To think some forms of poverty can be linked to DV? [Title edit by MNHQ]

[Carla786]

I was reading an old thread on this with stats showing links between DV and poverty on here a few days ago and most people strongly disagreed with the OP. It got me thinking..
I feel a lot of the time people were talking at cross purposes. I don't think coercive control-based DV is less likely to happen to women who aren't in poverty. But I do think other forms probably are connected to poverty.
On here a lot of people treat DV as synonymous with coercive control often : as in they assume it involves a large amount of mental manipulation by the abuser as well as physical violence (if that occurs, of course some abusers only abuse mentally/emotionally).
But I think that overlooks that some forms of DV operate differently and this can link to poverty. If you've read (or watched) My Brilliant Friend, I think Stefano's physical and sexual abuse of Lila shows well what I'm talking about. Violence is normalised overall in their area (a poor area of 1950s Naples), men take out their economic frustrations on each other and on their wives. Moreover, Lila is seen as too independent for a girl and neighbourhood see it is right for Stefano to 'discipline' her physically and force sex she doesn't want. There's no attempt to hide the abuse.

Obviously the book shows a specific kind of environment and plenty of men live in poverty without ever considering physically hurting their wives, but I think in some environments it can become normalised in a way that differs from coercive control.
Coercive control as I understand from people close to me who've experienced it is much more likely, if it involves violence, to be equally bad but is much more likely to be hidden. The abused will not typically have a peer group who endorse the abuse so they will be more calculated and tend to present a 'nice guy' image.

So , TLDR : AIBU to think that coercive control-based DV isn't linked to poverty but that other forms of DV can be?

It absolutely can be linked to poverty, financial abuse in particular. Doesnt make it acceptable though.

You think men in poverty are beating their wives because of economic frustrations and that nobody makes an attempt to hide it because it’s only those outside of poverty who would condemn the abuser? Please tell me I’ve misunderstood and that’s not the unbelievably offensive thing you’re trying to say. Do you think these men would stop being violent if they won the lottery?

With respect, it doesn’t sound like you have much understanding of domestic violence or poverty.

I wrote, with added italics: ' Obviously the book shows a specific kind of environment and plenty of men live in poverty without ever considering physically hurting their wives, but I think in some environments it can become normalised in a way that differs from coercive control.'
I am sorry, I should have been clearer that I didn't mean people in poverty in general. But specific forms of poverty can be tied to social/environmental norms including ones to do with violence & specifically DV.

The poverty of the 1950s Neapolitan environment in My Brilliant Friend is specifically intertwined with honour culture- this obviously isn't true of plenty of poor environments but it can be in some. Another example would be some more rural Southern areas of the US : traditionally honour culture was strong there and this was connected to DV.

The only thing I believe DV is truly linked to in this day-and-age is ‘one’s brain being wired incorrectly’.

Oh the poor ‘poor’ men forced to abuse their wives. Ffs why have you even given this a second’s thought, let alone written a long post about it.

Really important to not focus on poverty. DV can be perpetrated by and suffered by people at all level of financial positions.

lets not try to confine perpetrators and victims/survivors to only being one “type” of person.

Someone living in poverty is likely to have less resources and lack of options to get out at the first sign of a red flag.

I work fulltime and have more than enough savings to walk out the door and never look back if I had too.

Me at 18 - single parent, suffering malnutrition due to not enough money to feed both me and DS would have been totally stuck if I had been in an abusive relationship.

It has nothing to do with poverty, It is simply a matter of visibility. In wealthier households, abuse is often hidden behind closed doors, managed with money, reputation, or influence. In poorer households, it’s more likely to come into contact with services, so it gets recorded and talked about more often.

I partly agree with this : but otoh wouldn't wealthier women potentially have more resources and opprtunity to access services? They might also have more education and ability to get a higher paying job if they need to leave.

Of course, though, this is often not the case : a woman may have more education and opportunities but still have great difficulty accessing due to coercive control : plus if she's taken workforce time out that may impact too.

This is surely part of it : I'm glad you're in a better situation now. 💐

I don’t disagree, that’s essentially the point I was making. Women with more financial resources are often better able to access help and support.
What I meant, though, is that poverty or wealth in itself isn’t the cause of domestic violence.

I think this is nonsense.

It’s possible that DV is more visible in poorer areas. But I personally know quite a few women who have been in this situation. They are from all walks of life and education levels.

the reason wealthier people don’t talk about it? Maybe it’s the social stigma? I have a very MC, affluent friend who doesn’t recognise her H as abusive even though the neighbours have called the police on him. She actually holds the same opinion as you funnily enough. Thinks it’s just poor people who experience it, so doesn’t seem to admit what is happening to her.

Maybe wealthier people have the means to hide it better ( bigger house- not living on top of others). The men perpetrating the violence are probably more aware it looks bad to hit your wife, so inflict injuries where people can’t see. Also, I think if they have careers and reputations to protect, they May be less likely to physically abuse, and use other forms of control and abuse.

