I think we can all agree that most of the financial abuse arising in marriage and divorce is female-on-male rather than the reverse.
Two days ago a female “journalist” at the Financial Times had this nonsense published by the paper. The start of the dire piece:
People who abuse their partners by controlling their access to money should be prosecuted, Britain’s former home secretary has said. Amber Rudd is the most high-profile supporter of a move to recognise “economic abuse” when the government puts forward a domestic abuse bill this autumn. Economic abuse most commonly sees men forcing women to be dependent on them for housing, [J4MB: How do men do that? By working to pay rents and mortgages? Why, those damned patriarchs!!!] food, clothes, transport or money.
The end:
Jess Phillips, the Labour MP who leads the Women’s Parliamentary Labour party, said one of the “main barriers” for women leaving abusive partners was “debts and financial arrangements they have been forced into”.
Surviving Economic Abuse said more information was still needed about the scale of the problem. It has called on the annual Crime Survey for England and Wales, which informs government policy, to ask participants whether they had been prevented from having a “fair share” of the money in their household. [J4MB: What will be the grounds for determining what a “fair share” would be? Women’s feelings, as usual, we can be sure. Hmm, how many women would like to spend a higher proportion of the household income, whether or not they have earned a penny of it? They already spend a damned sight more than they earn. But it’s never enough, is it?]
You can subscribe to the FT here.
