I was unable to find extended statistics, but DMV rates over the past 3 decades seem to have fallen dramatically. During the 1950s there were no laws to protect battered women and assaults on women were not considered as a crime. Even in 1960 New York domestic violence cases are transferred from criminal court to civil court, where only civil procedures apply. The husband never faces as harsh penalties as he would suffer if he was found guilty in criminal court for assaulting a stranger.

“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

Sure — but if we double the other direction (from 1990 to 1960), we get 27 victimizations per 1000 or 2.7%.

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.

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.

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.

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.