To wonder why women accept financial inequality?

[OtterlyAstounding]

I see so many posts on here from intelligent women, working full or part time, who have (or had) no idea what their husband of a decade or more earns, had no clue he was a high earner, and who don't have access to his bank account while he does have access to hers.

Women who earn a quarter of what their husband does who pay half the expenses, or pay for everything for their shared children, or run out of money and watch their husband treat himself while she struggles. And not only that, but many of them seem to think that's reasonable and not completely fucked up.

Women should make sure they know their partner's income before they move in together – entirely reasonable, to plan budgeting. If or when joint accounts come up, then he should provide access to his accounts first/at the same time. She should always have a personal savings account (just as he can). And if a couple has children, then he should be paying for at least half of everything (although personally I think expenses should be divided equitably, not equally).

Why in this day and age, is financial control/abuse still so common amongst educated, employed women, and also so passively accepted as normal?

Disclaimer: I'm not talking about relationships where the husband is also abusive in other ways, although I do understand the different types of abuse frequently intersect. I'm more thinking of relationships where he's a selfish twat who doesn't pay for things/share his money, but isn't otherwise abusive. Although perhaps financial abuse is always a sign of other abuse...?

And when it that? Could it be never?

Because the baby wants the mother especially in the early months and you can't separate a woman from her baby
No, the baby needs a carer to bond to. It absolutely doesn't have to me the mother.

And when it that? Could it be never?
Who knows, but more inconceivable things have happened, so why not this.

So yes: fault. It might be 'pointless' but it's clearly accurate to describe what you're saying.

Interesting. I imagine you think the same when it comes to rape, domestic violence, and other abuses. It's her fault for not being more 'responsible' with her choice of partner.

Yes, and when the mother wishes to be the carer then she has 'dibs', given that she has literally just built the entire baby within her own body over the greater part of a year.

And especially given that the baby already knows her voice and heartbeat, and would rather be with her than anyone else.

Or do you think that a man should have the right to push his wife back to work after six weeks, against her wishes, and either make her express milk or formula feed, so that he can sit at home with the baby that she just gestated and birthed?

Or would you think a man who wanted to do that was a vile, selfish prick? (Because he would be)

Interesting. I imagine you think the same when it comes to rape, domestic violence, and other abuses. It's her fault for not being more 'responsible' with her choice of partner
I don't think this is in any way comparable. Why you would even bring it up as a comparaison is beyond me. MN is a weird place!

Just to clarify! Financial abuse from a legal perspective is NOT how it is being described here. Inequality is legal. It doesn't make it abuse. Let's not confuse the two!

I think its interesting the assumption was the women earn a quater of what thier husband earn due to part time working and that they arent paying thier way on thier smaller earnings. So its thier fault.

Where as the op was sort of hinting of women working and paying thier own way whilst their parter has more disposable income he doesnt share with the family.

I earned less than my partner for many years specifically due to pregnancy related issues that didnt impact on him in the same way. This happens to many women. It doesnt even have to be significant - just being very tired in the first trimester and employers knowing you are taking leave can mean missing a promotion - do that two or three times and you earn less (and I still have a school aged child that was born before shared parental leave existed)

Well, my title may have said 'inequality' which I suppose muddies it, but I think it's fairly clear I was including abuse in that inequality, as I asked:

Why in this day and age, is financial control/abuse still so common amongst educated, employed women, and also so passively accepted as normal?

And I also mentioned financial abuse in several other places in the OP. I think inequality in the ways I've described is frequently abusive - refusing to pay for one's children so that your wife is forced to do so out of her money, while you spend your money on other things, is abusive, for instance.

That's true - I was definitely thinking of situations where the woman does pay her way but it takes up pretty much all her wage, while he pays half and has oodles left over that he keeps to himself, while she's forced to scrape by.

I see that situation described on mumsnet depressingly often.

And yes, absolutely - having children almost always impacts negatively on women's careers in a way that it doesn't men's, even if the couple makes the effort to have the man do more of the parenting, since - as you say - pregnancy related issues alone can do it.

I understand the boiling frog analogy - many men do not start out financially abusive and gradually increase the control and restriction. I get that.

But women frequently post on here and it is clear that there has NEVER been financial transparency or fairness in their relationship and they’ve gone on to have kids and stop working anyway. That’s what I really struggle to wrap my head around.

This is a really interesting thread!

But what a low bar. To have what you ‘needed’. Rather than what was fair, or an equal amount of money. I would have had what I needed if my husband restricted access to funds and would not combine finances. But he would have a much better lifestyle than I and why should he. He only earns more because I facilitated his ‘big job’ for decades.

I totally agree with you but the answer is firstly because women give away their power and believe that just because they got married its for life and will stay together forever, yes its unromantic but you need to safeguard yourself so you do have your own money, secondly women after the children are older or even left home still work part time therefor relying on their partner which doesnt safeguard then and isnt fair on the husband either, women on some level still believe its the mans job to support them financially and also support them when they retire,

Absolutely agree OP, so many posts on here of SAHM’s or part time workers that are totally financially screwed when their long term partner runs off with the OW, or when the household bills are not fairly split.

