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.

It should be about who is perpetrating the majority of the abuse when we assess how their socialisation might differ to the other and about the necessity to talk about toxic masculinity without the distracting background noise of NAMALT.

@Pissedoffdotcom

Absolutely spot on. It's not 'who has it worst', it's about the problem in general, your last paragraph summed it up perfectly.

@Elfinablender

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

• Fair enough, so you're happy to accept that it may actually be that more men are suffering than women? If you want to ignore the statistics given then we might as well just make some up and make the whole conversation pointless.

@Elfinablender A properly funded police service would not need to prioritise one abuse victim over another. That should be about campaigning for adequate funding to meet need, not telling one person that they have less value than another.

Do we have a properly funded police service?

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

Is that what we discussing?

Regarding this, each situation should be take on their own merit.

Until then, I'd like the one being battered to be attended first before the one who is having their access to finances manipulated.

Do we have a properly funded police service?

No, police numbers have been cut in their thousands over the past eight years. So campaign against that, not the victims.

@Elfinablender You do understand that men get beaten too? This isn't just about financial abuse.

Until then, I'd like the one being battered to be attended first before the one who is having their access to finances manipulated.

Yep. So if a man calls whose partner is physically abusing him, he should take priority over a woman who is being financially abused then?

So its taken on the situation, rather than the sex of the victim?

I doubt very much that a man or a woman would be calling 999 regarding financial abuse.

@Elfinablender

"It should be about who is perpetrating the majority of the abuse when we assess how their socialisation might differ to the other and about the necessity to talk about toxic masculinity without the distracting background noise of NAMALT."

Statistics show (feel free to look it up on Google) that proportionally, the worst group of perpetrators of domestic violence against their partners is lesbian women.

Maybe we should start a campaign to address toxic lesbianism? No? Because targeting a whole group of people based on the actions of some would be unreasonable (besides, I'm sure NALALT).

This is a problem that covers all sexes, genders, sexualities, cultures, races etc. and, as @Bombardier25966 said about, every victim should be treated with equal value regardless of any of the above.

I was talking about the importance of statistics, how they are collated and how it doesn't exist in a vacuum. How it is then used to make informed decisions.l about service provision.

So if we are saying, because of perhaps skewed stats, that men suffer 40% of domestic abuse it should be clear what this means specifically.

I understand that men get beaten too. Yes.

Statistics should not be used when assessing a 999 call. Response should be based on the crime being committed.

Statistics should be used for allocating spending on shelter provision. Sadly they are not, as there are still no shelters for men. Yes, there is not enough provision for women, but there is next to nothing for male abuse victims.

I also understand that women can be vicious and violent. What I think is interesting is that women aren't as vicious or as violent as men, despite the same capacity. I wonder what the difference is and hope that a good portion is down to socialisation, so there is at least hope that there is room for change.

Statistic says most economic abuse is done by men on women and is worse, by every measure when done against women, they even have a caveat to help add doubt over the claims of abuse made by men.

And mumsnet is outraged by this

If a man rang 999 because his female partner had stabbed him, by your reckoning elfinablender the emergency services would be right to go 'sorry mate, you're a bloke, back of the queue' - which is bullshit. Abuse is abuse. End of story. If someone is brave enough to come forward for help to leave that situation, they rightly deserve whatever help is available regardless of whether they have a penis or a vagina. And i echo above comments; campaign against the cuts to police forces rather than trying to belittle the idea that male sufferers of DV deserve help too.

I'm a survivor of pretty severe DV at the hands of an ex, i lost a baby to it. I am still able to see that DV can & does affect both side. Denying male DV victims support is shitty practice

Economic abuse can work both ways obviously. But a lot of what's being discussed is basically an old fashioned way of managing a household. The man earns the money, the woman budgets the income. She knows what the kids need, how much the food costs and bills are and what's left over.

There a loads of old fashion ways of living that can be used to justify abuse against women.

No. I responding to the idea that men and women experience domestic violence the same. I'm not looking at the specific post now but it was along the lines of bruises fade but the hurt men experience is just as bad.

I was saying that there is a difference between these two types of violence that needs to be explored differently that cannot be achieved if the take home message is 40% of men experience domestic violence. I'm just saying, knowing that alone (if it's correct) isn't help because actual violence, the actual physical bruises - are importantly different.

When it is run that way by mutual consent, it isn't abuse. Obviously the lines could be blurred if someone feels forced into it.
In our house DP earns the money, but all bills come from my account. When he gets paid, he transfers the amount for the bills, plus x amount for me. I have no access to his account except via the card, but 98% of the time have the card on me.

Some would see that as him being controlling. It's the way we have always done it & until we get married we won't have a joint account. No coercion. If he was doing that & i had no choice or say in it, it would potentially lean towards abuse

Elfinablender it was me who said that.

But you have read it in a vacuum. What is I said is that of course women are at risk of being hurt more (in general) physically. But that's not just how being abused works. That's not the only damage and emotionally it can be just as bad for men as it is for women.

How is that wrong?

@Elfinablender

"What I think is interesting is that women aren't as vicious or as violent as men, despite the same capacity. I wonder what the difference is and hope that a good portion is down to socialisation, so there is at least hope that there is room for change."

So you are happy to disregard the figures in the article but are happy to spout this nonsense. What is this based on exactly? Nothing would be my guess, just spewing your 'toxic masculinity' tripe without so much as some anecdotal evidence.

It's an odd and complex one. In the west of Scotland where I live women traditionally controlled the household money

I'm from the west of Scotland too. I suspect that culture plays a role, and I can see how people outside of that culture could look at a healthy marriage with the woman controlling the finances and see abuse where there is none. But I also think it is the sort of thing that a genuine abuser will use as cover, to exert control in a way that will not be perceived as abuse if the abused person tells anyone else, ways that even the abused person themselves doesn't recognise as abuse. If it was a different culture, they would use different methods.

I don't think what you said is bad boys. I think that knowing the shape of the domestic abuse is important. That the much revered statistic isn't particularly helpful. It leads to lazy assumptions about a parity of violence between the sexes that doesn't exists.