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?

That’s not true, IQs are on average lower in poorer areas for a few reasons. Poor nutrition impacts IQ, as does parental engagement at a young age. People with a higher IQ tend to move away once they’re adults, leaving only the lower IQ people to breed. I grew up in an extremely deprived area. Those that went to uni never came back. As soon as anyone had a half-decent job, they got out.

That was whole the point of my post, it's not just women in poverty...

You’re missing the fact that women in poverty ARE at higher risk of DV.

I wasn't trying to prove a point. It was a contribution to a conversation that illustrates that wealthier women can also be trapped.

Not every post someone makes is intended to contradict a previous point. Sometimes it's just to add to a conversation.

No I get it

OP, you might want to read Theodore Dalrymple’s book ‘Life at the Bottom: The Worldview that makes the Underclass’

It’s not necessarily about the underclass but anyone who grew up in poverty or on welfare even if they’re currently working in the professions…

It’s about the normalisation of violence in every day life. From men being quick to anger and ready to fight on a Saturday night out in town, to everyone wanting to appear psychopathic even when they’re not (tattooing a tear drop on their face even though they haven’t set foot in prison). To women choosing a partner mainly based on sex appeal because they think it’s a fact of life that men will beat their partners. Women being far too naive and open-minded and not wanting to stereotype men, even when the man in front of them has the energy and countenance of a bulldog.

Not true for the reasons @DreamyJade outlined.

I expect there’s higher addictions, alcohol and drug use and mental health issues in deprived areas too, which will also contribute.

But IQ tests are inherently problematic. How are you measuring intelligence? My siblings and I grew up dirt poor, on poor diets, with barely literate parents who'd left school at 12/13 and who were themselves from deprived backgrounds so had no idea that they should be helping with homework or attending parent-teacher evenings, and we have something like fifteen degrees between us. Any family tree research shows illiteracy (crosses on marriage certs etc) from great-great-grandparents back on both sides.

My point is that we can have no idea how intelligent those ancestors were. They had no access to education. There's no reason to think they would have been any less capable than me and my siblings, had they the same opportunities.

And I think you're being very short-sighted about your idea that poorer people stay where they grow up. The poor have always migrated.

If people are in poverty they're more likely statistically and practically to be depressed, to have poor quality of life, to have little education, to have addiction, to have poor quality overcrowded housing, unstable or no employment etc. They would also not be able to afford extensive MH therapy.

It's a bit chicken and egg though as DV often seemingly causes poverty.

While none of those factors make DV more likely, they make people's lives less happy and when someone's less happy they might be more likely to take out that frustration on their family. If they don't have a positive way of managing emotions.

We're not living in the 1950s. Violence against women isn't accepted by those living in poverty. Do you have any contact with working class people/people in poverty? Violence against women and children is not acceptable at all in the communities I know of. In my experience (as a social worker and someone who grew up in poverty but would now be put in the 'middle class' category), it's actually the ones in poverty who are more likely to take a stand if they are aware of domestic abuse.

I want to stress that I wasn't talking about ALL people in poverty at all. I was talking about certain environments where norms condone physical abuse of female partners. These CAN coincide with poverty sometimes. I wasn't saying most or all people in poverty live in environments that condone DV.

Good post. I agree especially re chicken or egg.

Thank you, I agree with this.

Otoh do you agree with my distinction that DV that MC women suffer may be more based in coercive control than physical violence?

This is exactly it

But nobody suggested it was.

Agree with all, especially the points on wealth.

Gloria Steinem has a great essay The Masculinization of Wealth, where she talks about wealthy women she interviewed during feminist work. She said these women weren't necessarily less vulnerable to abuse : but as you say it was more coercive, financial & emotional. She also argued that sexual abuse was more prevalent behind closed doors than people thought, which seems prescient.

Thank you, I have read Theodore Dalrymple. I think he has some good observations but overall I have serious issues with quite a lot.

I'll link to 2 articles here where he discusses DV he observed in Birmingham up to 2000. The issues I have with his stuff appear in this article: I'm not convinced that DV increased post-60s as much as he said.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-rush-from-judgment

https://www.city-journal.org/article/tough-love-3#:~:text=The%20revolution%20foundered%20on%20the,inhibitions%E2%80%94for%20complete%20sexual%20freedom.

It's also questionable the way he seems to blame DV on jealousy and posit monogamy as the solution-seems to put the onus on women to stop men being abusive. He also writes as if women just walk back to abusive men when that's almost certainly an oversimplification.

That's a good point. You can't often separate out the different forms, they usually go together

Yes, isn't that what fiction's for, in a sense? To be used as a tool to think about real-life issues. Ferrante based the novel on her own experiences, anyway (assuming she is who she says she is, she's pseudonymous)

And yes, 'honour culture' is a descriptor, not an excuse.

I should have linked to research & I'll find some later. The fictional example was to make it more vivid : I assumed some people on the thread might have read as it has been very popular, not exactly random.
But I agree that there should have been study links.

That's awful. Did she have no family who could help her? Obviously getting help isn't simple when someone has that much control...

My ex was abusive (controlling, rather than physical - although aggressive, rough sex and occasional 'accidents' was a feature).

If I hadn't kept my job, if I was dependent on him for money, my life would be very different than it is now. I would absolutely either still be suffering through with him, or living in poverty with our kids.

I've seen horrific examples of physical violence across all demographics. And the honest answer is, I don't know. Stats and studies only show us disclosed and reported cases, and interventions do tend to target support (and consequently opportunity to disclose) to more socio economically vulnerable women.
There is a thread at the moment where an OP has been unable to access a refuge because of her 'better' circumstances. Women in her circumstances may not enter 'the system' and form part of the data. Similarly, women with strong support networks and resources may survive without accessing help, and be invisible.
I think an abuser who retains control of a woman who has resources and options is obviously going to be exercising a high level of psychological abuse. Whether this is more likely instead of, or in addition to, physical abuse, there's no reliable way to know.

Good post. As you say, services will focus on women with fewer options to get away, so those with more opportunities may report less.

I suspect probably very severe psychological abuse would coexist with physical abuse, but in ways that aren't immediately visible.

That's awful an OP was denied a refuge space : what was the thread called?

"Do you think someone working for a local DV shelter should know what coercive control looks like"