I’ve worked with women who are victims of DV. DV happens across all walks of life. It’s not linked with poverty. Some of the worst cases I’ve been involved with were white middle class and Asian well off families.

The Asian communities are especially difficult to deal with, as DV is very well hidden. Families close ranks and pretend everything is fine. Abused women, from that community, are kept quiet and are prevented from accessing help.

A white middle class woman asked for help, after she was almost killed. He controlled her by threatening the children and the pets.

The biggest facilitator of dv imo is isolation. Women with functional mothers/families have an escape. Those who don't are more easily stuck.

My great gran taught my gran that if a man raised his hand, you go home. My gran taught it to my mother, my mother to me, me to my dd. And if anyone laid a finger on dd, ds would have the old first XV on a mission.

Great gran was born in 1880 btw, long before divorce was easy.

people with disadvantaged backgrounds often have very little support structures around them. no extra money, poor health with less access to treatment, unavailable family support it all adds up to poor coping skills (alcohol/drugs maladaptive communication strategies etc.)
and yes it increased the likelihood of abuse; emotional, verbal, physical, financial etc.
Socioeconomic Risk Factors for Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence - CAWC

It’s funny though, isn’t it, how many couples (including me and my dh), manage to get through years and years of real financial struggle without any sort of violence.

I actually find your view appalling. Abuse is always a choice.

I think for previous generations, it's been a combination of poverty and environment/education. If you read the thread about our 1970s childhood, there was an element of 'show for the neighbours '. The 'rules' on how we lived, 'not in front of the neighbours ' and a need for a man to be seen as head of the household and fixed gender roles, then wider sexism, give rise to an increase in DV. We didn't see it as DV. Just as giving in to sex demands in marriage, wasn't seen as rape. These days that doesn't apply. Poor mental health via poverty, lack of choice via poverty, poor physical health via poverty etc, then means that DV can be a consequence and connected. We often seek out what we are used to, our boundaries are eroded and we normalise bad behaviour. In some cases then poor self esteem and the need to not be alone, means that DV/toxic relationships aren't rejected. So I'd say no to your question, but it isn't a simple no. You can heal people without taking them out of poverty. I see a lot of generational trauma in my peer group.

If you google ' is domestic violence more common in poor communities' there is a wealth of research that indicates it is. Some people are also less likely to report it, particularly if they don't trust the authorities.

I’m not sure why people are saying this is offensive, it seems rational to me. It doesn’t mean all families living in poverty are going to experience domestic abuse. But self evidently there is a link:

• Areas where there is endemic poverty are far more likely to have traditional perspectives on division of labour between the sexes and the role of women. Poverty tends to increase hypermasculinity and inequality between the sexes because women become one of the few assets a man has so control over them becomes a point of male pride
• In areas with fewer jobs there are likely to be fewer women working and with access to their own resources and it’s harder for them to leave if they’re experiencing abuse
• Hyper traditional societies tend to avoid educating women, or at least they deprioritise it, fuelling the difficulties for women in particular to emerge from poverty

This has been documented all over the world in numerous cases. I don’t understand why it’s controversial?

Where have I said that financial difficulties excuse abuse? Or that it's not choice?

That is NOT what I think.

What I DID say is that SOME domestic violence against women in poverty is connected to violence being normalised in some environments as a way for men to take out their frustrations on women. I did NOT say this was the ONLY pattern, or an excuse.

As I mentioned, this can link to honour culture (as in the 50s Naples example).

Thank you! Excellent post explaining it very well. Honestly, it seems like some pps read my post carelessly: I know it's a sensitive topic but that's not a reason to misread what someone says and assume the worst.

I think you’ve chosen an unfortunate book to reference as an example if it’s set in the 1950’s. You’re then dealing with attitudes to DV from that time period in addition to the economic factors. I think it’s a complicated subject to unravel and although I think you’re probably broadly correct it’s tricky to differentiate coercive control from other forms of DV - I just don’t think it’s that neat.

Yes, there is a definite link, with women living in poverty more like to be victims. I think people feel some reluctance at acknowledging this as they feel it stigmatises WC and poorer men, and minimises the cases of DV towards MC woman. Its considered (by some) more helpful to keep the focus of MVAWG as a sex based issue, rather than muddy the waters, as they see it, with intersectionality. The stats are there though.

I don't think that's what people are saying when they draw attention to the link. It's more that poverty gives men greater means, motive and opportunity to abuse. Its not suggesting it turns non abusive men into abusers, or that poor men are innately more likely to have the potential to abuse. Rather that for potential abusers poverty creates an environment where triggers are more likely, opportunities more prevalent and the victim often less able to escape.

There is a definite link to increased risk /occurrence between poverty and DV. It’s ok to acknowledge it and look at how things can improve. What isn’t ok , is stereotyping, prejudice and assumptions. What isn’t ok, is seeing what you want to see because someone is poor. What isn’t ok is ignoring/forgetting about victims that are in ok or even good financial circumstances. If you can strike that balance , it’s all good.