Ok, Boomer.
Also, my god, your poor wife.
They are not equivalent crimes. Cash is an object, and a woman is not. Theft of cash is motivated by economic forces. Violence against women is the result of entrenched misogyny.
You can choose to take your cash out or not, but if you're a woman, you can't leave your femaleness at home. Women are victimised literally just for being women, something over which they have no control, therefore = victim blaming.
A query: why is it "victim-blaming" to tell women to exercise caution, but "common sense" to tell anyone else be careful carrying large amounts of cash? Agreed: telling women not to go outside after dark is badly overdoing it. (Save in much of the U.S.). Saying "be careful" is not.
You're not too bright, are you? The point is, women are targets for certain lower sorts of males. Now, which tactic has better survivability? 1) To insist that since there SHOULD be no such individuals on the street, I will act AS IF there were none such? 2) To practice situational awareness and be aware of potential threats?
In the one respect that matters, the two crimes are exactly the same: the goblins among us do not respect what is one's own, be it cash or one's person. Ergo, be on the lookout for the goblins. Have the strategy, the means, and most important the attitude to confront threats.
Yeah. I know. This ain't as much fun as shrill rhetoric. It means one has to change oneself. To sail on beyond the illusion of safe. If you want to be food, fine. Just do not try to pollute others' attitudes while you're at it, ok? No one is born a s***-magnet. That is a negative attainment, arrived at by want of training and wishful, wilful thinking.