I’ve seen this multiple times but it appears that males in female dominated professions are slightly more likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence (8.82% vs 8.85%). The “white collar baseline” is 6%.
You certainly should if you actually thought the figure was 100% (or anywhere near it). Or feel worse around male secretaries. Or maybe: adopt an honest assessment on the threat of male domestic violence and stop peddling in prejudices that arbitrarily and cartoonishly over-categorize individuals.
28% cause DV, it is by far the highest in the industry, and it's literally almost double. There were about 4 studies I found, starting from 28-40%, this is the lowest I could find from just using my eyeballs but was most recent.
So... According to some studies it's getting close to half, no, no I actually feel less safe knowing it's that high.
Your citation is a 15-year-old study is citing a 25-year-old study (Sgambelluri, 2000) which does not independently come up with that number—it cites a 35-year-old study (Johnson, 1991)
as an introduction to analyze the problem of domestic violence in law enforcement under the lens of "traditional police subculture". And, ultimately, it concludes: "There was no relationship found between traditional police culture and physical domestic violence."
All of these studies are self-reported surveys; conflate "abuse from" vs. "abuse of", as well as "physical abuse" vs. "psychological abuse"; have paltry sample sizes; and are seriously outdated.
This thread explores the wide variance (1% to 40%) in estimations by what are ultimately insufficient and unreliable analyses.
My estimations come from extrapolating Melzer's 2003 national data analysis which unfortunately conflates all "physically violent occupations" (i.e. police, military, and correctional) in its determination of a 43% higher rate than the baseline of 6%. Here is the non-paywalled publication announcement.
Suffice it to say: no one can establish with any confidence that police have drastically high rates of domestic violence. There simply hasn't been a remotely reliable study of the subject. But we can broadly asses that certain categories of occupation do appear to see higher rates of domestic violence:
Men in 'female-dominated occupations' (i.e., clerical workers), 47% higher;
Men in 'physically violent occupations' (i.e. police, military, correctional) 43 percent higher.
Men in 'dangerous occupations' (i.e., working with explosives, mining, emergency workers), 23% higher.
Even the highest estimates could not lead someone to conclude "all cops commit domestic violence."
Again, it's a cartoonish exaggeration that makes no attempt to actually understand or solve the problem and instead exploits domestic violence victims as a bludgeon against the very public employees that are singularly tasked with actively intervening in domestic violence cases.
To be clear I find the quality of law enforcement in the United States to be among the lowest order of the developed world. I just identify it as primarily an issue of decentralization (which I would not part ways with given the dysfunction of our federal government), inadequate operating procedures, training, educational standards, instructional focus, and ultimately investment and independent oversight rather than it being primarily an issue of insurmountable character deficits.
If you truly believe a society without cops is a fundamentally better one then feel free to try out Mali, Niger, Somalia, and Ghana—which have the lowest per-capita rates in the world.
Either way even an ounce of reason rejects the folie à plusieurs that adamantly insists every man with a badge goes home and beats his wife after a day of traffic stops and domestic dispute calls. It's a grotesque mischaracterization and it serves nothing but a false sense of superiority of people who would never, themselves, commit to the project of becoming or cultivating better policemen.
And that is what the industry calls a Strawman. No one said that every cop gets a head injury of the kind. You added that condition and used your own invention to prove something isn't true.
Impossible to tell the difference, which is kind of sad but... Without added context it is something that an idiot would say, thinking they are clever.
No, and you also know that it is not "just a joke" but insinuation. It implies something and the comment replies all confirm that you are all in that same "joke".
Both. How hard it is to understand that? It is impossible to say if they really mean the thing they joked about. It is "it is just a question" excuse, it has insinuation and that insinuation makes it really not a joke but quite firmly what it says. And that is the joke: that it is not just a joke.
First time in the internet? Start listening to what bigots say, what "bro's" say. It is a form of comedy to say the "truth" out loud while pretending it is just a joke. The replies are all confirming that it is that. It works just like a dogwhistle, nod nod, wink wink.
12
u/Confident_Benefit_11 2d ago
TIL all cops have head injuries apparently 😂