Why a Wife Bonus Won’t Buy You Security

Source: Joe Belanger/GL Stock Images

Let me begin with full disclosure: I have not read the new book, Primates of Park Avenue: A memoir, by Wednesday Martin about the practice of giving a “wife bonus.” Nor do I especially intend to. And as far as I know, I don’t personally know any wives who receive such bonuses. However, as a couple therapist heavily involved in training other therapists to apply a psychobiological approach to their work, I have been following the recent buzz about this topic in the media. And I have some thoughts I’d like to share.

In case you are unfamiliar with the concept of wife bonuses, here it is in a nutshell. Women who are married to men with high-paying jobs and who stay at home and take care of the kids receive an annual financial payment (a “bonus”) for their efforts and their sacrifice. (Note, I say “women” and “men” because, to my knowledge, this is a heterosexual phenomenon.)

So, assuming you are part of the 1% for whom this is even an option, is it a good idea? From a psychobiological perspective, I say unequivocally no. Does that mean partners shouldn’t give each other extravagant gifts? Of course not. Any gift from the heart is welcome. However, what we are speaking about here is not a gift; it is a business transaction, a financial compensation in return for services provided.

In my work, I guide couples toward secure-functioning relationships grounded in sensitivity, fairness, justice, and true mutuality. These are the kinds of relationships that research (e.g., Gleeson, & Fitzgerald 2014; Hazan & Shaver, 1987) shows are most likely to succeed. I do recommend couples form agreements, or pacts, to increase their sense of security and to confirm and solidify their commitment to one another. However, there is an important distinction: couple pacts are social contracts, not financial agreements. A prenuptial is of course a legitimate financial agreement, but that’s not what we are talking about here.

Let me give an example that illustrates why a wife bonus might undermine a true secure-functioning relationship. Suppose I tell Tracey, my wife, that she will get a bonus at the end of the year for work she does at home. Now suppose I ask her to do something—say, accompany me on a trip—that she doesn’t really want to do. She could say no. But knowing she is receiving a bonus, she would probably feel obliged to comply, to live up to her end of the bargain. As a sensitive person, she might also feel less inclined to ask me to do something I don’t want to do. This would set up a pattern between us that regulates the kinds of things we feel safe to ask from each other, as well as when and how much. In a corporation, this works because business people understand they are rewarded for placing the company’s needs over their own. Tracey and I have agreed to place our relationship first, but the big difference from a corporate contract is that we do this in the context of true mutuality. I am in her care, and she is in my care. I can ask a lot from her, and she can ask a lot from me. It’s a two-way street. We give each other big bonuses. And frequently, not just once a year.

If you like the idea of wife bonuses, you might think, well, a couple wouldn’t have to let a bonus arrangement affect how they relate on a daily basis. Maybe so. If that is working for you, I’d be interested to hear. But it would defy what I know about the principles of secure functioning and a couple’s ability for mutual regulation. In fact, the title of Martin’s book provides a clue. She uses the word “primate.” Not coincidentally, the primitive parts of the human brain are oriented toward survival. They react to threat, and lead us to defend ourselves against each other and against the world. On the other hand, a secure-functioning relationship requires the input of both our primitive and our higher brain (I call these the primitives and ambassadors, respectively). Thus, even if the primitives see security in a wife bonus, the ambassadors will not be satisfied without a higher form of security that can only be gained through true mutuality.

References

Gleeson, G., & Fitzgerald, A. (2014) Exploring the association between adult attachment styles in romantic relationships, perceptions of parents from childhood and relationship satisfaction. Health, 6, 1643-1661. doi:10.4236/health.2014.613196

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

Martin, W. (2015, May 16). Poor little rich women, The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/opinion/sunday/poor-little-rich-women…

Martin, W. (2015). Primates of Park Avenue: A memoir. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Phillips, P. (2015, May 23). Why I let my husband pay me a “wife bonus,” The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11624583/Why-I-let-me-husband-pay-…

Tatkin, S. (2012). Wired for love: How understanding your partner's brain can help you defuse conflicts and spark intimacy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Stan Tatkin, PsyD, MFT, is the author of Wired for Love and Your Brain on Love, and coauthor of Love and War in Intimate Relationships. He has a clinical practice in Southern CA, teaches at Kaiser Permanente, and is an assistant clinical professor at UCLA. Tatkin developed a Psychobiological Approach to Couple Therapy® (PACT) and together with his wife, Tracey Boldemann-Tatkin, founded the PACT Institute.