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.

As PP have said, it is possible that being denied access to money for socialising is abusive. Yes, sometimes it will be a matter of no money to spare for hobbies or nights out, but when there is plenty of money but the partner just doesn't want you to go out without them and therefore refuses you access to money... that's coercive control. Generally, more abuse is perpetrated by men against women, and the level of physical violence is usually higher, and there is the small matter of centuries of male domination and women's less-than-human status - up until about 30 years ago, the police were unlikely to intervene if a woman was being beaten by her male owner, because it was a 'domestic' and therefore no one else's business.
However, women can be cruel, women can have MH conditions or personality disorders which make them violent, and abusive women can be well aware that their male victims are less likely to be believed if they complain of being abused or controlled.

"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."

Which was surely the op's point, and is backed up by the study itself.

No need for all the cries of "misandry!".

Regardless of the sexes involved, if an adult in a relationship spends money on luxuries that the household cannot afford, that is abusive, because it is denying the household basic essentials like rent and food, in favour of their own wants.

Part of being an adult is sensible budgeting and only spending on wants when all the needs have been covered.

However, if one partner does not allow the other money that they can spend as they wish, within an affordable budget, that is also abusive.

But in my experience, men are far more likely to prioritise their own wants over household needs, often leaving their female partner scrabbling around trying to pay the rent, feed the DCs etc with a budget that is inadequate.

Just like it doesn't occur to some men that children need looking after and you can't just spend unlimited time on hobbies, it also doesn't occur to them that part of being a parent is prioritising your DCs needs above your wants.

However, of course NAMALT and NAWALT too. A male friend of mine was divorced by his wife for 'financial abuse'. I was astonished when I found out, because I knew that he paid all the bills in the household, including his wife's (new, fancy) car payments and the money she earnt from her admittedly quite low paid job, but still full time and above NMW so over £1k pm, was basically her own spending money, but she argued that it wasn't enough, therefore he was denying her access to money. He earnt decently, but not mega money and they had a good lifestyle, but she cited financial abuse because her money did not stretch to all the designer handbags (she had dozens), cocktails with friends, mini breaks, beauty treatments etc etc.

I was witness to f on m physical and verbal and manipulative and emotional abuse, last sun. By my oh's "best friend" to her bf. Hitting him in the face repeatedly and i wont describe the rest. And this feom a woman who claims shes been treated the same and calls it abuse. Im a survivor and her behaviour shocked us. I wont talk to her now. I checked up on the bf but my oh got told she doesnt like me messaging the bf so i can see whats going on. Its so sad. But hes so obviously besotted and willing to put up with it.

I walk away from men like that, ever since regaining some self worth and confidence after the worst abusive relationship i had, which started in 2010. And im very lucky my oh is none of the things he was.

I was denied money for diarolyte for the baby by her dad. I didnt even have 25p for paracetamol for myself. My doctord were very understanding but it was feightening, confusing and embarrassing.

It’s not a surprising finding. In a relationship it will be the higher or sole earner who is usually positioned to exert financial control. This is usually the man. SAHP are vulnerable because they have little or not access to their own money. Child benefit was originally meant to ensure all mothers had some access to cash so it has long been recognised even if the context has changed.

The difference in impact also reflects an established social more, women tend to take financial responsibility for childcare and food. Men do the other side of family finances, bricks and mortar, pensions and savings. The things most likely to be on direct debit and unavoidable. Food shops are variable and usually weekly. I can see housekeeping money running out or being dependent on what is left over.

This is quite a despairing problem which far too many people fall into. Think how many women post on here “I pay all the childcare and food shops, he does the rest of the bills, that’s just the way we do it”. The other issue is just how many people have no idea what the family finances are. They just accept what their partner tells them and never bother sharing the responsibilities, I’m not talking about those who are excluded btw.

Not allowing a man money to go out or for a hobby suggests the financial control is part of wider control of his social life. I quite despair of the extent to which some women do this as well under the auspices of managing their boundaries or anxiety.

There's also the possibility of under reporting from women who either don't regard the situation as abusive or are unable to have their voice heard.

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."

It's very dangerous to say that men feeling they suffer abuse, but are wrong. Not for men but for everyone.

The surveys never have the whole context and back ground.

Like studies into cheating. Women are more likely to not admit it even when anonymous. You are relying on the information and free text to be 100% accurate and non biased.

Yep. My exH claimed I was controlling. My priorities were the bills and feeding our family whereas his were Xbox subscriptions and drinking with his mates and take aways. He was abusive in every possible way and since leaving he's paid the minimum for the children, doesn't do any childcare and doesn't contribute towards uniform. But he'll tell anyone including the police, social services and the courts that I was the abusive one.

Why do we end up back at the default position that women in general are lying and to blame?

For flying fucks sake
😡

Why do we end up back at the default position that women in general are lying and to blame

Who is saying that? As a woman raped and abused by my exh I can't see where that has been said.

Simply that you also should not apply that to men and assume they are to blame or lying as well.

Sorry...I meant as a women who was abused, I can't say that I have taken that from anyone's posts.

It's so depressing that this has to be a 'who has it worse' debate and not a discussion around the problem as a whole and how it can be addressed.

I do believe, however, that the tone was set by the thread's title which is effectively questions that, although fewer men are subject to this abuse, do we really believe them?

For what it's worth, I believe that, providing the money isn't required for essentials, that preventing a man from 'going for a beer' IS a form of controlling. It's absolutely no different that a man denying money to meet a friend for a coffee (at the risk of using two stereotypes).

Statistically most men who are DV victims are abused by male partners.
This

@Ghanagirl "Statistically most men who are DV victims are abused by male partners."

