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?

@Carla786 I think there could well be a link to poverty. We know people live in generations of poverty. We also know these people haven’t escaped because they haven’t done well at school and aren’t fully engaging in modern life. They have a different culture and the women struggle to leave. Of course the issue isn’t just these people but they do have bigger problems in terms of escape routes. DV is appalling but I think poverty, lack of a good upbringing, lack of self control and lack of wanting to improve are wired into some men do make a difference and they might well see it as normal - as can some women!

People who respond to posts on here aren't necessary engaging with a discussion objectively and become defensive when it doesn't reflect their situation personally.

DA is still prevalent in more affluent families but it is also often different because all parties often have a lifestyle and public image to protect. So it's often emotional and financial abuse rather than physical because people are more concerned about visible bruises.

It's the same with child abuse. Fewer cases of neglect but higher cases of emotional abuse or physical where bruises won't show.

It can often be harder to evidence or prove in more affluent families because of this. But also because of the bias that wealthier families are 'decent' and 'that sort of thing' doesn't happen.

You’ve employed all of your critical thinking skills and you genuinely cannot think of a single reason why that might be considered really fucking offensive? Seriously?

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 Is it more common? Or are poorer women just more inclined to be honest and open about it? With more privileged women keeping completely silent because they’re worrying about ruining their husband’s precious career? Or worrying about uprooting their children from their nice schools and having to move to a not so nice area? Or worrying about the shame and the judgement they’ll receive from their social circle? Or that DV doesn’t happen in nice middle class families? What steps did this wealth of research take to avoid these factors prejudicing their findings? Because unless they’ve taken those factors into account, that research is deeply flawed and not worth the paper it’s written on.

I always personally thought that this was down to the overall normalisation of violence in poorer communities, based on my own experience growing up in one. Men 'spoiling for a fight' after a few drinks was seen as normal to some people. Getting into a violent confrontation with a stranger over something like a spilled drink or a girl seen as 'being a bit of dickhead' (as opposed to, we all need to stay away from this person) i have never encountered attitudes like this in more well off circles, where you'd get in a physical fight with a friend or a stranger and it wouldnt be a big deal - it would be a MASSIVE deal. Obviously the domestic abuse to partners still happens. But I do wonder if the normalising of attitudes towards physically fighting others who arent your partner contributes to a bigger normalisation of violence which then leads to higher rates. Again, this is just on my own experience growing up in a deprived area.

From experience of volunteering in the DV sector, I would say coercive control underpins most forms of DA. I don't really understand why it's been separated out?
I have worked with lots of women in poverty/breadline and listened to them talk about control. When a man assaults a woman it's pretty normal for him to be sorry afterwards which is a form of control, making sure she doesn't leave, everything is good for a few days, and then for some reason he's attitude changes, an assault happens again and the circle continues. It maybe more normalised in some circles but coercive control is very often present.
abusive men don't normally just have one style of abuse, it's normally a collection.

My ex was rich and was abusive because he is an abusive man. Sure in poverty I can see how this can worsen. I was with someone who had it all and now lives in a 5.5 million house and even that isn’t enough for him and years on still abuses me through post separation.

Your very dated use of language (‘honour culture’) does rather show a lack of understanding of present day research practices and is offensive.

And whatever you say about what you meant, your op is also worded in a way that suggests you are looking for reasons to excuse dv.

If you wish to engage in an academic debate you probably need to read some more recent research. And also not rely on fiction to confirm your hypothesis.

Recent research still shows that there are higher risks of DV when living in poverty.

I’m not sure why the OP is getting quite so much stick here. I agree with all who have said that DV can happen in all walks of life - but our characters and personalities are not formed in a bubble shielded from our environments.

there’s lots of research to show that when times get tough (read- lower income, job losses, low economic prospects etc) the likelihood of violence, whether against women, children other men, increases.

Jee there’s even research to show that when communities suffer through drought, the added stress of it on relationships and families is linked to higher levels of DV. See below a government briefing on this.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extreme-weather-and-violent-behaviour#:~:text=Drought%2Drelated%20stress%20may%20contribute,a%20hidden%20but%20serious%20concern.

