To be horrified at the number of women financially vulnerable

[Mammalamb]

Every time I’ve been on mn recently, there is yet another thread about a woman being financially abused : used by her “d” p.

do we need some sort of financial literacy or something for young women? Do we need some more help around self esteem for women to stop them putting up with this shit?

personally, I think if you’re going to be having kids or living together, then get married. Appreciate not everyone wants marriage. But if you don’t, make sure you are financially protected

A lot of financial abuse (in the true sense of the word) is incredibly nuanced.

The abuse doesn’t just start up one day. It develops over time into something that you (as a well educated, forward thinking person) realise is wrong on many many levels. Back to the Boiling Frog analogy…

‘Good reasons’ why not to have a joint account
’My father gave my mother housekeeping money. It worked for them…’

Gawd. If I knew then what I know now….🤬🤬🤬

@Clarabe1 - you speak a lot of sense.

And yes, it should start at school, and the teaching should be applicable to BOTH sexes.

Good to see so many posters advocating real financial independence and not just the bland old 'get married for protection' when we know from the relationships board that it in fact offers very little protection.

Just because you are married, it’s not safe to give up your earning power, thinking that you will be ok because all money is ‘family money’. The man will walk away from the relationship with his share of assets and his earning power. The woman is left as non-working parent with stagnant earning power.

This.

Great post. Totally agree. Every so often I see a post from a woman who's wondering if her partner will ever propose. Usually it turns out that they have children and she is either not working or only part-time, so is financially very vulnerable. Drives me nuts! Why would you drift into that vulnerable position just because you've fallen for the Mills & Boon nonsense about proposals, dream weddings etc?

Why on earth has she not said something on the lines of 'Look, this is a partnership. Financially, your contribution at the moment is your salary and mine is saving us a small fortune in childcare - but that has come at the cost of not being able to build up a pension and losing career progression. I need protection, your children need protection, in case anything happens to you. The easiest way to do that is to get married, or get a civil partnership. What do you say?'

Because the proposed solution is effectively unworkable. How is the relationship between cohabitees going to be defined? Is it just going to be people ( of any sex or permutations of sex) who have a sexual or romantic relationship who qualify for a share of each other’s houses.? How are you going to prove that (interesting depositions ahead)?

It is cheap and easy to get married in the UK ( and in France where I used to live). You can add civil partnership into the mix in both countries if you have a dislike for marriage ( although inFrance I think the obligations and financial implications are slightly less advantageous, certainly it was a bit looked down on when I was there). The civil ceremony in England allows you to write your own vows, the only thing that is banned is any religious content.

I don’t see why people who refuse the existing protection of civil law should be entitled to it anyway. If you decide not to pay for insurance, you don’t ring up Legal and General and demand that they pay out for your accident or burglary anyway. ( well, some people would, but they’d get a dusty answer).

I don't think this is the job of schools - they have enough to be getting on with.

I also don't agree that the only option is financial independence. Lots of families have set ups where both partners are working part time, or one full time and one not at all, or one freelance or whatever. And it works for them because they have pooled their money and it's seen as family income not "mine" and "yours". Whether the two people involved are married or not.

It is true that marriage gives loads of protection though. Lots of people seem to think that marriage is the same as a big, expensive ceremony with a massive party afterwards. They don't want that or can't afford it, so don't take the option of a quick legal service at the register office which would give them all the rights. There is no need to extend rights to co-habiters, there is marriage and civil partnership already.

Absolutely this.

Financial abuse is a separate and distinct issue that is never the fault of the victim.

This discussion is more about how to help women understand the consequences of their decisions so they can make the right choice to protect themselves in all circumstances in the future.

I’m so sorry you went through what you did and I hope you’re doing ok now.

It seems men are generally clued up on how to protect themselves financially so there is no reason why women can't do the same.

I actually think a lot of women want to depend on someone else otherwise why would anyone do so willingly when it takes two minutes to google your rights.

We need them to be warned off the idea that you drift along in the wake of some man, waiting for him to propose, waiting for handouts etc and not rocking the boat.

We also need to teach both young men and young women that his work in child-related labour does not end with jizzing, grunting and snoring and that it should be incumbent on him to do a fair proportion of the domestic and child-related labour, including making career sacrifices and advocating. to make their workplaces flexible to enable this.

I'm early forties.

Spent my life working and paying for childcare as a single parent until I met dh and went on to have more children however I still worked.

We ducked up the cost of childcare as it meant I would still have a career once the dc were at school.

As hard as it is and I see many younger women financially dependant and controlled they really need to take a grip of their situation and get back into earning themselves.

Being a sahp is lovely and there are many that do it with husbands that share finances but there are also many that don't.

I drum into my children to be financially independent at all costs.

Unfortunately my dm is financially dependent on my dad because she was a lazy twat that didn't really want to work and my older sister is the same.

My dad shares everything so not an issue however my mil is and always has been financially controlled even down to she's not allowed to spend money on e books anymore or hair.

It's a bad example to women and girls growing up so I make it my responsibility to teach my children how to do it.

It's not down to schools. It's down to role model parents.

I earn way more than my dh but it shows my children that the default of tester year needs to stop

@CharityShopChic

Lots of families have set ups where both partners are working part time, or one full time and one not at all, or one freelance or whatever. And it works for them because they have pooled their money and it's seen as family income not "mine" and "yours". Whether the two people involved are married or not.

