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.

@Boysandbuses

"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. "

I think the OP's statement of "In a sexist society (which we undoubtedly live in)" tells you everything you need to know.

This isn't a discussion on the problem of financial abuse. It's a 'Them vs Us' man-bashing thread about how men are always the perpetrator (apparently, even when they are the victim).

I didn't dispute that fact.

I disputed the fact that you claim men who claim they have been abused are probably the abuser themselelves twisting it.

I simply pointed out that you have no proof of that. And women also like to portray themseleves as a victim. It's not a gender thing. It's a personality thing.

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

Your op is based on percentages. Not the number of people.

I wonder if the report specifies abuses by a partner? Because I know a woman who’s grown up children (30’s) give her their entire wage and she gives back what she thinks they should have. One recently disabled his phone tracker app thing and her response was physically abusive. I will never stop banging on about women who abuse their kids. Well turned out, fed, polite children who live in fear. The woman I mentioned is always called a brilliant mum devoted to her kids.
None of which means I want less attention on women and children abused and killed by men.

I don’t doubt that men suffer from abuse (but not as often as women do and not as a big a risk of dying from it) but as well as being physically and sexually abused for many years by my ex, he also denied me enough money to pay the rent and bills and to feed us all. He made his own claims in family court saying I “prevented him having a social life because I wouldn’t give him any money out of rent, bills and housekeeping money to go out. He worked and prevented me from working as he refused to take care of our children or pay towards childcare.

Given my own situation I’m finding it hard to not feel insulted that financial abuse covers “she won’t give me any money for beer and fags”.

In a significant majority of cases where a man reports abuse, he has also perpetrated violence towards his partner
(Final report of the ad-hoc Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group reviewing spousal abuse policies and legislation. Canada, 2003)

www.refuge.org.uk/files/Statistics-domestic-violence-and-gender.pdf

That study says what you want it to, so it's valid, right?

userschmoozer there are so many problems with that report. I am not going to read 140 pages.

However, there's no figure quoted. It's from 2003 and it's from Canada. There's also no basis for it. All these men had been convicted? Or accused? Or there was evidence?

A report done by a charity in 2015/16 using data from 13 years ago, doesn't make it true. No studies since, or no studies that use 'significant majority'?

The charity use a varying studies. I can only assume cherry picking the ones that they can cut and paste that agree with them.

No one is disputing that women are in more physical danger from violence.

But the point talking about violent abuse. Dismissing mens abuse by saying 'ah they probably started it' is an attitude that could damage our children. I have a son and a daughter. I don't eanyveither of the to abuse or be abused. If it happened to my son, I would be disgusted if it was assumed must have started it first.

The thing that leapt out at me from the article was that Although there are no national statistics, studies of abusive relationships suggest economic abuse is present in up to 99% of them, and often the first sign of coercive control...... And that economic abuse should be recognised and criminalised.

It would seem right to me that legislation should apply to anyone who economically abuses another person, male or female, and whether they are abusing a partner, former partner, or someone else who they have another relationship with such as parent or adult child.

One concern is that this can become another way for an abuser to hurt their victim, by getting them arrested for economic abuse when all they've done is say "there's no money for beer; our child needs shoes". Potentially repeated every week (with electricity, clothes, food, bus fare etc), which could be the norm in a financially struggling household.

That is a pattern (which would be looked for, rather than a one-off incident), and if asked, a female partner would presumably agree that she'd said her male partner couldn't have any money for beer, which could be reframed as her admitting this supposed abuse.

So it's important to ensure the wording and implementation of the statute is appropriate. Which may not happen if we have flawed statistics on the topic.

A conviction for economic abuse would have to involve quite a bit of evidence and it would be hard to prove abuse if both partners are struggling.

Getting a conviction for it would be hard.

Say in my case, I worked full time. Earned decent money. Exh told me that my share of the bills was 'X amount' which keft me with basically enough money for petrol and about £30 a week, for things like work clothes, it I wanted to go out, wanted to get my daughter something etc. I had the basics like food, clothes (But not many especially for work), a car etc.

I didn't question my half of the bills because I had been condition to not question him.

It turned out that not only was I paying all the bills, he was earning far more than me, far more than he said and had money left from what I have him to put in savings. So he was saving his whole wage plus a bit of what I have him. I was paying everything. Plus a bit on top.

When I got a wage rise he said 'great, that extra can go towards bills so I took on more responsibility at work and didn't see any of it.

He tried counselling as our marriage was splitting up and admitted these things. That when it came out about how much he was earning at the time. When I asked why he insisted on taking so much from me the only answer he could give was 'I don't know'.

Anyway when I wouldn't accept these answers it spilled into physical abuse, so perhaps the financial abuse issue was less important (legally and in some people's opinions).

But would that be not classed as financial abuse. You could argue that I chose to give him my wage, that I chose to not find out how much he earned, how much the bills were etc. But financial abuse doesn't exist in a vacuum, there's lots of cohesion and emotional abuse with it that makes those choices not feel like choices at all.

Boysandbuses i would say that was definitely financial abuse! You were in a position of having no acces to money despite earning money. You couldn’t decide what to spend your money on and the “conditioning” meant you didn’t ask. Coercion meant you weren’t making free choices.
I don’t know the ins and outs but surely on production of bank statements it would be obvious that there’s great disparity. I would think it easier to prove that emotional abuse, very few people operate entirely in cash.