Except that this simply isn't true and can be debunked by a simple Google search.

Homosexual men make up approximately 4% of the population so it's inconceivable that MOST of the 700,000+ reports of domestic violence against males in the UK were commuted by 1/25th of the population.

OK, let's assume that you meant that PROPORTIONALLY more gay men were the perpetrators/victims of domestic violence. Well this is actually true. According to figures released, 6.2% of those that suffered abuse from a partner were homosexual or bisexual men (compared to 3.3% of straight men).

So...that's decided it then, it's just that men are more violent and the problem lies with them...

Well...no. The same survey revealed that 12.4% (the largest group) of those that suffered violence from a partner were lesbian women.

Of course, all this is academic as NO domestic violence is justified and anyone regardless of sex or sexual orientation could be affected by it.

This is NOT a 'battle of the sexes' but the notion that "Domestic violence against men? Well, that's obviously other men then" made my blood boil so I wanted to bring in some stats.

@ItsMEhooray

You can be as ignorant as you want love but it won't change the fact that it happens and is a huge problem.

That whole article is about women as the victims of economic abuse at the hands of men, with real life examples of men doing it to women.

Then it mentions the available statistics and that's literally the bit you take issue with?

The only further mention of men in the whole article is when they tell another story about a man financially abusing women, it would be fair to say that the article was entirely concerned with the plight of women wrt economic abuse

But we're talking about 3 lines in it like it was the point of the article

I knew a couple years ago, who were in a very toxic relationship, she would get rat arsed drunk and punch, kick, bite him etc. He put up with it for years then decided whatever she did to him, he would do back.

Height wise they were similar, he had friends who told him 'fair do's' when he explained he would give as good as he got.

The difference was, when she punched him he had a bruise under his eye, he punched her back, and fractured her eye socket.

She kicked him in the shin, he had a bruise, he kicked her back, her shin split and required stitches.

No one is saying men cannot be, or are not victims of assault, what the lady above did was absolutely violent assault, the difference is, women tend to come off far worse.

Even in the OP's survey, men see being denied beer money as abusive, women however are being denied money for food for example, something vital to actually live. No one will ever convince me mens abuse is on par with womens. It is astonishingly rare for a female to kill her male partner as a result of a sustained period of domestic abuse, unless she has 'snapped' in self defence or after years of assaults by him.

Yes, I'd like to know what proportion of the 40% of men are being harmed by other men and I suppose for the sake of equity what percent of women are being hurt by other women.

Then I want to know the percentage of men who experience domestic abuse experience it whilst battering their female partner and suddenly acquire a genuine fear of their partner when the police arrive.

Because I call bullshit on this idea that 40% of domestic abuse against men is a) by women and b) genuine.

A former male colleague would cross check the tiniest of expenses with his wife.

We were all chatting about a game app, and mucking about, and he wanted to join in. He realised it cost 67p, and said "Ooh no, I have to check with my wife first."

He was being perfectly serious. He was on a decent salary, and hs wife was a dentist, so no, they didn't need to count the pennies.

When he quit to take on another lower paid job (he was going part time to look after their son), we gave him a bottle of whisky as a leaving gift - he said that it would probably be his last bottle, as they'd had to economise since he was moving jobs and his whisky didn't make the cut.

Not, 'I'll drink less'. Straight out of the budget, when he was caring for their child.

So yeah, you can cheapen some as 'beer and hobbies' - but there are men out there unable to make such simple autonomous decisions.

"Because I call bullshit on this idea that 40% of domestic abuse against men is a) by women and b) genuine."

One of so many comments on here of a similar ilk. So we are now only inclined to agree with statistics when they support our opinion?

No. I'm inclined to agree with statistics when I know what they represent and how the information was acquired.

BlooperReel you are right. But my issue with this is that impacts of DV, emotional abuse, having finances controlled isn't just physical.

It's the emotional impact as well. Many women leave and recover from the bruises. It's the emotional pain that his harder.

When you partner shows you they think so little of you that they are happy to put their hands on you, it's a lack of respect, care, love. That takes it took. Yes women at at risk, physically, that doesnt mean that the emotional impact should be ignored.

This shouldn't be a bout who has it worse. It should be about stamping about abuse.

What happened to "we believe you"?

Does that only apply to women?

I know a man who was abused (physically and emotionally) by his partner. He was massive. But it continued to happen because he couldn't fight back, if he had she'd have called the police and had him arrested.

You have no idea what goes on behind closed doors. We should believe all those that report abuse, because nothing will change until people stop being afraid to come forward for fear of not being believed.

I wonder how many blokes mentioned not having money for beer because admitting you literally have no access to funds is embarassing?

This thread shows exactly why men don't like to admit they are being abused. When a woman is being abused & asks for help people rally; when a bloke gets abused it's a big joke or 'well more women get abused so hey ho'

Size makes no difference sometimes. I know a couple of fairly big blokes who have been abused, one physically. I asked him why he didn't defend himself or restrain her. 'Because you don't do that to women. And if i restrained her she'd tell people i was hurting her & they'd believe it as i'm bigger'

So his 5ft 4 girlfriend was whacking him with things enough to mark, throwing things at him, all things that we see as abuse against women. And he was taking it because he was brought up to believe men cannot ever hit women.

Abuse is wrong whoever is doing it. Yes more women suffer DV, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be stopping DV against men!

This shouldn't be a bout who has it worse. It should be about stamping about abuse.

It should be about who has it worse when we assess who is more likely to need shelter provision or who is more likely to end up getting killed when fielding emergency calls, for instance.