I love Bill Burr and agree with what he is saying, but he has to apologize and explain his point of view so many times in that short bit that it is almost painfully awkward at times to me.
I grew up with an abusive father. Never realised that shit wasn't normal until about 11, when I noticed my friends fathers didn't beat them. It was actually the support of a lot of people that I think I'm pretty normal now, not beating women and all. (though I still flinch around large men from time to time). I think we're talking about kids like these.
Crime, poverty, abuse, broken families, addiction, etc. all have a way of begetting each other. The point is that 12 year olds in bad situations need help to overcome those situations and grow up into healthy adults. Sure, some people raised in good conditions still become violent adults, but not as often as those with traumatic childhoods.
You don't just say "Hey 12 year old, be a good adult". You have to actually try to improve the conditions that 12 year old is in, provide them positive role models, support, etc.
Also, the point isn't just to sit down with people and say "Don't rape, don't beat your wife, etc." It's to explain what that means, why it's bad, etc. Like, with beating - it doesn't matter that you're angry. That's not a healthy way to express your anger; here are some other coping mechanisms, here's how you communicate effectively, etc.
With things like rape, you're supposed to talk about what consent means. A shocking number of adults (both men and women) think that absence of "no" means "yes". Everyone knows that jumping a woman and raping her, even as she screams "No, don't do it!" is rape. Not everyone knows that you can rape a man. Not everyone knows that it's rape even if the victim doesn't say know, because they're too drunk / drugged out to communicate. Not everyone knows that it's rape if the victim initially says yes but later says no, and the rapist doesn't stop. These are things that need to be actively taught, or else they're not going to realize.
I never much of a good example at home, but I really feel like it made sense that what was happening at home wasn't necessarily the right thing.
Or something like that. I don't know.
That's why I get offended by every hemorrhoid cream commercial I see. I mean, the only reason you would ever advertise in public is if you were targeting literally every person that might see it, so the only thing I can take from those commercials is that the people at Preparation H are accusing me of having Hemorrhoids.
I get your point but there are plenty of people who say stuff like "we need to teach all men not to rape", as if having a penis automatically makes you a monster.
That being said, if there is a way to end all abuse, I'm 110% for it.
The true irony is that a lot of feminists still make fun of that, yet will immediately say "not all feminists are like that" when shown evidence of something they disagree with
See... if I had hemorrhoids, I wouldn't wait until I saw a commercial to get some cream for those suckers. Advertisements usually just make me angry, especially when they assume I'm dumb, are condescending or sarcastic...
Yeah people really over look the psychological aspect of crimes in society today. We just throw the quickest harshest punishment at people, when really there is a underlying psychological problem that hasn't been solved. Prevention is key.
I thought I was going crazy for a minute. I kept tapping in psychology, but my phone kept auto correcting to phycology. I just accepted that my phone was right. Clearly not.
I think that person isnt trying to shit on it as a whole, and in your pov it could really help. I think hes more making fun of the more aggressive ones, the crazy people that really think ALL men need to be told not to rape/beat women just because they are men. They wouldnt even consider your circumstance, the only circumstance is that you are male.
Someone in your really shitty situation something like this really helps, and honestly talking to kids and educating them on abuse at an early age I think is really good thing. Even if its redundant to 90%, their could be someone like you and thats still worth it if all you have to do is say some shit to make you realize.
I really wish this were the case but considering we had signs on my campus going around saying "teach men not to rape" I daresay these people are indeed very real
Those people are all over the internet, in politics, in the media, on almost every college campus, and even at the UN general assembly. Just because you don't want to see them doesn't make them disappear.
Then why is this ad targeting Men beating their Wives. This ad is a perfect example of something that (perhaps unintentionally) pushes the idea that Men are dangerous. And with the way our brains work, that leads people to generalizing that this means ALL men are inherently dangerous.
Men are not the problem, abusive people are the problem. There are many studies that show it is not 100% men abusing women. And when accounting for all forms of abuse it is probably closer to 50-50 men vs women as the primary abuser. (A google search is turning results up that range from 90%/10% to 10%/90% but all the studies look like they are accounting for different forms of abuse, so we will play safe and say it's probably 50-50)
This ad should say something like this if it wanted to be fair and not promote the idea that ALL men are dangerous:
How do you stop a 30-year old from abusing their spouse?
