Financial vs physical/sexua abuse

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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?

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.

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

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.

No abuse is acceptable. Ever.