The link between poverty and domestic abuse. Why?

[Kindyeah]

I read a report which says that research consistently points to there being a link between the most deprived in society and domestic abuse. But I can’t see why.

I understand, of course, that deprivation increases the likelihood of depression etc. But I don’t believe that men are more likely to abuse women if they’re poorer. Surely it’s all about control? Why would richer men be less likely to abuse? Is it actually true, or is it that poorer women who leave abusive relationships are more likely to need the help of the Council, refuges, social services etc so they get picked up more, whilst richer women have the financial wherewithal to be able to leave and set themselves up without any outside involvement?

Would be really interested to hear from women who know more about this than me.

Abuse happens regardless of wealth or class. However, there are a couple of factors which probably increase the risk in poorer households.

1. Stress increases the risk of alcohol abuse or other substance abuse, which increases the risk of domestic violence.

1. Men living in poverty are very likely to feel angry with the world, and may be looking for someone to take that anger out on.

1. Women living in poverty are less likely to have options for escaping an abuser. Women who earn enough to be financially independent and/or have family/friends that can afford to support them can walk away much more easily than those who don't know how they would manage by themselves.

Reported doesn’t mean the person has left, and it may be a study using data from domestic abuse charities or similar rather than crime numbers- it’s not going to be that simplistic. Not sure the police collect socio economic data when they get called to a domestic disturbance 😂

also reporting incidents isn’t really what it’s about- the same abuser might abuse 20
women or just one, depending on how their relationships go, but they’re still the same person.

@AquaPeer I didn't say reporting abuse meant the person has left. But it seems obvious to me that more vulnerable victims are less likely to report abuse, let alone entertain leaving their abuser.

And police do actually collect data that researchers can draw conclusions from r.e. socio-economic group, such as whether the abuser/victim lives in an area with a high level of deprivation.

Agree with all points made so far.
I would add that men who are in a "better" financial and societal position have more to lose if they commit domestic violence.

So a "professional" could end up losing job/career if got a criminal record. Could then lose income, mortgaged home etc. Also then more likely to be divorced by wife - also financial impact, loss of family home, pension etc.
But if you don't have those things there's less motivation to avoid doing something that would risk those things.

And perhaps those living in poverty are less likely to be ostracised from their peers because, sadly, it is more commonplace.

I don't disagree necessarily that middle class people are perhaps better educated about the impact and "wrongness" of domestic violence. But motivation for most people will tend to have a more self centred core.

How is domestic abuse defined?
Violence?
Emotional?
Financial?
Sexual?
Coercive control?

How many divorces come about as a result of emotional or psychological abuse?

How many women who are more or less financially stable decide they'll just end a relationship after they've been punched or pushed or spat upon or threatened, and don't report an incident?

The majority of dv cases statistics come from police and the majority of cases where police are called, the alert has actually come from neighbours.

So when you think about the housing people live in when they're living in poverty compared to when they are more affluent - you're looking at the difference between flats or terraced houses compared to detached or more rural homes. So more neighbours to overhear what is going on and to make a call for help.

For those talking about ability to leave without utilising services, this is part of it absolutely- but financial abuse is a big part of domestic violence. I've worked with women who have been extremely wealthy who were struggling to feed their children because their husband was hoarding all the family money and giving her allowances that were too small for them to realistically live off in order to control her. I've worked with women from all walks of life. The idea that it's more prevalent among poorer communities is a myth. Reporting is more prevalent among poorer communities. I'd also say that as someone working in that field, poorer communities would have welcomed me into their schools/ youth clubs/ workplaces to do awareness work - more prestigious schools or services in affluent communities would have refused saying they don't have those types of problems. Ironic since a lot of the time I was actually targeting them because I was already working quietly with their students or members. My logic with that is that people in more affluent communities then end up less able to identify what it is and name it as domestic abuse, particularly if the physical element isn't present. So may be less aware that they have the right to ask for help.

It’s complex but it’s def not crime data that has reached this conclusion. It’s a well researched well established link

This, plus let's be honest- the conviction rate is 1% so for many women they come away from the criminal justice process feeling dissatisfied so many who have other means just decide not to. And I can't blame them.