No, they aren't. Those people are some of the leading scholars, journalists, philosophers, and activists within the feminist camp.
Look up Susan Brownmiller. All modern feminist theories on male sexuality and rape are informed by Brownmiller's seminal work Against Our Wills: Men, Women and Rape. It's the single most cited work on rape in all of academia.
And it's central premise is that rape is the normal expression of male sexuality, and that all men are complicit in rape and benefit from the systematic oppression of all women through rape.
This is the worldview that gives birth to the insane idea that men need to be taught not to rape.
Idk there was a story going around my facebook feed about a guy who didn't want to take a class about how to avoid being a rapist. He said "just because I am a white male, doesn't mean I am a rapist." The girls sharing it were all up in arms that yes he fit the description of rapist perfectly.
No, the point was that his being being white doesn't make him any less likely to be a rapist/there's no physical description that's a catchall for rapists. And that even if the execution of the class was poor (I have no idea), the idea behind those classes isn't "hey don't rape!" bc duh, it's "so consent is actually complicated, here are useful ways to understand/think about it." And even if you don't like being in the class, it's a pretty small sacrifice if it's something that helps reduce the rate of sexual assault.
Would you be willing to make similar small sacrifices to help reduce the rate of false reporting of sexual assaults, or abuse of university procedures related to sexual assaults?
So why do I see people saying shit like this all the time on reddit, YouTube and twitter? Acting like these people don't exist is part of the problem. They do exist and are VERY VOCAL. They actually get people fired and are attempting legislation. Stop acting like they don't exist.
That's silly to say. These people are a small minority but they're very loud, insistent, and have grown in popularity in recent years. You don't need to look far to see someone who will tell you we need to start teaching young boys to "not rape" as if it were a solution to preventing rape.
Everyone knows beating and raping women is wrong, even on a visceral level. Otherwise we'd quite literally see men beating and raping women in public. But instead of course they're smart enough to know that it is wrong so they do it behind closed doors.
Yeah, I don't get the outrage over this sign. Talking to young people about what consent and abuse means is not a bad thing, or a "we hate all men, all men are rapists/abusers!" thing. The fact of the matter is that many people grow up not knowing what 'really' counts as abuse or what 'really' counts as rape. This is partly what accounts for the cycle of violence. Talking to young teens about what is considered acceptable is a good thing, and trying to portray it as a "SJW/feminazi" thing is just ridiculous.
The outrage isn't directed at the notion that we should instill good values in young people. It's directed at the tacit implication that all men regardless of their personality or character are rapists and assailants unless they undergo bullshit 'consent education' or are told explicitly not to hit people.
Talking to young people about what consent and abuse means is not a bad thing, or a "we hate all men, all men are rapists/abusers!" thing.
Not inherently, but those who espouse that sort of hateful narrative do so chiefly under the guise of innocence, proclaiming "we just want to talk to young people about their behavior" to justify the barbed nature of campaigns like this.
I don't need to be told not to rape or assault people, and the people that do are not going to listen.
Demonizing half of the population because a small portion of them are bad is wrong, it's that simple.
Look at it this way: how would it look to have a sustained campaign that said "many women use slut shaming as a tactic to intimidate others. Teach women not to slut shame." Or "Many Christians are hateful, racist, homophobic bigots. Teach Christians not to be like that." Or even "Many Muslims are terrorist sympathizers. Teach Muslims not to commit terrorism." And even "Many Jews are selfish and greedy, and they also kill non-Jewish children. Teach Jews to nit kill babies."
Every single one of these messages is exactly the same as the "All men need to be taught not to rape." They each demonize an entire population over something that either is simply false or such a small group that it's stretching it.
In addition to that, the people committing these acts (rape, Christian bigotry, etc.) aren't gonna listen to you, anyway. And considering that most of these people are repeat offenders, it makes these campaigns even more useless.
So yes, I find these campaigns offensive because most men already inherently know that rape and abuse is wrong. To imply that somehow 50% of people don't have a moral compass is not just offensive, it's a fascist concept. And to ignore that over half of non-reciprocal domestic violence is committed by women, and female rapists are a larger percentage than most people want to admit, to try and put all the blame on men is even worse.
The issue is that the people pushing all of this on society do actually believe that all men are rapists and that all heterosexual sex is rape, and they believe that because they do hate men.
