To wonder how many of the men in the 40% are actually being abused?

[rosiejaune]

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/05/no-job-no-savings-women-fighting-economic-abuse-illegal

"It found that one in five people in the general population have experienced economic abuse, 60% of them women. The same study suggested women experience it for longer, with nearly 80% of those reporting abuse saying it lasted more than five years, compared with 23% of the men.

There was also a marked difference in what was interpreted as abuse. “Women tended to say their partners denied them money for food, rent or electricity,” says Sharp-Jeffs. “Men were more likely to say they’d been denied money for beer or hobbies.”"

I.e. is it actually that the household is struggling for money, and there just isn't enough for beer or hobbies? This then gets reframed as the woman being controlling, rather than just trying to be financially responsible.

Arguing about which sex has it worse, is pointless. Stopping it, making it unacceptable and recognisable so our kids spot the first signs when they are older and in relationships

Completely agree with this. I genuinely believe there is not enough education around this subject.

It's an odd and complex one. In the west of Scotland where I live women traditionally controlled the household money - jokes about not going home with a broken pay packet.

Money was often short and men were not taught to budget or make it go a long way. Men would get their "pocket money" effectively. I think a lot of women on MN would regard that as abusive - not equal access to family money.

But it was regarded as the woman's role to make the household work and ensure bills were paid and children fed.

That mentality is still there in a lot of households. It's part of the infantilisation of men that covers lack of ability to iron etc. And it doesn't probably cause an issue where money isn't tight and there's plenty for pocket money but where it is There's still a whole cohort of men who don't know who supplies their electric or how much a food shop costs. I know some of them feel hard done by.

Yes not all men and I'm not saying it's men's fault entirely if they've been brought up in a culture where they didn't need to take responsibility before anyone jumps down my throat.

Police Officer: Hi there Jimmy, I'm sorry to say that your mum has murdered your dad and we have to take you into care. It'll all be ok though as more women are killed by men.

rabbitheadlights
I'm sure there are men dying at the hands of women also

When it happens once or twice a year it makes the headlines. How many deaths of women killed by their husbands/partners/exes make the headlines?

"In the west of Scotland where I live women traditionally controlled the household money"?

That's interesting because that's what my DH preferred. He was from a Scottish background. He'd get paid in cash, bring it home and I'd manage everything. I'd give him spending money and buy his clothes/toiletries/ciggies.

Let's remember that a percentage of Men suffering DV and being killed by Partners are in Gay relationships.

My DD has finally split from her abusive Partner. She's had to be put on a fast Police response time, get a non-molestation order and I've had to stay in hers for her and the children's safety. That wouldn't be necessary if the sexes were reversed.

The man who came to change her locks (via DV Services) was telling her about another Woman who was refused a lock change. Her ex entered the house and battered her and the children. My DD attends a Freedom group, many have had to flee their home towns.

I've just read of the outcome of the case were, a three year old was thrown acid on, organised by his Father to get back at the Mother. Another who kidnapped the children (after assaulting the Mother with a hammer) didn't strap them in car seats etc and drove at high speed into a wall.

It's fine to talk about Men going through DV, but it's dangerous to say it's anywhere near what Men perpetrate. Likewise the comparison between being short of food and beer.

My DD has finally split from her abusive Partner. She's had to be put on a fast Police response time, get a non-molestation order and I've had to stay in hers for her and the children's safety. That wouldn't be necessary if the sexes were reversed

Who says it's not necessary? It wouldn't be available because it's not deemed a huge risk. I know someone who hasn't even told his family where he lives in case his ex wife finds out. Because she has before broke into his properties before. Physically he might not be in danger, or at least as much as a woman would be but we can't discount the physiological damage these things do.

He can't have friends or family over, in fear that it will get back to her and he will have to move again

Surely it doesn’t matter what the person wants to spend the money on? Wether it’s beer and hobbies, or handbags and shoes. One person having control over what the other cannot spend is abusive. It is the tip of the iceberg.

Here is a BBC article on the matter

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-45638626

Surely size comes into it. A smaller woman being abused by her much larger partner woukd fear for her life or at least real physical harm. A man generally doesn't have that kind of fear of his wife.

But many do, just because there is a size difference doesn't make being abused any less painful.

Size doesn't matter when the person has a kettle or a knife etc does it?

