Financial vs physical/sexua abuse

(46 Posts)
nailak Sat 06-Apr-13 08:47:25

When a woman is raped, it doesn't matter how drunk she is, how vulnerable she made herself, what she was wearing. It is not her fault. We are all clear on this.

When a woman is hit. It is not her fault he should have controlled his anger.

When a woman it is financially abused it is her fault for allowing herself to be financially dependant on another? She should have been prepared and not made herself vulnerable?

noisytoys Sat 06-Apr-13 08:59:16

No abuse is acceptable. Ever.

Financial,abuse is just another sort of abuse. It's not any different. Abuse is abuse.

And a vulnerable woman who is being subjected to financial abuse is more than likely being emotionally abused as well. They go hand in hand. IMHO.

TunipTheVegedude Sat 06-Apr-13 09:05:02

It is the fault of the abuser. Victim-blaming is no more acceptable with regard to financial abuse than any other.

nailak Sat 06-Apr-13 16:37:12

so why is it seen as a legitmate opinion that women shouldnt be sahms and make themselves vulnerable etc, in a way it would never be seen as acceptable to tell someone who has been raped or emotionally abused that they should never have put themselves in that situation?

WidowWadman Sat 06-Apr-13 19:48:50

Financial abuse can and does happen no matter whether the abused works or not. It's the abuser who is in the wrong.

I don't think that pointing out that giving up (or never embarking on) paid employment puts you in a vulnerable position is victim blaming per se, though.

nailak Sat 06-Apr-13 20:23:02

why is it not victim blaming? if a person is emotionally abused we dont say it is your fault for putting yourself in an emotionally vulnerable situation?

SatsukiKusukabe Sun 07-Apr-13 16:18:57

so if I say a woman out on her own in a short skirt and heels shouldn't do so because she leaves herself vulnerable.... I'm not victim blaming widow?

nailak Sun 07-Apr-13 19:16:27

exactly, you get what I am trying to say!

I think it depends what you're implying she is vulnerable to. 'Women in short skirts make themselves vulnerable' unless qualified by 'to cold legs' tends to imply sexual abuse. 'Women who give up work are vulnerable' refers more to difficulty getting another job and inequality if the relationship breaks down than to financial abuse (IMO).

WidowWadman Sun 07-Apr-13 20:42:17

AFAIK, the evidence is that women in short skirts are no more likely to be raped than others.

nailak Sun 07-Apr-13 21:00:43

So it is ok to rely on a husband for emotional security and support, even though that would make things difficult if relationship breaks down,

But is not ok to rely on husband for financial security and support?

For a woman to make herself utterly financially dependent on a man is a bad idea whether he's abusive or not. Nice, non-abusive, wonderful hubby might drop dead and leave the woman with no money and no earning power.

WidowWadman Sun 07-Apr-13 21:23:58

Or he might just lose his job - not making yourself fully dependent on one income protects both partners.

noviceoftheday Sun 07-Apr-13 21:32:09

Dmil didn't work again after she had her 2 kids so she's been a sahm or housewife for almost 40 years. Dfil had a good career and they were canny with money. They are very well off. She has a very healthy bank balance, their main home is in joint names and some of their investment properties are in her sole name. From what I can work out they share their finances equally. I admire them both for it as she certainly isn't financially dependent on him.

BasilBabyEater Sun 07-Apr-13 22:49:10

Financial abuse can happen to women in work.

In the Philpott case, he wasn't employed but the women were.

Men can abuse financially by hiding bank statements so that women don't know what's in the bank, borrowing money against a joint account without consultation, etc.

You'd be surprised at what variation there can be in financial abuse.

SatsukiKusukabe Sun 07-Apr-13 23:23:23

if I dropped dead tomorrow sgb, dh could not afford child care and we have no one to rely on . He would be FUCKED, good and properly.

we're hoping to get insurance for both of soon (so he'd be a sahd if something happened to me) but for various reasons haven't done it yet.

nailak Mon 08-Apr-13 01:06:56

SGB if a womans husband dropped dead she would obviously also be emotionally distraught, but we don't say no woman should be emotionally dependent on her husband?

novice I agree with u that SAHM doesnt have to mean financially dependent.

sashh Mon 08-Apr-13 06:46:20

Being a SAHM and financial abuse are different things though.

Someone already mentioned Philpotts - he had the women's benefits paid into his account and didn't let them have their own money.

Compare that with my cousin who was a SAHM for a number of years, but had equal access to the joint bank account her husband's salary went into.

SatsukiKusukabe Mon 08-Apr-13 14:14:34

I think bleating on about financial abuse is just one way for some people to excuse haranguing sahps. women who work or receive benefit still get financially abused. It's like saying a woman who knows karate won't get physicaly abused. being physicaly or financialy strong doesn't help if you are emotionaly under someone's thumb first.

RichManPoorManBeggarmanThief Mon 08-Apr-13 14:24:06

I think what sgb is saying is that there are many more scenarios than financial abuse why being a SAHM may leave you financially vulnerable- eg partner dies, partner incapacitated by illness, relationship breaks down, partner made redundant etc. Emotional dependency isn't the same because it cuts both ways. There is vulnerability on both sides. The thing with being a SAHM is that the arrangement benefits both partners but the risk is borne more heavily by the woman. This is not to say that people shouldn't be sahm's but there's no point in pretending that there isn't a long term financial risk attached.

nailak Mon 08-Apr-13 14:59:26

I agree sashh Is just some people have the view that being a SAHM and giving up work is always making u vulnerable.

I am not pretending their is no financial risk involved. I am wondering why we, as a society, put financial risk as more important than emotional risk.

I think the reasons for not being financially dependent are really complicated. I agree 100% with SGB.

Also, I've seen my mum suffer bad depression because she ended up giving up her career. It was bad for her mental health that she didn't go out to work, and it was bad for her self-esteem she didn't earn money. That's obviously not going to be the case for everyone, and it might be that it bringing up children were better valued, she'd be less affected. But it's a second good illustration of reasons why it can be a good idea not to be financially dependent, that don't have anything to do with abuse.

Some relationship issues, and personal issues, have to do with finance but don't have to do with abuse, just as you might be unable to cope in a marriage to someone who was a terrible sexual match with you, despite there being no question of abuse.

But, I don't think it's that society thinks financial risk is more important than emotional risk. It's that emotional risk underlies all kinds of abuse - that's fundamentally part of what abuse is. It's what distinguishes depressing and annoying financial situations within a couple from financial abuse, which has to have a component of one person not treating the other with proper respect.

SatsukiKusukabe Mon 08-Apr-13 15:35:13

what about my point about my dh being in the exact situations financially if I were to die? our money is spent each month he could no sooner afford child care than sprout wings out of his butt and fly away. Again you are all seeing this from a privileged position. Maybe you could each run a house hold and afford child care on either of your individual wages should a partner become incapicitated but in most families that is not the case.

my friends where both partners work there is a shift work situation and child care isn't an issue.

Well, it's possible I am seeing it from a privileged position but I thought it went without saying that for most of us, death of a partner is going to have a bad effect on the surviving partner's finances, isn't it?

confused

Neither DH nor I can afford to run a house and get childcare, not on our individual wages, not together.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now