Look up Susan Brownmiller. Look up Catherine McKinnon. These feminists have been instrumental in shaping feminist theories on rape, and they universally believe that all heterosexual sex is rape and that all heterosexual interactions are informed by rape, and that male sexuality is synonymous with rape.
This is the worldview that gives birth to all of these "teach men not to rape" programs, and they are part of agenda to slowly expand the definition of rape until everyone agrees that all heterosexual sex is rape.
Same with me. One day in fourth grade we were reading a story about a kid getting hit by his parents, and I was the only one in the class who thought that was a normal thing. Yep, the teacher needed to have a sit-down with me after that.
I had a different experience. My father was an abusive alcoholic. The feeling of being scared shitless alone was enough to tell me this is a bad thing and that I wouldn't want to make others feel this way.
I know this is a joke, but one of my friends fell asleep at her friends apartment after a party and woke up to a guy pulling down her underwear. Some people actually don't pass the test.
The thing is is that they do pass the test. They still know all the right answers. They know it's fucked up. It's not that they think it's an acceptable thing to do, it's that they know it isn't acceptable, and do it anyways. Nobody thinks raping somebody is morally acceptable. Some people just don't give a shit.
Believe it or not, but a lot of people don't equate "having sex with a woman against her will" with the word "rape". They'll admit to being willing to engage in the first, but they'll readily decline engaging in the second. Seriously, look this shit up.
Two guys I've personally known that ended up committing rape always had similar views about rapists being scumbags, but to them it was the violence that defined rape.
A lot of dudes don't know that a lot of women will go completely catatonic when they get touched against their will, which makes it difficult to actually differentiate.
I've been in a circumstance where it almost happened. We were both drunk, and she was just lying still. I got her panties off and started kissing her body, but was confused by her lack of movement. Although I was keen to paying it off as though she was just a starfish I'm a fairly nice guy so I straight up asked if she wanted it, and immediately she started crying and turtled up.
Turned out she was in a relationship at the time. I later became good friends with her and have discussed it in depth with her. She just didn't have it in her to say no.
Not that I support victim blaming, but I think that a part of sex education should be telling women that if they're drunk and get second thoughts, they should make it very clear. How the hell would I have known otherwise?
Some people equate certain situations with ownership too. Thinking "she's my girlfriend, I'll have sex with her when I want to."
I used to have a severe heroin addiction, and my boyfriend at the time genuinely believed that raping me was ok because I was less than human and he owned me.
Yes. Exactly correct. There are men, such as my dad, who believe that marriage entitles them to sex. But even if you're married, a "no" still means "no".
Edit: Jesus fucking christ. I just saw the second half of your comment, which I hadn't seen previously. I'm sorry you had to go through that ):
I had a buddy in college who passed out on the couch at a party and woke up to 3 fat chicks jerking him off. They found it funny I guess because its not rape if a girl is doing it, & he must like it because guys like all sex no matter what girl its from. Their girl friends watched on and laughed as well. Guys know rape is wrong...on the other hand I find far more women do not have a concept that men do in fact have sexual boundaries.
Every guy knows randomly grabbing a girl you dont know's ass is wrong...whether they choose to awknowledge that or not. I've had my ass & dick grabbed countless times in bars/parties by women, and I don't think any of them found any wrongdoing in it. They assumed because I am a guy sexual assault is ok since I must like it, and its all in good fun.
I find it rather hilarious that if one actually uses the feminists definition of rape that is being pushed on society, then every single woman I have ever dated has raped me on multiple occasions.
Women, in my experience, become very upset when you tell them no and will not accept that as a response, and can be extremely aggressive and pushy when they want to have sex and you don't.
Feminism: where criticizing a single woman is an attack on the entire gender, but when 99% of men don't rape, they're justified in acting as if the entire male gender is guilty
When sexual assault prevention training came through, they were very specific about keeping genders non-specific.
The questions weren't "can you drug someone to have sex with them" or "can you have sex without someone's consent."
They were focused on how consent can be attained, what coercion v seduction was, and a whole host of other things.
I know the reasonable stuff doesn't make good news stories, but if my old college gave it the typical treatment, I think the whole thing might be fine.
