So easy to be subtly sexist by way of what we expect children to buy with their allowances. I'll agree with that.

I think the issue is complicated by the fact that boys are, on average, less interested in clothes and appearance than girls, and spend less on that particular category of expenditure, where in fact parents tend to be fairly happy to give their children control over their choice of clothing through allowances. So girls might spend their allowance to the limit on clothes and make-up etc and boys might not - but boys will get more sports equipment and technology and other large one-off purchases out of their parents "on the side" than girls do.

My DSSs cost an absolute fortune to feed!

Yes I can see that & the way my ds eats, food could add £££ a year to his cost . Obviously there will be lots of exceptions, but as an average you are probably right.

I guess it still depends what you are expecting a child to buy from their allowance though - I still buy my dcs swim kits, musical instruments & music etc for their hobbies and I feed them, so allowances are for extras above that sort of thing which I still suspect are more expensive for girls. In any case, I think we're agreeing that it's nigh on impossible for any allowance system to be completely fair.

He has a point, but he's missing the point. The money is not given as a gift. If it were a gift, then you are being unfair. But actually it's given as a living allowance from an age when you think he requires it (16) to an age when he can supply for himself. You have applied the same policy to both of them.

I would be saddened by the sense of entitlement which his approach shows.

I think we can discount school fees (I'm absolutely positive that this wasn't taken into account). It's the sports, sports equipment and boy toys plus all the extra food, IIRC, that make the difference, and it really is significant.

Really Anna? I wonder why. I know boys school fees are likely to be higher than girls but that's not a normal expenditure & hardly going to come out of an allowance. I suppose boys may tend to have more expensive hobbies? I'd not really thought about that. I was thinking about simple things like makeup, costs of haircuts, clothes, shoes & the like.

snorkle - all the evidence I have ever read says that boys cost far more to bring up than girls!

I guess the moral of the story (to people with younger dcs) is to raise allowances at the start of school years rather than at birthdays to avoid this situation (so your dc's would have both had their allowance either at the start of year 11 or 12 rather than from their birthday).

However, I think your ds is being a little churlish - life is never completely fair and you acted in good faith with your system. With the current negative RPI he can't even claim his allowance has less buying power, which can be an issue for children usually with a greater age gap than yours.

I actually think allowances tend to favour boys as their 'expenses' are typically less than for girls - but I'll probably get shot down for saying this. What I'm really saying is that even if two children get exactly the same allowance it still might not be entirely fair as personal circumstances are different.

Tell your DS1 to wind his neck in and be thankful that you are able to support him with a monthly allowance and university.

OK fair enough - it doesn't stop, it changes!

Well technically DS1's hasn't stopped yet, it will stop in August. My OP was a bit misleading there!

It actually doesn't stop anyway, it just changes. dd is in university, so receives a termly allowance, DS1 will hopefully go to uni in the Autumn and also receive a termly allowance.

They are only a year apart in age and the constant theme throughout their childhood (for them) has been us being "fair" to both of them. I've told them that they are adults now and need to be grateful that we are continuing to support them, not worrying about fairness!

To be fair to dd, for the last few years she has been grateful for what she gets and is prepared to go out and work if she hasn't got enough money. I think DS1 needs to grow up a bit and hopefully uni will help him with that.

Out of interest, why did their allowance stop when they were 18?

Their allowance was £80 per month, which was meant to cover everything except school uniform. The silly thing is, she had much more of a social life than him and had to get a job to supplement her allowance. He on the other hand has a very quiet social life and little interest in clothes. He didn't really even need £80!

He has agreed that if mumsnet agree with me, he won't bring it up again.So it's 2-0 to me at the moment!

Agree with janeite.
Can I be very rude and ask how much their allowance is/was? Don't feel you have to answer but something we are re-thinking now DS is 16

Nope, you are right. The allowance began when they were sixteen and ended in the August of being 18 (thus old enough for uni or job?), so when their actual birthday is, is irrelevant. He's being greedy!

I would really appreciate some opinions about the monthly allowance that we have given DS1 and Dd between the ages of 16 and 18. Dd was 16 first and her birthday is in January. So she had a monthly allowance from the january until the August after she turned 18. So approx 2 years 7 months. DS1 had his 16th birthday in the month of May so only had his allowance for 2 years 3 months.

I have to say that it honestly never crossed my mind that I was favouring one of them, it just was what we did. Now DS1 is saying that he had 4 months less money than his sister and we haven't been fair.

I personally think that he is being greedy, but am willing to be told that I am being unjust!

So over to you, mumsnet jury!