Kristin Natalie
Australia is making long-overdue moves aimed at stopping domestic violence. These responses focus almost exclusively on physical injury and death. Consequently, we are not recognising the existence and impact of less obvious forms of abuse that damage women’s well-being. One particularly widespread and insidious example is economic abuse.
Economic abuse includes behaviours that limit a person’s ability to acquire and use economic resources. Women are more likely than men to be victims of this form of abuse.
Research has identified a typology of four behaviours:
The majority of women seeking support for domestic violence describe experiencing economic abuse. Typically, it is linked to psychological, emotional and often physical abuse, although women may experience economic abuse even when they are not physically hurt by their partner.
Australians are less likely to recognise economic abuse as abuse compared to physical forms of violence.
Economic abuse has wide-reaching effects.
It leads to women’s and children’s material deprivation and social exclusion while living with an abuser. It is difficult for a woman to leave a physically violent partner when she is financially dependent on him. When an abuser limits access to economic resources, his partner will struggle to secure stable housing and meet day-to-day costs when she does leave.
Interfering with education or employment can make it difficult for women to find a job. Those women who have experienced economic abuse are less likely to do well in financial settlements on separation. Women may be jointly responsible for debts accrued by their abusive ex-partner.
Economic abuse magnifies the financial precariousness women face through lower pay, fragmented paid work and insufficient superannuation. In short, economic abuse can contribute to a lifetime of economic struggle for women.
Economic abuse does not necessarily end when a relationship does. After separation, abusers can use institutional processes to continue their controlling behaviours. Men can use family law and child support processes as a way of directly or indirectly controlling their former partner and undermining her financial security and self-reliance.
My recent research has also highlighted the ways in which men under-report income, withhold child support or request multiple changes of assessment as part of a broader campaign of control over their former partners.
How to respond
The first step is to take economic abuse seriously. This necessitates a shift in how we understand domestic violence more broadly.
Public and policy responses to violence against women are most commonly informed by what American activist and academic Evan Stark has described as the domestic violence paradigm. This equates abuse with discrete incidents of violence. Australia’s dominant paradigm does not recognise the power dynamics at the core of ongoing abuse.
In contrast, coercive control identifies power, not physical violence, as the crux of domestic violence. It provides a more accurate insight into the diverse strategies abusers adopt to render their partners fearful, vulnerable, isolated and dependent. Economic abuse is one such strategy of domination, limiting the victims’ agency and autonomy.
Within this understanding, it is not surprising that existing legislative responses to economic abuse have not been particularly successful.
Read More in The Conversation
Australia is making long-overdue moves aimed at stopping domestic violence. These responses focus almost exclusively on physical injury and death. Consequently, we are not recognising the existence and impact of less obvious forms of abuse that damage women’s well-being. One particularly widespread and insidious example is economic abuse.
Economic abuse includes behaviours that limit a person’s ability to acquire and use economic resources. Women are more likely than men to be victims of this form of abuse.
Research has identified a typology of four behaviours:
- controlling a partner’s acquisition of economic resources (including interfering with education and employment);
- preventing a partner’s use of resources;
- deliberately generating debt or exploiting a partner’s resources;
- refusing to contribute to expenses.
The majority of women seeking support for domestic violence describe experiencing economic abuse. Typically, it is linked to psychological, emotional and often physical abuse, although women may experience economic abuse even when they are not physically hurt by their partner.
Australians are less likely to recognise economic abuse as abuse compared to physical forms of violence.
Economic abuse has wide-reaching effects.
It leads to women’s and children’s material deprivation and social exclusion while living with an abuser. It is difficult for a woman to leave a physically violent partner when she is financially dependent on him. When an abuser limits access to economic resources, his partner will struggle to secure stable housing and meet day-to-day costs when she does leave.
Interfering with education or employment can make it difficult for women to find a job. Those women who have experienced economic abuse are less likely to do well in financial settlements on separation. Women may be jointly responsible for debts accrued by their abusive ex-partner.
Economic abuse magnifies the financial precariousness women face through lower pay, fragmented paid work and insufficient superannuation. In short, economic abuse can contribute to a lifetime of economic struggle for women.
Economic abuse does not necessarily end when a relationship does. After separation, abusers can use institutional processes to continue their controlling behaviours. Men can use family law and child support processes as a way of directly or indirectly controlling their former partner and undermining her financial security and self-reliance.
My recent research has also highlighted the ways in which men under-report income, withhold child support or request multiple changes of assessment as part of a broader campaign of control over their former partners.
How to respond
The first step is to take economic abuse seriously. This necessitates a shift in how we understand domestic violence more broadly.
Public and policy responses to violence against women are most commonly informed by what American activist and academic Evan Stark has described as the domestic violence paradigm. This equates abuse with discrete incidents of violence. Australia’s dominant paradigm does not recognise the power dynamics at the core of ongoing abuse.
In contrast, coercive control identifies power, not physical violence, as the crux of domestic violence. It provides a more accurate insight into the diverse strategies abusers adopt to render their partners fearful, vulnerable, isolated and dependent. Economic abuse is one such strategy of domination, limiting the victims’ agency and autonomy.
Within this understanding, it is not surprising that existing legislative responses to economic abuse have not been particularly successful.
Read More in The Conversation
No comments:
Post a Comment