That's all fine when things are tickety-boo. I always see this phrase "it works for our family" trotted out when people talk about being at home or being otherwise in a state of dependence. Of course it does, when things are good. It works really well until it doesn't.

It doesn't work when a man has a mid-life crisis and decides his partner (who is working PT and doesn't earn enough to meet the overheads) is boring and middle aged. Then suddenly this "family money" becomes "his money" and "her money". And guess who gets the lion's share of that pot.

There's only really one failsafe way for a woman to protect herself against financial abuse and that's to work and keep her own money. Marriage (and pooling of finances etc) is a decent compromise if she can't or really doesn't want to work, but its inherently flawed. Separating assets is a long and painful process. And living with someone unmarried when you have a lower income is like playing Russian Roulette.

I think that until Childcare is properly affordable (by being subsidised by the state), nothing will change.

Either (mostly) women will have to stay at home or work part time (which is usually low paid) to fit around school, where they are likely having to be dependent on their partner or benefits. Or they work full time, they don't really see their kids and are often worse off financially.

Often women don't get married because their partner doesn't want to and are too trusting that their partner won't just get up one day and walk out or they themselves think that marriage is just how the patriarchy are trying to control them without any real understanding on what it is.

Currently whatever women do is pretty much a loose loose situation as very few can just get a really well paying job that can covers housing costs, childcare, other normal bills and have any kind of space money to put in a pension or have any kind of life.

I am seeing increasingly amongst my younger colleagues that they see it as a good thing to not get married, they see it as a positive thing as in 'don't need to get married' without realising the legal implications.

@AriettyHomily

It’s quite a nuanced situation though. If these young women earn more than their partners and don’t plan to stop working they are correct in not wanting to get married.

Marriage is really only a good idea for the poorer partner or for someone who knows they want to stop work. It’s not a panacea.

I don’t agree that this is a class issue, in the way you phrase it. I know quite a few aristocratic and upper middle class women who have been suckered into the let’s get married later trap, and then found themselves living in someone’s poorly equipped estate cottage on the pittance their ex lover had been persuaded to cough up for their children.

Even highly educated women with careers have been shafted by their bloke legging it with some attractive blonde thirty years younger than both of them, because they were too trendy and liberal to embrace the old fashioned bourgeois concept of marrying someone before you have their children *

• Eg a certain ex quiz master

@Allthegoodnamesarechosen why would the proposal be unworkable? It has worked successfully for years in Australia and New Zealand. Someone has provided the link that sets out the guidelines in Australia, it really isn't rocket science.
Defacto relationships have the same rights as marriages, it is seen as antiquated over here to think that a ceremony should define what rights you have. The signing of a rental agreement, mortgage agreement, joining of finances and then being together over 2 years later or having a child is just as much recognised as consent to be in a loving and equal relationship; as it should be. It doesn't stop financial abuse but it does mean that the most financially vulnerable party is protected. Everyone knows this over here, it's pretty hard to argue that you were not defacto when you clearly were. I can't see the reasoning in saying this shouldn't be the case, it's really very simple and being from the UK myself I'm sure even those most entrenched in the status quo could understand stand it. We certainly can.

I also see a lot of women who have no pension provision ( private) or enough contributions for a full state pension.
In some cases dependent on their husband or partners pension, sometimes relying on equity - sometimes with nothing at all.

I find that terrifying and this should be taught to all teens and young adults as basic economic literacy

This thread is vile...no talk of the abuser, as usual victim blaming..black and white scenarios that aren't clear cut in real life.
You make it sound like any of us caught in an abusive relationship where economically we can't leave or we would be homeless... are uneducated, stupid and weak.

Even highly educated women with careers have been shafted by their bloke legging it with some attractive blonde thirty years younger than both of them, because they were too trendy and liberal to embrace the old fashioned bourgeois concept of marrying someone before you have their children

Yep. Or just been shafted because they failed to spot the fact that a bloke saw them as a target because they owned a property, had a good salary and pension and persuaded themselves he just loved them. And once married with feet firmly under the table the bloke contributes less and less, both financially and in terms of domestic support.

Financial abuse is not something the middle or upper classes are immune to.

THIS.

This thread is vile...no talk of the abuser, as usual victim blaming..black and white scenarios that aren't clear cut in real life.
You make it sound like any of us caught in an abusive relationship where economically we can't leave or we would be homeless... are uneducated, stupid and weak.

I think we are reading different threads. This one is about educating girls/women to look after themselves.

Probably being aware of the real possibility for financial abuse should be part of that.

This is a really good post.

That’s very interesting, I didn’t know the details. The PP didn’t explain it as clearly as you have, I presumed it was just the usual cry of ‘ we should all have the same rights’.

It seems though, that a written and recorded contract is still involved . Both names are on the mortgage or rental agreement, the parties have joined finances; so it is not at all the same as some one just feeling that because they have lived in someone else’s house and been excluded from their bank accounts, their relationship should be recognised as the same as those who have agreed a legally binding contract. The Antipodean system seems fairly similar to marriage, only without the emotional and sexual promises? but if you hadn’t signed the agreements, would you still get the protection? De facto can be difficult to prove in many legal systems.

I was financially vulnerable once and learnt from it. Before then and since then I have been financially independent. I've always insisted that any bfs are financially independent as well as I am not contributing to or keeping anyone.

The latest thread about the woman being shafted after 24 years is chilling.