Financial abuse, how to talk about money

Pollycat

hb2 said:

 You certainly need some money that is under your control and you don't have to account for. How many children do you have and how old are they? If you can't find an outside job, could you take in ironing (for example) so that you have something of your own? Of course, you shouldn't have to do that but you shouldn't have to beg your own husband for money either!

I understand the reasoning behind your suggestion but to me, it's like putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg -not dealing with the main problem.

unholyangel

sunflowerstar said:

Thank you everyone, I’m going to reply to the last few comments here! 

No, no imbalance anywhere else at all. This is the only issue and I hate it because everything else is so great. Although I am the main one at home and naturally, more housework and child responsibilities fall to me, there’s no issue with him taking time off if I’m sick, he runs children around to clubs, does housework, maintains the garden etc etc we’re a good team in all other aspects. 

The child benefit was opted out of and I still get the NI contributions. 

I have no problem walking away from relationships and starting again, I have done it before. It makes me sad that he can’t see it’s the only thing letting it all down. 

I have looked at jobs, applied for some but so long out of the work force and no experience isn’t leaving me with many options unfortunately. However I have got something in the pipeline soon, just part time but he’s supportive, hopefully it works out. 

Would he support you studying - in preparation of returning to work and improving your employability? I'm not sure what your strengths are but if academics isn't one of them, even a certificate in health & safety or first aid can help make you more attractive than someone else and shows a willingness for improved development. 

unholyangel

sunflowerstar said:

Maybe I just can’t reply to people right now? 

Anyway - thank you both and yes I agree. Regardless of his intentions this is the outcome and it’s not ok. 

I’m going to talk to him tonight, start with the emergency fund suggestion someone said earlier and also being up the practicalities of being hospitalised etc. Start with that. 

My other comments will show up soon enough I’m sure, I said a little more in those so don’t want to be repetitive! 

Doesn't it strike you as odd that you need such strong justification to appeal to your partner? That concerns me. It should just be a case of you communicating there is an issue and then perhaps both of you sitting down together to go over finances and see what is needed, because you're a team of equals. 

I can understand querying amounts if they think it's too expensive and a good way to handle that scenario is challenge them to find a better deal. Win-win for both - if it can be had cheaper then you save money as a family. If not then they can't really moan at you about the price as you found the best deal you could. 

Tbh OP in your circumstances, I long ago would've agreed "pocket money" for me personally and told the hubby he can manage all the finances himself and let him realise his folly when he is paying out more than he was previously. Or at least I would if I was in that position. I've always worked so can't go more than 2 weeks without climbing the walls! I don't mind sacrificing, but you can be sure I would resent it if i'm having to sell things to make ends meet for necessities while my partner was still splurging on non-essentials.

I've suggested working though because financial independence gives you freedom. It also has other benefits such as giving you a reprieve from being a "mum" or "wife", helping you keep a sense of "self" and also can help provide additional emotional support from colleagues. For a lot of parents, going to work is actually a reprieve of sorts as it's less demanding on them. 

SeaVixen

Others have touched on this, but do you think he values your household input as less than his for being a full time worker? 

This point of view is of course absolute nonsense - the childcare alone is worth thousands, without factoring in household management. However, it might be an opinion that he holds, even subconsciously. Particularly if he does things around the house (however occasionally) as well - he might see himself as doing everything you do, plus working full time hours on top. 

This might be why he's reluctant to give you money that he has earned, and why he clams up when you try to talk about it, because he doesn't want to say "but I worked for this, you didn't!". 
The control issues could simply stem from him viewing the money as his. This will be very difficult to change. 

When you start your part time job, is your husband intending to do more around the house to make up for that? Or is he still expecting you to do everything and work? 
Depending on your hours, you may still be able to manage both. However, I'd suggest at least having this conversation with him, as it will probably be very insightful. 

