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.

Obv abuse is abuse whoever's doing it.

This discussion called to mind a video Lisageridge did about mothers, it's somewhere in her YouTube series. Very interesting. The state relies on the fact that mothers will undertake care and it doesn't matter how much they are squeezed, how poor or how abused they'll still do it. They'll go without to ensure their kids are fed. It's not anecdotal, obviously exceptions exist but it's so predictable to the extent the govt relies on it.

I don't know if the state could so unilaterally rely on men to do the same. Likely not e.g. as evidenced by giving mothers child benefit.

*Lisa Muggeridge not Lisageridge!

PBo83 pick up a newspaper and a highlighter, go through and mark all the instances of male violence, now do the same for female violence.

If on any day, between now and the day you die, you find one solitary day when you see anything close to a parity of violence between the sexes, I'll reconsider my tripe ideas on toxic masculinity.

I don't think what you said is badboys. 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.

Yes it is. I talked about the other aspects of abuse. Not just the violence.

This thread isn't about violence so why are you concentrating on that. It's about men and financial abuse. That's what was in the op.

Abuse isn't just about violence.

There’s evidence that if women are supported in the developing world their whole community benefits. So yes, whether it’s genetic or the result of socialisation women generally are more selfless and responsible with money. But not on an individual basis clearly! So yes women can financially abuse men and it’s not just beer and hobbies.

Personally it’s a fine line. I’m careful with money, DH less so but he knows this so ends up asking permission to buy things which I find odd as I’d never ask him for permission unless it was hundreds of pounds. It could appear I’m controlling from the outside and I manage all the finances, have access to the money etc. He can have it too but isn’t bothered and has no interest despite earning far more than me. His family aren’t happy about it but it works for us.

I brought up violence because I hear this thing that bruises fade but the hurt persists a lot when people talk about domestic abuse and men and women and who is doing what to whom and I think it fails to acknowledge that actual violence isn't just an unfortunate add-on, that it is qualitatively different.

I also think that it's all (financial abuse) is the same and it should be all stamped out sounds like a good line but actually it ignores or minimises the breadth of the abuse when you look at the sex of the victim.

If we find that when men are being abused it affects their access to routes to socialise then that it bad and abusive but I think it is not the same level of abuse if women who are being abused lose access to food, heat and shelter.

You're missing the point that some men are also being denied access to basics. Or did you choose to ignore those anecdotes from people?

I hate the notion that because it is happening to a minority it isn't important. The provision should be there for both. The fact it isn't needs addressing imo

Elfinablender you are picking and choosing which bits you read and which bits are relevant.

Physical violence & mental/emotional abuse are two different things, but don't underestimate how mental abuse affects someone. Broken bones are horrific & dangerous, but they more often than not heal. Not minimising, stating the obvious. But mental abuse can lead to months, often years of issues for people. Issues that affect every aspect of your life. Need to see a doctor? Trigger in your head, can only see a female doctor. Hear a bloke shouting, even if not at you? Trigger anxiety/panic attack.

Nobody trivialises physical abuse (against women anyway), but often the mental side of it is downplayed far too much.

You're being rather #notallmen.

Why pretend to post a discussion? You don't want to discuss, just pontificate and shut down debate.

I work in DV, we actually have a non gender based DV advocate, male victims are not unusual, just rarely spoken about because of the stigma. There is disproportionate abuse reported in the gay comunity - both male and female same sex partners.

I'd also drop in to the equation that DV covers all abusive behaviours in the home - that can be partners, parents , siblings, or children. We see a lot of elderly parents physically (and fnancially) abused by their children. We see a lot of single mothers physically abused by their teenagers.

Let me tell you, a lot of children try and coerce the doctors into having the plug pulled on elderly parent/s with a view to an early inheritance. There are some ghastly people out there

I don't want to discuss things that aren't directly relevant. Such as violence, and how plenty of men don't abuse women, and some women do abuse men.

Everyone knows some women abuse men. Everyone knows some men suffer financial abuse. We could just start with that premise and not have all the unnecessary debate/statements every time.

The thread is about whether the scale of financial abuse in particular is being over-estimated by/for men.

And to simply say "we should believe everyone" might be a nice idea, but many abusers (mostly men) claim their victim (mostly women) is actually the one abusing them, so there is going to be a sex imbalance in that case.

So how many victims do there need to be for you to care about any of them? Do you routinely question and undermine abuse statistics, or just those which don't fit your agenda?

Are we talking about anecdotes or data now?

I'm not saying that men can not be financially abused. I'm not saying that some men cannot be denied the basics.

The article itself points out that research that women and men interpret the shape of financial abuse differently. That among those 40% of men who experience financial abuse are those who are denied access to beer and hobbies and among the 60% of women are mostly those who lack the basis.

But the stasitic 60/ 40 mops up and washes away that difference. I wonder what the split would look like if women considered themselves financially abused when they were denied beer and hobbies?

And the difference that hides, is who is most likely to be fleeing financial abuse, what kind of help and care will they need, will they be fleeing with children and will there be services in place when they do.

Ryveeta is making a good point, although admittedly it could work from both sexes, but also considering the gaslighting and turning of truths many many posters talk about, with their partner playing the victim...

My OH during one of his many tantrums, screamed how I spent and spent and he had holes in his work shoes and he never got anything himself. I was able to walk around the house and show what I had bought in the last year, bugger all. Meanwhile he had a brand new Mercedes in the drive, delivered a mere week earlier, and asked me 1 week later, tantrum over, to come with him to help choose his new woollen winter coat, about £300, that he replaces for a new bigger one each year as he gets fatter and fatter (can you tell I'm bitter), while mine is about 6 years old. New shoes also to replace the ones not with a hole but heavily worn because he couldn't be arsed to replace them.