Agree 100% with @Lavender14

Unfortunately domestic abuse is persistent and intentional. It's not about 'snapping' that's also a myth. It's also feeling entitled to take control over another person in a way that causes them significant harm because you can. Mental health issues, substances etc can increase the scale of violence and the morbidity - but domestic abuse itself is not rooted in these issues or caused by them. Its rooted in social inequality and the position women hold in society in some men's eyes. Abusers don't snap, it's highly premeditated.

As pp said they are across every creed colour wage bracket but I think money issues and general life stress doesn't help, smaller world unable to escape problems and circumstances, smaller houses and having to share more, less help generally with stuff and possibly feeding into this lower education, less ability for self reflection etc

Exactly this. I would have thought it was obvious.

This is important too.

in many groups and backgrounds violence in general is more acceptable/ everyday- fighting in pubs, football hooliganism etc

men become desensitised to it, and as they start getting into trouble for it they drift away from jobs and hobbies where getting arrested isn’t acceptable

over time living this life it’s an easy transition to bring violence into your relationships and home

People with better knowledge than me will come alone, but as someone who grew up working class and now mixes in various middle class circles, one observation i would make similar to a PP (to be clear, this is just from my own experience) violence is really normalised, and people are way way way too forgiving. There's the attitude of 'everyone makes mistakes, noones perfect, everyone deserves a second chance, he's had a rough upbringing' which is amazing in some circumstances but ultimately mostly seems to serve the purpose of shaming women into forgiving men who have already had umpteen chances. Again, just my experience.

People get on each other's nerves more in a small flat than a large house, and don't have the option of walking away for a bit or sleeping in the spare room.

A lot of mental gymnastics going on to try to suggest there is an equal rate of DV across socio-economic groups. To whoever mentioned there are different types of domestic abuse - I totally agree, but do people think instances of physical abuse happen in isolation and there's no emotional abuse and coercive control involved?

"in many groups and backgrounds violence in general is more acceptable/ everyday- fighting in pubs, football hooliganism etc"

So my challenge to this is why domestic abuse is saved for the home. Why is there an increase in men coming home and beating their spouse during a world Cup event instead of having a fist fight with the other side, or in the bar with the guy who spilt his pint on them or stood on their foot. Why was the violence taken into the home and directed at the same person every time. Most male abusers are not fighting in the streets. Most will not have prior convictions or history of assault on anyone but intimate partners. Because its not about the violence. Its about the control and wanting to cause that harm to that specific person in order to create fear and control.

I agree with this.

This talk about victim behavior and police reports indicate people think that there isnt really a link between poverty and domestic abuse but the data is presenting a misrepresentative picture because police get more involved with poor people, ergo there are just as many wealthier abusers going unnoticed.

This just isn’t the case. The link is real.

There are lots of types of abuse, but there's rarely ever physical abuse in isolation, there will be other types that have gone ahead of it to lay the land for that escalation. However other types can exist without physical abuse and be just as if not more damaging to the victim.

I'm curious about what data you're basing this link on? As it's not what would be reported by any specialist services im aware of or have worked for.

many domestic abusers are violent to all types of people.

Of course there is more abuse in the home than on the street but this is a real factor in male violence. the fact that many men only abuse their partner doesn’t mean they all do

Are you saying the OPs study is wrong and there is no link between poverty and domestic abuse? I’m not sure if I’ve misread your post

This reminds me of threads on MN where the OP describes a horrendous instance of verbal abuse (like being sworn at by her DH in front of her kids) and the responses are divided between 'LTB'/outrage on the OP's behalf, and posters chiming in to say she is overreacting and something about the DH's mental health ('could he be depressed?').

Some people just think abuse in relationships is fine/normal/nothing to kick up a fuss about.

This is my experience at work - it's kind of the other way round. People growing up with extensive trauma and from dysfunctional families are statistically more likely to be unemployed, and also more likely to be go on to be abusers themselves.

I don't think being poor makes you an abuser or abusers are poor. I think that your background makes you more likely to be both.

Historically I think men would come home exhausted, frustrated and angry from very long days of hard gruelling work. Some would then lash out at their wives because they could. It was the only place they had any power or control. If wives were asking for their pay packet they could get angry that they didn’t have control over that either and withhold money or spend it drinking. Drinking in the pub was a male domain where they could let off steam. Come home drunk and beat up the wife /kids, often having spent the week’s wages. Violence was normalised and women at the bottom of the heap had even less power than men.