Would the crux be are there are men not getting money for beer and hobbies because there actually isn't any to spare, and they think its not fair (in other words their wants should be prioritised over basic family needs). If there's men included in that 40% who are claiming abuse because they are in this situation they are making a mockery of men who are being financial abused.

It's hugely different to a man not having money for shoes or petrol whilst his partner spends money on frivolous things for herself.

What a nasty, horrible thread

I think to some extent it does matter zippey, if the things aren't essential (like beer) then you have to know the reason why they don't get money for it.

I know 2. If this treatment was the other way around, people would be telling that women to run and report it to the police.
But no one says that to guys. They are guys after all so it's impossible for them to be economically (and emotionally) abused🙄
That's how society seems to view it. And that's sad.

'75% of suicides in the UK are committed by men, there are a lot of women who are abusive to men. I think the amount of bitter narcissistic women who deny ex partners access to their children is a huge factor/problem.'

All those evil women leaving their husbands for no reason and denying access even though the father is desperate to see the child.

Well that's that the men will tell you anyway. More fool those that believe them.

Men being physically abused does exist. Size doesn't matter really - in fact a six foot man being abused by a five do it three partner has the added fear that if he retaliated he would do her injury. Then she can report him and claim she is the abuse victim and report him. (Often the threat.)

Domestic violence against men doesn't need to be treated separately as the reasons for not revealing it are different (Though the victims should have more or less sympathy and care.) Abused men have a layer of their abuse is seen as weak or even comical.

Would the crux be are there are men not getting money for beer and hobbies because there actually isn't any to spare

But why would you assume that? Would you assume it's the same if a woman said she wasn't allowed money to socialise or have a hobby?

But why would you assume that?

Misandry?

"A person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against men"

Yeah, misandry

Me and DP are still only 21 therefore our friends are the same age, openly admit we're probably naive about relationships in general so far but DP has a friend who is definitely being abused by his partner. She refuses to "let" him out, checks his phone daily. He was allowed one hour to go and have a curry with his friends, and asked to go out for a drink afterwards and extra time to finish the food. She literally parked outside and told him to get in the car refusing to even let him speak! He went home with her and was back to meet DP an hour later because they'd had a huge row and he was crying his eyes out! Very very strange but I'm sure it's abuse!

I dont assume that. I mean is that could be the situation. As in that's what the OP means Boysandbuses, about not being abused.

If a woman's partner limited her access money because they were on a right budget and if it weren't restricted she'd spend all of it beer and a hobby. I don't think I'd consider her financially abused.

If you had a partner who ran up huge debt whenever they could get near a way to spend and you prevent that access in order to prevent debt, is that financial abuse?

*tight budget.

I think OP has an interesting point, and I do wonder if thresholds for what people consider as abuse might be different depending on their gender (i.e. if a woman was told there was no money for her hobbies but the children and her were fine financially would she be as quick to see that as abusive?).

I don't think that means no men are abused (nor was the OP in any way saying that!). I do think it means these sorts of statistics should be collected very carefully.

Some of the 60% of women who have responded will also have questionable reasons too. My DH doesn't allow me to have £250 hair appointments and my nails done each week at a cost of £40 a time.

Its disappointing so many people think men in abusive situations shouldn't be scared. I've seen men who have had irons held to them, been whipped with electrical cord, had cups of hot tea and coffee flung at them regularly but they can't leaveas they are told, and believe, no one will believe them and the woman will get the children. You can be 7ft tall and 20 stone and still be emotionally and physically abused.

From the study:

"Analysis of the free text examples continues to reveal gendered differences in the nature of financial abuse described with more women than men experiencing financial control, being more likely to
experience more than one form of financial abuse and also being more likely to describe negative impacts in relation to meeting their basic needs and the needs of their children.
This reinforces the importance of context which, as previously noted, is missing from ‘incident’ based approaches to measuring financial abuse. Men and women understand the concept of financial abuse differently, and the nature of how financial exploitation was experienced was also
gendered. That a much higher proportion of the examples of financial abuse in free text provided by men were not examples of financial abuse is also revealing."

Well that's that the men will tell you anyway. More fool those that believe them.

So you think it's doesn't happen? Yes some women keep their kids away from the dad's because the dad's are dangerous or harmful. However, it does happen where women keep their kids away our of spite.

My mother and father split for a while when I was younger. She threaten to top herself if he came near, she moved us 13 times. She eventually let him see us and remarried him. When she sees how it impacted us she is devastated about what she did. But says it was our of spite because he left her.

It happens. No point pretending it doesn't.