4 ms·

> the husband beating his wife behind closed doors without repercussions Families were much bigger back then. The extended family was always around. Communitie

> the husband beating his wife behind closed doors without repercussions 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.

johnny53169 4y ago
Are you seriously trying to argue there was less domestic violence back then? Extended family can help, but they can just as well think you deserved it or turn a blind eye.
lyaa 4y ago
I would argue that you are overestimating the help women used to get from extended families in terms of protection from abuse. That kind of life came along with rigid societal expectations, extremely limited economic opportunities for women, and harsh views on divorce. Many cultures around the world still have such communities and they are worse on average for women.
dijit 4y ago
> I think you don't have a good understanding of those times if you think women could be beaten around without repercussions 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.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  > domestic violence was in the realm of “basically normal”, I’d guesstimate 20% of households had an abusive person Can you cite this — or is it a made up fact to support your pre-existing beliefs?
  - dijit 4y ago
    It’s a guesstimate. As stated. 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.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      Okay — but that’s just you making up facts. 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.
      - dijit 4y ago
        No, I’m sorry, I’m not going to drop that point. 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.
greedo 4y ago
I was born in the Sixties, and my parents married in the Fifties. The idea that everyone lived in the same area they were born in was already not the norm. I think between the Great Depression and WW2, the difficulty of moving to new places became much lower. So there were many families that didn't have multiple generations under one roof. And even so, that didn't prevent abuse from happening.
HomeGear 4y ago
Hilariously off base. There were multiple mechanisms used to keep women from talking about abuse - not just physical. Divorce was shamed, “airing dirty laundry” was shamed, the economics of leaving, etc.

johnny53169 4y ago

Are you seriously trying to argue there was less domestic violence back then? Extended family can help, but they can just as well think you deserved it or turn a blind eye.

lyaa 4y ago

I would argue that you are overestimating the help women used to get from extended families in terms of protection from abuse. That kind of life came along with rigid societal expectations, extremely limited economic opportunities for women, and harsh views on divorce. Many cultures around the world still have such communities and they are worse on average for women.

dijit 4y ago

> I think you don't have a good understanding of those times if you think women could be beaten around without repercussions 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.

zmgsabst 4y ago
> domestic violence was in the realm of “basically normal”, I’d guesstimate 20% of households had an abusive person Can you cite this — or is it a made up fact to support your pre-existing beliefs?
- dijit 4y ago
  It’s a guesstimate. As stated. 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.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Okay — but that’s just you making up facts. 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.
    - dijit 4y ago
      No, I’m sorry, I’m not going to drop that point. 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.

greedo 4y ago

I was born in the Sixties, and my parents married in the Fifties. The idea that everyone lived in the same area they were born in was already not the norm. I think between the Great Depression and WW2, the difficulty of moving to new places became much lower. So there were many families that didn't have multiple generations under one roof. And even so, that didn't prevent abuse from happening.

HomeGear 4y ago

Hilariously off base. There were multiple mechanisms used to keep women from talking about abuse - not just physical. Divorce was shamed, “airing dirty laundry” was shamed, the economics of leaving, etc.