I must say that your responses on here have been relatively level headed, and it's good that you seem to accept this as some form of abuse. Lots of people live in denial for years, and some never get out of that mindset. Well done.

fred246

I always find these threads a bit sexist. If it was the other way round the man would be told in no uncertain terms that he should be getting a job and not depending on his wife. I worked all hours while my wife was a lady of leisure. We used to have women come and give lectures on 'financial abuse'. It was always women. I was never happy with the idea that if I didn't give my wife whatever she asked for I was "abusing" her. I was at work while she was lunching with friends in some posh restaurant. I very much felt like the 'abused' one.

Pollycat

fred246 said:

I always find these threads a bit sexist. If it was the other way round the man would be told in no uncertain terms that he should be getting a job and not depending on his wife. I worked all hours while my wife was a lady of leisure. We used to have women come and give lectures on 'financial abuse'. It was always women. I was never happy with the idea that if I didn't give my wife whatever she asked for I was "abusing" her. I was at work while she was lunching with friends in some posh restaurant. I very much felt like the 'abused' one.

He wouldn't be told that from me.

If the wife worked full time and he was the primary carer for the children, my responses to him would be exactly the same as my responses to the OP.

I would still see it as financial abuse.

Some people seem to always be keen to play the discrimination card.

elsien

Many households (if they can afford and wish to do so) have  one partner to stay at home or work parttime, do the childcare,  run the household and all the life admin that goes along with it. Which partner that is, is up to the couple concerned.  
In heterosexual relationships it is more often but not exclusively the woman. I wouldn't do it, my head would explode from boredom.  But it is absolutely not sexist to point out that the value of the work done, if you consider how much the working partner would have to pay in childcare,  cleaners, concierge services etc no less than that of the working half of the couple.  
OP, maybe you should dump all the shopping and bills on your husband for a month then he can see what it really does cost.

onwards&upwards

fred246 said:

I always find these threads a bit sexist. If it was the other way round the man would be told in no uncertain terms that he should be getting a job and not depending on his wife. 

I don't think he would. 

Plus, lets be realistic, it very is rarely the other way around.  Not many men out there being forced to sell their belongings to feed their children, or having to put things back at the supermarket because they haven't got access to funds to pay for essentials due to a female partner who expects them to manage all the domestic and child related responsibilities on an inadequate 'housekeeping' allowance. 

NinjaTune

fred246 said:

I always find these threads a bit sexist. If it was the other way round the man would be told in no uncertain terms that he should be getting a job and not depending on his wife. I worked all hours while my wife was a lady of leisure. We used to have women come and give lectures on 'financial abuse'. It was always women. I was never happy with the idea that if I didn't give my wife whatever she asked for I was "abusing" her. I was at work while she was lunching with friends in some posh restaurant. I very much felt like the 'abused' one.

Your situation is/was different to the OP's.  She clearly isn't a "lady of leisure" and doesn't go out for lunch in posh restaurants, she buys secondhand and sells her possessions to make ends meet despite there being plenty of money coming into the household.  She practically has to beg for extra cash.

Being the primary carer for the children is the issue here, irrespective if that is the man or the woman.  Looking after a household and children is bl**dy hard work - no annual leave in that job.  

Not giving someone 'everything they want' is obviously not financial abuse.  Not giving someone enough to cover the basic running of the house, despite repeated requests, is in my opinion.

SeaVixen

fred246 said:

I always find these threads a bit sexist. If it was the other way round the man would be told in no uncertain terms that he should be getting a job and not depending on his wife. I worked all hours while my wife was a lady of leisure. We used to have women come and give lectures on 'financial abuse'. It was always women. I was never happy with the idea that if I didn't give my wife whatever she asked for I was "abusing" her. I was at work while she was lunching with friends in some posh restaurant. I very much felt like the 'abused' one.

Do you think what the OP is describing is ok?

 I agree that there are elements of masculinity that would make it appear to be a problem if a man was taking on the traditionally female role. I'd love there to be a thread discussing that. However, this isn't that thread, so we don't need to detract from the current issue at hand.