I’m sorry you went through that, Boys. My ex let me pay for most of the boring stuff and then spent most of his own money on himself. He just felt entitled to unlimited beer and would buy stuff or do stuff on impulse. It was horrible but not, I think, intended to control me. He was just feckless. However his attitude to shared resources was probably the thing that prompted me to end the relationship as it showed me that he was too selfish to consider the impact on me and the children. He wasn’t hiding anything.

In your case your ex was withholding information from you and was almost certainly financially abusing you to ensure your dependence. When you objected it escalated. I think the article is saying that the financial/economic abuse needs to be recognised in its own right and criminalised because it’s absolutely part of the abuse and leaves a long legacy of debt.

I get what you are saying. And it was financial abuse and should be delay as coming under emotional abuse and cohersion.

But that's my point on this thread. I could easily say 'I don't get money for some and hobbies' or people could interpret that way.

The assumption by some, that men complaining about beer and hobbies must just not have the right priorities or classifying it as 'not really abusive, have no clue to the context, the way those men can explain it, or the back ground.

It took me years to explain exactly why it was abusive. I couldn't verbalize it.

I am sure some in the survey do have the wrong priorities. You take a cross section of people, of either sex and there will always be people who do.

But you can't write off what people (men in this case) say because it doesn't sound abusive or 'abusive enough'. There could be men in exactly the same position, that I was in. Earning money and having access to money for the basics, but nothing more, while their partner (male or female) is sitting pretty.

It took me years to explain exactly why it was abusive. I couldn't verbalize it. I get this. You were doing the right thing - paying bills, working hard. You probably approve of thriftiness and good financial management so setting limits feels sensible... then somewhere aloing the line it stopped being a choice?

I can imagine that there are women who economically/financially abuse men in order to control them, so that they can't aquire enough savings to leave, and can't go out and mix with men who are more independent, or meet another woman. Men might articulate that as not being allowed to buy a beer, which makes it sound trivial. Pride might stop them saying what else is going on (e.g. emotional abuse or physical abuse).

This is an absolutely disgusting thread. ANYONE suffering from abuse is a victim and deserves to be believed and treated with respect. Far too many men are being controlled and abused in their relationship and see no way out. Suicide is much higher in males than females. Abuse is abuse and it is wrong, no matter what the gender. The perpetrator is a scumbag whether they’re male or female.

Suicide is much higher in males than females because men choose more violent methods. Women attempt suicide at the same or higher rates than men.
DV and child abuse are both high risks for suicide in adults of both sexes.

"Suicide is much higher in males than females because men choose more violent methods. Women attempt suicide at the same or higher rates than men."

I've searched Google, The Samaritans, NHS and the ONS and cannot find a single stat to support this.

As 75% of suicides in the UK are male then I find it incredibly hard to believe.

If you can refer me to a reliable statistic then I will eat my words but it sounds to me like you're trying, as a few have done on this thread, to intentionally belittle the plight of men.

More men lose their life to suicide. Some women are controlling and abusive, and use their kids as weapons against men. I see friends telling their partners what time to be home by, if they can go on a boys weekend, what friends they shouldn’t hang around etc.
it’s disgusting. Nobody has that right to make those decisions for another adult. You do not need anyone’s permission to talk to certain people or go places.

How often have you seen a woman smack a man across the face in a heated arguement or in a bar? And it’s laughed about.

I for one love to see those girls get their asses handed to them. Wasn’t there a viral video recently where the woman and her friends repeatedly hit a bouncer, and he left her stretched out on her back? He was completely right to do that. Gender doesn’t come in to it. If you strike another person you deserve everything you get.

If a woman hit my brother or my dad, I would fully encourage them to hit her back.

@PBo83
''The survey found that 7% of women and 4% of men had attempted suicide''
www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/suicide-gender-men-women-mental-health-nick-clegg

www.google.com/search?ei=6xBcXLbdPMHewQKgrr-YBg&q=women+attemp+suicide+at+the+same+rate+as+men+but+are+less+succesful&oq=women+attemp+suicide+at+the+same+rate+as+men+but+are+less+succesful&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3632.20304..20622...1.0..0.202.5465.56j8j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i67j0i7i30j0j0i10j0i8i13i30.cAakDllqGKw

@userschmoozer

Thankyou for the link, interesting (if depressing) reading.

It's not something I'd been aware of before. I wonder what the definition of 'attempted suicide' is. Totally anecdotal and not, in any way am I using this as 'fact' but I have had two friends (both male) 'attempt' suicide, one on four occasions (and is still with us) and the other, sadly, took his own life the first time.

I wonder, as the article says, whether the difference in impulsiveness between the sexes plays a part in these statistics. Further reading required I believe.

I would need a definition of attempted suicide.

Also I do think that men, generally, wouldn't admit to it even in an anonymous survey.

Dp attempted it 3 times as a late teenager. He didn't admit until he was 40. No one in his friend or family knew.

@Boysandbuses

"I would need a definition of attempted suicide"

I agree, this was what I was trying to get at (in a tactful way). There is a massive difference between thinking about, genuinely contemplating, a cry for help, and actual suicide. ALL should be taken seriously but obviously it's the last one we should be most concerned about.

The medical definition of attempted suicide is a failed attempt to take ones own life.

Suicidal ideation is the term used to describe thoughts of suicide. ‘Cries for help’ would fall under the definition of ‘

Also, there isn’t a big a ‘leap’ as you may think between attempted suicide, ideation and parasuicide - all of those things are a massive precursor of a successful suicide.

Surprised at PP being unable to find any statistics showing that men tend to use more ‘violent’ methods. It’s been proven many times, you only need to find the data on the methods used in suicides, and how they vary between the sexes.