But he actually believes what he says and if we split, would also certainly relay his vision to anyone willing to listen.

So I'm just surprised of the posts of "I once knew a man...." and "So it does happen" after all we read here on MN.

I am also surprised at the 40% figure. My DH experienced financial abuse from his XP and whenever he speaks of it he is always met with shock and disbelief from other men. Perhaps there is a stigma attached and they don't admit to it, but I'm not sure. It doesn't seem common in our circles.

In my DH's case he was the only person working and was not permitted to spend any money at all. If he asked for money for anything she would go into a rage, make threats to leave with the DC. Over ten years he was made to sell everything he owned at car boot sales or eBay. DH's son is now a teenager and remembers an almighty violent fight about DH buying a £10 DVD.

15 years later and DH still deeply affected and hardly buys anything for himself, all his clothes come from charity shops as he's programmed into thinking that he doesn't 'deserve' to have things. DSS has also had to move in with us as his mum has smashed his TV, sold his laptop etc.

"And to simply say "we should believe everyone" might be a nice idea, but many abusers (mostly men) claim their victim (mostly women) is actually the one abusing them, so there is going to be a sex imbalance in that case."

You can't question the accuracy of statistics and then make a sweeping statement effectively saying 'If men are complaining of abuse then they're probably the guilty party anyway'.

Clearly your original post had the intention of belittling the abuse of 'the 40%' (which was open to debate) but you're now accusing the same men of actually being the abusers!

Basically, all men are bad and, if they say the woman's bad then they're just covering up their own wrongdoing. Have I missed something?

Anecdotes are helpful because they highlight that abuse happens that doesn't get reported - on both sides. And as someone mentioned above, not just between romantic partners.

A survey asking for people to answer whether they have been abused or not is basically asking for anecdotes. A survey of conviction rates is more statistical - but then ignores the fact that many, many cases of abuse either go unreported or get nowhere in the system

@joanmcc In a sexist society (which we undoubtedly live in), statistics are likely to be skewed against women, because they are collected by sexist people who likely aren't even aware of their bias. Especially on topics that are related to sex discrimination in the first place, such as domestic abuse.

For example, figures collected by the police make the ratio of victims of physical abuse sound fairly even (1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men). Now men may perhaps be more ashamed to call the police themselves when abused, but if a neighbour calls them, and they see the man injured, he is unlikely to say he was the aggressor if he wasn't (so that's unlikely to have much skewing effect on the stats). Whereas it's very common for an abusive male partner to claim to the police that his female partner hit him first, and he just defended himself, or didn't do anything at all, when it is actually the other way round. And since the female partner often admits hitting him (in self-defence), and he denies it entirely, the stats will be skewed to make it look like she's the offender and he's the victim.

Yes, all these examples can happen the other way round too (and in same sex relationships), but on a smaller scale. But I shouldn't have to keep wasting time saying that to be allowed to discuss the actual point. Or reiterating how much I care for all (genuine) victims of abuse regardless of their sex. Just take it as read.

But these researchers obviously are aware of the issue, since they looked at the free text content and saw that what some of the men were describing wasn't actually always abuse (even by their own account). Hence specifying the different types of responses, as a caveat, even if they can't conclude what percentage were actually genuine or not.

We live in a culture with a pretty high tolerance for abuse within relationships generally. Plenty of people still think it's OK to stalk a partner, spy on a partner, physically attack them and destroy their belongings if they express sexual interest in someone else - or to do all these things to deter a partner from sexual interest in others, even when that partner is inclined to monogamy, not dishonest and committed to the relationship. The 'cheated' partner who resorts to violence by way of punishing the 'cheater' is still likely to get quite a lot of sympathy, no matter how violent the behaviour was.

Plus, these days, almost everyone is anxious and scared about the future, which translates in a lot of cases to increased aggression and spite; desperate attempts to uphold your own 'status' and a tendency to want to blame, punish and hurt other people for not 'respecting' you.

The thread is about whether the scale of financial abuse in particular is being over-estimated by/for men.

No it's not. I can't prove that, like you can't prove it is. So why do you doubt the survey?

And to simply say "we should believe everyone" might be a nice idea, but many abusers (mostly men) claim their victim (mostly women) is actually the one abusing them, so there is going to be a sex imbalance in that case."

Wtf? How do you know women aren't doing that? Some people lie and always make put themseleves to be the victims of any situation. Both men and women.

Why would you assume a man saying he is abused is the abuser, but not the other way round?

On a mens rights forum somewhere, there is no doubt a group of posters mocking and questioning the statistics on sexual assault. OP is simply the other side of the disgusting coin.

But these researchers obviously are aware of the issue, since they looked at the free text content and saw that what some of the men were describing wasn't actually always abuse (even by their own account).

Not by their account. They said they were being financially controlled. Someone else decided that wasn't enough to call it abuse.

Perhaps it's just wording. Or that these men feel that bring allowed out was one of the things they felt were being banned from.

Had they have worded it 'my partner does everything they can to stop me having friend's'. It would have been classed as abuse.

OP did not make up the quote;
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 didn't say women don't do that. Every other post is a criticism based on things I (and others) haven't said.

I said most abusers are male and most victims are female. Do you dispute that?

If all abusers (male or female) lied about whodunnit and that data was published at face value as a statistic, it would look like more men were abused by women than vice versa. Should we trust that statistic? Or should we examine how and why it might be flawed?

So even if some women lie about this, more men are likely to be lying, because there are more of them doing it in the first place.