The story and the connection to bank accounts don't sound logical at all. It's not like the husbands wouldn't know that the money is there somewhere. If a rando

The story and the connection to bank accounts don't sound logical at all. It's not like the husbands wouldn't know that the money is there somewhere. If a random person can do to another person a "classical robbery held at knifepoint or gunpoint and taken to an atm and being robbed or being blackmailed to actually do instant money transfer online", why wouldn't husbands catch on to this? The women could, in theory, have more than one bank account and hide how much they earn and save by keeping a lower balance in the account known to the husband. But the same could also be done with physical cash by handing a chunk of it to a trusted person (for expenses and savings) and keeping a smaller amount at home to be snatched. With one or more bank accounts, the woman must now keep her phone safe and inaccessible from the husband too. Or she must be very quick and diligent in deleting all the SMSes sent by banks for all kinds of transactions. This adds more hassles than saving cash with someone else. In all the cases of alcoholism and men snatching money from the women/household without any other care, it's violence that keeps that relationship and "contract" alive. That violence isn't going to disappear just because physical cash is replaced by a bank account. In summary, I don't buy the conclusion you've quickly jumped to.