Culture

By Jacki Pritchard
Jessica Kingsley Publishers
2001

Reviewed by Loree Cook-Daniels

The gendered nature of elder abuse is still a contested topic. While it is usually reported that women are more likely to be abused than men, some of the data on which such pronouncements are based -- including, most notably, the 1998 National Elder Abuse Incidence Study -- do not weight the data to account for the higher rate of abuse among the oldest cohorts, which are overwhelmingly female.

Be that as it may, it is clear that there are male victims of elder abuse, although some may argue they are given less attention than are female victims. That’s one of the reasons why Jacki Pritchard, a United Kingdom researcher, chose to follow up a study she did of female elder abuse victims with one devoted solely to male victims. The slim (112-page) volume Male Victims of Elder Abuse reports on her findings.

As with many elder abuse research projects, Pritchard’s sample is appallingly small. She analyzes the reports of 39 male elder abuse victims from three UK jurisdictions, and interviews at length 12 male victims, aged 60 to 80. Despite this limited sample, the depth of Pritchard’s interviews and her analyses lead to some very interesting observations.

To begin with, Pritchard was startled by the men’s eagerness to talk about the abuse that had happened to them: “It is generally thought that men find it difficult to admit that they have been abused. I was particularly struck by the way in which all the men talked openly about their lives and the abuse they had experienced” (p. 70). Indeed, the study itself grew out of men’s requests to be included in what was originally designed as women-only focus groups on adult abuse that were held at senior day care centers.

Types of Abuse

The stories the men told, and the observations Pritchard makes, strongly echo the stories told by women. Two of the men, for instance, had been sexually abused, one by his wife and the other by a male “friend.” Two men Pritchard classified as having “battered husband syndrome”: “They had previously been abused physically by their wives, but both of them maintained that they had had happy marriages. Mac saw having arguments as ‘just normal’” (p. 56).

“Sam” was confined to only one room of the house, kept from the television, and not talked to by his wife and daughter. “Jim’s” wife had several times attempted to pull out his tracheotomy tube when she became angry. When Jim attempted to leave her, “she became physically violent and had to be restrained by police” (p. 53). Eleven of the twelve victims had been financially abused (for periods ranging from 6 months to 13 years), and nine of them had been neglected. Pritchard was particularly appalled to learn that two of the “neglecters” were home care recipients.

On the day Gregory came into care, it was found that there was no water supply (the toilet was completely overflowing), electricity or cooking facilities and he had run out of coal for the fire. Fleas were found in the carpets and furniture; bedding was soiled and faeces were evident on the floor. Fred had been living in similar conditions. One accepts that standards differ between individuals, but it is incomprehensible how trained home care staff could have failed to report the conditions these men were living in. (pp. 50-51).

She notes of these cases,

When these men were interviewed it was clear that they had not liked living in these conditions but had been unable to say this. Perhaps a fundamental form of abuse is that no one bothered to ask them how they felt and just assumed it was their choice to live this way. It is easy to stereotype men as not caring about how they live. (p. 51).

Women are often thought to take all “blame” for what happens in relationships, but these men also accepted what had happened: “All the men interviewed had a sense of resignation about what had happened to them, whether the abuse had been experienced in the past or very recently. None of them presented as embittered but rather with a sense of sadness” (p. 57). “None of the men apportioned blame [for their situation] to others” (p. 72). As with many other studies, including some of Pritchard’s, “the present study found that carer’s stress was not a causal factor in the abuse of the men” (p. 101).

What the Men Said they Needed

As it is with many women victims, “it was very important to most of the men to act in ways which protected the abuser. As noted above, none of the men showed malice towards the abuser and did not want to take legal action, even when they were not related” (p. 77). When she asked them to talk about their past as well as current needs, “most of them tended to focus on the present as ‘nothing can be done about the past’” (p. 58). Interestingly, of the nine men who were admitted to emergency placements (only four of which were self-generated), only one wanted to return home.

Other needs the men had related primarily to housing, finances, and legal matters. In particular, Pritchard notes, “The men who had been financially abused had little knowledge what steps needed to be taken to safeguard their assets. There was little knowledge about freezing accounts or changing joint accounts” (p. 81).

Talking about what had happened seemed to be important to all the men: “what was important to them was that ‘someone is willing to listen,’” Pritchard reported (p. 71). “All of the men were isolated either physically or emotionally,” (p. 82), “Six of the men were widowed and welcomed the opportunity to talk about their wives,” (p. 84), and “Few of the men had ever been given the opportunity to vent their feelings, perhaps because it is not seen as a macho thing to do” (p. 84).

For the two men who chose to remain in abusive situations, talking was particularly important:

Colin refused help from professionals, who he felt were ‘taking sides’ with his [emotionally and financially abusive] son. Also because he had always been in control of his life and had had a ‘responsible’ job he wanted to sort things out for himself. His need was to be able to talk; he did not want anyone to take action.... Vernon talked openly about his situation when he attended the day centre twice a week, but he also attended the survivors’ group which he found ‘good’ because ‘I can talk to you and you listen’” (pp. 71-72).

Social Services Clients

As would likely happen in any sample of elder abuse victims, Pritchard found that the “helping” system had treated some victims poorly. Two men were inaccurately labeled as having “severe dementia” when one only had a chest infection and the other was slightly confused from his alcohol abuse. Another suffered when his social worker brought him a Russian interpreter because it was “the nearest to his country”; this man had fled to England at age 20 when the Russians invaded his country. (p. 86). In another case, the victim’s pension and bank books remained for weeks in the house to which his abuser had a key, despite his requests to his social worker. Several other social workers, Pritchard suggests, “let things drift” even though the men were in emergency accommodations. “Few of the men,” she concludes, “received good service.” (p. 103).

The U.S.’s more developed system for addressing elder abuse may mean we have fewer poorly-treated victims. However, we are still well advised to remember Professor Robert Pinker’s (1978) definition of a social services client: “a person who receives what the social services call help and who lives with the consequences of that help” (p. 102).

Studying Male Victims of Elder Abuse is a step that can help keep us on the right road.