I always comment on threads that say ‘should I give up work to be a SAHM, husband is supportive etc….,’. no you shouldn’t, you should be a partnership both in terms of contributions, pooling money and being fully involved and invested in financial matters. I could never be financially dependent on a man, ever.. I out earn DH x3 but we are a team!!

My Uncle left my Aunt after 41 years to be with his secretary!! My Aunt had trusted him completely didn’t even know what he earned… he left her with the bare minimum.

This will never be me.

This is exactly it!
I saw loads of women happy to let their husband pay for everything, going part-time or being stay at home mums, especially when the husband does not lift a finger at home, so working full time and managing house and kids is just too much. The husband who does not share the domestic load is highly likely not sharing the financial situation and they accept it as money is coming and it is just convinient. All good and well till it is all good and well! If the husband decides they don’t care about them anymore, they get another woman etc they start reducing the money and spend on themselves. Many times they don’t leave the wife as having a cleaner, PA and Bsbysitter at home is just amazing and very cheap. The woman is then trapped as with no income, out of the workforce for years, it is really hard to leave the husband. If they are part time a bit easier but their income has never grown so once they divorce they are usually much poorer. Let’s remember law in the UK actually favours the wealthiest part (it’s not like that in many other countries).
it is sad, but again you talk with women even in MN with no family wealth who think it is ok to become SAHM. Not sure what they have in their mind, but they do

Is your husband dependent on you in that he couldnt afford the lifestyle you both have without you?

My DH is dependent on me in other ways than financially. He wanted to have children, we had children. Since the children exist, he is dependent on me if he wants to be in the job he is in and progress as he is. He would have to change fields or slow down greatly if he had equal responsibility for the children. I consider he owes me for that.

Then there is his anxiety disorder that partly manifests in things going smoothly at work for him. Once my boss asked me if my DH could take the day off for the children instead of it falling on me. I mumbled something about him being busier and at a sensitive time at work. The reality being that if he'd had to take one day and create more pressure at work, his anxiety would go through the roof and then we'd all have to deal with it. Not worth it.

I think a lot of women wouldn't have accepted the way he has treated my own work, but the children and their needs have always been more important to me, so it's been okay for me to go with the flow on that. Not to say there isn't a little resentment over the principle of it rather than the reality.

I posted quite early on this thread about my own financial abuse situation that I escaped from, but I'm posting again, as the one thing I learned is that financial abuse doesn't only happen when the man earns more and doesn't share it as fairly as he should.

My exh refused to contribute at all! He had a job but always said he was broke, so I had to pick up the payments. Every bill was in my name, every financial responsibility was on me. He always said that because my earnings were more, I should pay more, and if course, that sounded reasonable. Except I eventually found out he was earning just £50 a month less than me, while he paid absolutely nothing towards our life.

But the problem I then faced was what could I do? I couldn't just stop paying the bills as that affected me and not just him, losing my home would have a seriously negative effect on me and my future housing ability. I felt stuck. Until I realised I could just kick him out. Which is what I did. I don't know how I would have coped if he had refused to go, but luckily he didn't. The impact on my own finances was immediate. I didn't realise quite how much of the food I bought, he ate, how careless he was about using resources, how getting that single person's discount on the council tax would help me.

Yes. I was stupid to let myself get into that situation, but it happened. And his refusal to contribute was still financial abuse. It gets described on here as cocklodging, but that makes it sound less serious than it is. It IS financial abuse.

Even women who are financially ok in their own right, can end up in this situation which starts with a little bit of trying to help your partner through what you think is a temporary difficult situation. Though in my case, was just down to me being trusting and stupid and naive - I accept that, but I'd really like to highlight this issue to other women so if it helps even one other woman not end in the situation I did, it's something.

Thank you for sharing ❤ That sounds so awful, and absolutely abusive - I'm glad you were able to get free of him.

@OtterlyAstounding, I sympathise with your situation because I was in a similar relationship with my first partner.

However, we need to be careful with the use of words on here because of the impact it might have. What you e described is NOT financial abuse as legally defined as below:

It is defined as any behavior that has a substantial adverse effect on an individual’s ability to acquire, use, or maintain money/property, or obtain goods and services

Substantial impact is that, significant and it's about reducing the ability of one to use ones money.

There is a tendency on MN to call any controlling behaviour abuse. However, abuse is legally on a much higher level.

I think you've mis-tagged me, as I'm not in that situation.

That’s not correct. You may be awarded half if you get divorced, but in marriage each person can and does own their own parts.

If that works for you, then great. We’ve always chosen to put equal amounts in to the joint account irrespective of how much we were earning at the time and that’s worked for us. We prefer it this way, and it’s been good for decades now.

That's not what I do, actually. As I've said elsewhere, my husband and I have always just pooled our money.

And if that makes sense for you, that's nice. Did it ever lead to resentment if one partner was earning much more than the other, which meant the higher earner had plenty of their own money for luxuries, while the other went without or had to scrape by? Or have you always earned fairly equally?