The 1960s version of this story instead ends with the husband beating his wife behind closed doors without repercussions.
Which is preferable?
Families were much bigger back then. The extended family was always around. Communities were much tighter and actually existed.
I think you don't have a good understanding of those times if you think women could be beaten around without repercussions, and honestly, thinking women are so helpless smells of sexism.
Extended family can help, but they can just as well think you deserved it or turn a blind eye.
Many cultures around the world still have such communities and they are worse on average for women.
Or, you don’t.
It is definitely true that domestic violence was in the realm of “basically normal”, I’d guesstimate 20% of households had an abusive person in them: and if you were married and your partner was not physically violent it was considered that they were a “good person”.
This swings both ways more than you think, my grandfather (mothers father) was very physically abusive, a point which he was mocked for (derisively) openly in the pub (but that’s about the only repercussion). My great grand mother (mothers-mothers mother) was abusive towards my great grandfather. Which he was mocked for (jovially) openly by the whole family.
Can you cite this — or is it a made up fact to support your pre-existing beliefs?
The normalisation of domestic violence 30-50 years ago is going to be hard to find statistically, as things like that are not going to be in crime statistics, obviously.
Everything I said was anecdotal, from the midlands in England- but it matches other experiences from southern Scotland and East Coast US.
I guesstimate 20% because it “felt” like 1 in 5 families had someone abusive in them, at least of my social class.
It was normal to hear that so-and-so hits his wife or that so-and-so has an unruly wife at home and that’s why he doesn’t come out or whatever.
Admittedly, the social class I was in (extensive use of social clubs and pubs for drinking) likely had a larger proportion of this kind of people.
But, it’s a guesstimate. As clearly stated.
The only cited number is 1.3%… and entire order of magnitude lower, and it’s since dropped to 0.5%. That is, the only documented instances are an entire order of magnitude lower.
I think you “guesstimated” a fake number to pretend your personal views are more objective than they actually are.
I stated clearly it was a guesstimate, I explained that it could be coloured by my socio-economic class.
But it is my experience that 1 in 5 families at a minimum has an abusive guardian class person at home. (In the 80s-90s)
That official statistics are off by an order of magnitude really means nothing, when the point being made is that it was so normal as to not be reported.
Additionally you’re citing individual victimisations per 1000 people as a metric, when a family can consist of 2-10 people (averaging on about 4.4, “2.4 children” being the average in the 80’s). I’m stating households, you’re citing individuals. Individuals consist of single people, children, old people and so on. It’s not what I’m claiming.
If nothing else, female on male violence is extremely underreported to this day.
I’m not saying I’m right, But your argument is entirely unconvincing.
“The rate of domestic violence declined 63%, from 13.5 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 1994 to 5.0 per 1,000 in 2012 (appendix table 3).”
- https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndv0312.pdf
Also, getting accurate statistic pre 1960s for DMV is likely going to be difficult. Here’s a short TIME piece illustrating how views on DMV can alter studies and how DMV is qualified/quantified given the times.
- https://time.com/3426225/domestic-violence-therapy/
Take a look at some of these poster, DMV was more or less normalized in the cultural ethos at the time: https://ibb.co/279sjZ2
That would be an order of magnitude below the “guesstimate” — and why I asked.
While something may feel common, it might nevertheless not be as high as 20%.
It’s okay to admit it felt common without making up statistics — and just say that we don’t have good information.
There should be some better ways, or perhaps the best we can hope for is a middle ground, because the current social state around relationships is in my opinion as much responsible for the decline in first world childbirth rate as education is.
The current system encourages easy relationship dissolution, which is fine as long as children and alimony would recognize that.
However the child support laws are stacked to extract a mans livelihood to support the woman and children, while largely denying the man of the respect as a provider and satisfaction of his emotional and sexual needs in the family. This is a major problem that seems the other side of the coin to the old ways which kept relationships stuck together after love has gone or with abusive partners.
It's still a major problem, and it's in my opinion a root cause for the decline in the rate of families forming and having children.