It’s not about excusing, it’s about understanding?

if we say there’s no difference, are we not drawing attention away from communities that might need it most, in terms of social and financial support for those trying to escape?

Totally agree @TheWildZebra . Understanding it through fiction and excusing it through language (‘honour culture’), however, only serves to obfuscate, and should be called out.

You may disagree with the OP, but 'lots of people don't fit that narrative' doesn't disprove her point. It's not 'funny' that lots of people in poverty don't commit dv - the OP said there might be a link, not that all or the majority of poor people commit dv. There is a strong link between poverty and poor dietary choices, yet there are no doubt lots of poor people who do eat healthily.

I don't find it that unlikely that the stresses, pressure and lack of autonomy that come with poverty might be more likely to give rise to violence in relationships. There is no excuse for it, and it is always the fault of the perpetrator, but that doesn't mean there aren't aggravating factors linked to life circumstances.

Increased violence is also linked to lower IQs and educational attainment.

People living in poverty are likely to to have both lower IQs and/or educational attainment.

Again, this doesn't mean that all people in those situations are going to be more violent, or that people with higher IQs and educational attainment are always non violent, just that statistically, the rates are different and the latter are likely to be less violent than the former.

There are many explanations for that too.

I’m not sure why understanding it through fiction necessarily obfuscates? Surely it presents a narrative form for people to understand the situations and circumstances in which DV can come about?

I don’t think “honour culture” is ever used in a positive way or an excuse, but rather refers to a set of misogynistic cultural practices that frequently lead to harm of women and children?

I think you weaken your own point by giving a fictional example.

Abuse is linked to poverty in that money makes it a lot easier to leave. Some women stay in abusive relationships because they don't know how they would survive financially. Money makes fleeing and setting up home a lot easier.

Definitely. Plenty of real life, recent examples and research to support OP’s point. Picking a random novel set in the 50’s in Italy, was a rather odd choice.

Not all the time, look at that BA Captain now serving time for killing his wife, he was horribly abusive to her and his salary was probably in excess of 180 grand a year, if you're an abusive prick, you're an abusive prick....

Some wealthier women are in similar situations. Particularly when they have become SAHMs or dismissed as 'ladies who lunch'.

I knew a woman whose lifestyle looked enviable.

Children at private school, beautiful home, cleaners and gardeners so she spent a lot of time at the gym and being a woman who 'enjoyed' shopping for designer clothes, l and getting her hair and nails done...

But she once confided in me that she had no access to her own money. She wasn't even allowed her own mobile phone or email account. Her husband had access to everything. Her beautiful hair, make up and figure weren't perks. They were her obligation. Her pilates class and gym sessions were her job. Her role was to look good on his arm and reflect well on him. None of it was her choice.

She wanted to leave but couldn't. It truly was a gilded cage.

Abuse can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime. That doesn’t mean that certain groups aren’t at higher risk. That applies to other things too. DV isn’t an exception.

Nobody is suggesting that rich people don't experience dv, or that all poor people do. Giving examples like this does not prove any point at all.

Of course it’s not. I do believe it’s linked to education and intelligence though, both of which are lower in deprived areas.

Levels of education will be lower in deprived areas. Levels of intelligence will be the same as in the general population, regardless of education.

No, it’s not funny at all. It’s not black and white, I’m not sure why you’re offended? OP didn’t say all poor men are abusers. That’s like saying “That’s funny, my grandad smoked for 70 years and never got lung cancer. Obviously smoking doesn’t cause cancer”.

Studies show that DV is more common among those with low socioeconomic status. That’s not to say it never happens to more comfortable people, or it happens to all poor people.

As an amateur psychologist I would imagine that men who are poorer and poorly-educated can sometimes perceive that they have less control over their lives than other more ‘successful’ men, so they exert control in a way that they can (ie. over their partners).

There is a certain income/lifestyle that is just as much of a shackle that poverty can be.