Domestic abuse: does it happen in rural areas????

I want to offer a few thoughts about a report out recently from the National Rural Crime Network , “Captive & Controlled”  about domestic abuse in rural areas.

You might not imagine that domestic abuse is an issue in rural areas, but the report shows that it is. Rural victims of domestic abuse are only half as likely as urban/suburban victims to report it. They spend an average of 25% longer in an abusive relationship before being able to get out of it. For victims in rural areas getting help can be more difficult as support services are in the towns, public transport is scarce and communications – mobile signals and internet- are poor compared to urban.

Close knit rural communities can be wonderful places to live, but can be manipulated by abusers. It can be difficult to the point of being impossible for a victim to be taken seriously when the abuser is seen by people outside the home as a fine upstanding pillar of the local community. The report says that that traditional male patriarchal society can reinforce this difficulty (though I don’t think the report quite appreciates the way male/female roles have changed and are changing in much of rural society).

One of the control methods commonly used by abusers is to isolate their victim, to separate them from friends, colleagues, other family members etc. And this can be done more easily when living down the end of a long track or in a village where many of the houses are unoccupied as holiday homes.

The compilers of the report are to be congratulated in recognising that “rural” covers a wide range of different areas. They appreciate that rural areas differ enormously from urban and from each other, a distinction which is not always made. Each and every different rural area brings its own unique challenges and joys.

I was interested in how the church features in the report.  It notes that,

“We had constant references to local sports (football and cricket mainly) and of course the village pub, which for many places remains a last bastion of the community outside the church which is likely to open its doors far less frequently than the pub.” (p 31)

There is a challenge here to rural churches to open their doors much more frequently than the report suggests it does. Or, where doors are already open, make sure that villagers know and that welcoming signals are given.   Even if, unlike the pub (where they still survive), the churches can’t be staffed when open there is no reason why churches can’t be open as places of quiet sanctuary. I do know people who use churches in this way. And there’s no reason why there can’t be good quality resources about domestic abuse to help victims realise what is happening and to signpost sources of support.  This would be building on the good work the church is already doing. The report shows that twice as many rural victims who were able to exit an abusive relationship found the church a source of support compared to urban – though at 7% compared to 3% there’s still a lot of room for improvement!

Domestic abuse does happen in rural areas and the church is uniquely placed to respond.   One case I knew of, the victim chose to live with the abuse, not to try to exit.  Their decision to do so was respected and what support that could be given without inflaming the situation was offered. When the abuser died there was delight and relief in the victim’s voice in the phone call to a neighbour (a church person) saying, “He’s dead!” The funeral was interesting but seemed to enable the victim to pick up the rest of their life and move forwards.  As church we are privileged to be able to support people in abusive relationships. I hope the church will build on the existing good work in the light of this report.