> More recent research from 2009, which imo has a far superior methodology and a larger sample size, says that "over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime"
Which means 12-13% _admitted_ committing physical domestic violence, what has to be a significant undercount.
This comment previously had a statement saying that there was a current of domestic violence. That is a false statement. The author was kind enough to clarify and respond in the comments below. My sincere apologies.
Statistically women should have much less concern for safety since they are less involved in violent altercations and men in general don't tend to attack women, unlike what popular culture these days tries to make us believe
Even the NCADV puts it at 85%, which is still under heavy dispute from researchers in the gender symmetry disciplines of IPV research. A 2010 CDC report still puts men much higher than this: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a...
Wow. That's especially amazing considering that the claim of similar domestic violence rates actually supports the progressive axiom that there are no innate psychological differences between men and women.
> women are stalked and victims of violence more than men
This is going to be a bit off-topic now, but I'd say by violence above only physical violence is meant. If verbal and psychological abuse is included, the balance isn't quite so obvious.
To first paragraph, no. Male employment going in did not lowered domestic violence. Only female.
Male employment going down compared to female did lowered it. Simply, if that person materially depends on another, he (or she tbh) is less likely to be abusive or violent ton the source of money.
Statistically, poor people divorce more often. Middle class and rich people have more stable marriages, actually.
Poor and lower class women still leave relationships. Both partners then go to live with parents, friend or to even worst housing.
We cannot know that. It has not been researched, and the victims don't talk about it.
There was a time, in Finland, when everyone assumed that domestic violence is "almost entirely about men", research proposals were ridiculed and not funded. When they eventually studied the topic, 20% of the perpetrators turned out to be women, and in aggravated assaults 50%.
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).”
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.
Thank you for confirming my point that the domestic violence rate as reported in divorce proceedings far exceeds that as reported to police, by two orders of magnitude. (Presumably some of the reports to police are false, which lowers the actual rate even further. Many such reports are filed on the advice of divorce attorneys, after all.) Doesn't that seem like a fact that a serious journalist would include?
Although men are not hospitalised by tha violence in anywhere near the same numbers as women. Men are not murdered by their partners as often as women are.
reply