performed for strangers caring for a boarder honesing a neighbour that money was not a Rio
learning and therefore belonged to her husband doesn’t domestic money months like the alliance
retained a separate identity as a gift not as jewel money money earned by married women in the labour
force was also special and different the term pin money which in 17th century England had meant a
separate independent income for ay wife personal use and was included as a formula clause in upper
class marriage contract lost its latest British origin in turn off the currency America and now meant the
supplementary household income on my wife still it was treated as frivolous and less serious earning
then the husbandsthe boundary between moments on income and the husband salary was also marked
by the differential uses John model for instant suggests that among late 19th century native born
American families all dollars were not equal and women’s income was spentdifferently and less freely
than the husbands in the 1920 and 1930 as more married women entered the labour force their
earnings regardless of the sums involved what still defined as pin money categorised as supplementary
income used for the families extra expenses for example one woman told and Outlook reporter that she
reserved for income exclusively for buying clothes and other explained we blow my money on extra trips
abroad anything extravagant others you still salary to pay the maid’s wages and saved the rest.