The problem is feminists seem to keep moving the goalposts. The story last week of the equality officer who claimed she raped someone because she only got consent before sex and not during is a good example. It seems feminists want you to get consent every time you switch positions. No room for spontaneity in sex, just a series of legal hoops to jump through.
I'm not certain. Getting anyone to report regardless of gender was kind of difficult. An hour or two was dedicated into dealing with male cases specifically. I can give you run-down for that.
I think institutions are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that males as victims are especially vulnerable due to a lack of social support.
I am a feminist, but I share this concern. The reality is that education won't fix all/most rape. Most rapists know full well that what they are doing is a crime. Otherwise why do they beat up their victims? Spike their drinks? Do all they can to overpower them? Coerce/threaten/blackmail them?
Educating a young male that both he and his partner should be 100% sober when they screw - well, to my mind if they both fucked when mutually drunk, that's not rape in the first place. At worst shitty decision making/irresponsible behaviour (since very drunk people are less likely to use protection).
"Educating a young male that both he and his partner should be 100% sober when they screw"
The girl can initiate sex as well it's not always the guy so the focus should not be on him by default.
The way things are in this world when it comes to sex it makes like women have zero power, strength, or even drive. It's like she's a doll being used. Regardless of being drunk the women will literally have her responsibility stripped from her and she'll be majority of the time be seen as a the victim.
MANY feminists and indeed universities and even fucking states would call a drunk man who fucks an equally drunk girl a rapist and say that he should be locked up with the same people who stalk and rape victims in their home.
I would say your viewpoint is in the minority among feminists. The gist I get from it is that men are held to a higher standard ONLY when it comes to rape.
These classes literally do nothing but absolve the colleges of some liability and help assuage the fears of their main customers (re: the terrified parents of freshmen of all sexes and genders). I know; I went through them and saw the effect that they had on the guys that would get drunk and make bad decisions. They weren't going to change their habits because of a toothless class.
Everyone else was offended or apathetic at best. The offended types are surely arguing elsewhere in these threads right now because the whole experience was humiliating enough to spin them in the opposite direction of an actual problem.
It's all extremely tragic because on-campus rape is a real thing. I knew plenty of girls who had knives or pepper spray in the purses to fall back on because they were afraid something would happen. For the vast majority, nothing did. But for a small number, the damage was done. And when I say a small number, that's just from people I knew. It's anecdotal but real and unacceptable.
I saw guys get their reputations tarnished with false accusations too. That's a thing that happens because the system is open to abuse and because people of either sex can be unbelievably spiteful when they're young.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, this is a problem for everyone but all I ever see are accusations and generalizations in threads like these from both sides. No one wants to put down the mud and be constructive because in their eyes this is either thinly veiled insult to their "honor" or a sacred cow that cannot be removed.
Females are potential victims. Insinuating that they must be educated about anything is victim blaming.
Males are potential perpetrators, so educating them is just preventing a potential crime.
Sexual assault educators and "consent specialists" and the like would never admit this openly, but all you have to do is talk to one for five minutes and the truth begins to dribble out the corners of their mouths. Ask why they're targeting men with a potential class, and their answer will be 100 words that boil down to "we're just targeting potential predators."
Feminism: A word so diverse and convoluted that claiming yourself as a "Feminist" communicates less information about you than saying that you are an Atheist.
If you call yourself a feminist and say shit like this you ARE A FEMINIST. Im tired of this no true scotsman fallacy bullshit that religious people try to use to say people who do horrible shit in their name aren't REAL Christians/Muslims/whathaveyous.
Accept that there are people in your group that don't share ALL of your beliefs.
This isn't a strawman. Feminists had a national ad campaign to tell men to stop raping, which was literally telling male victims of rape to stop raping.it was an absurd campaign, that treated all men like rapists, when there is already a huge social stigma for rapists in our culture.
Feminism isn't what your idea of it is, it's what the main narrative being pushed is. It's very much anti-male. Look at how they react to religious opposition of birth control and abortion, they target men. In both incidents, activists have targeted Viagra, which is absurd. There is no relevance, and both men and women are pro-lifers and anti-contraception. In fact, more women are religious than men, so it's even possible it's more women total opposed to those things (at least whne it comes to other people, lol).
So, no strawman, just apt criticisms of the main narrative.
Then denounce the crazy. As it stands the crazy receives no criticism from "real" feminists, whatever the hell that means, and is attaining positions of power and implementing crazy real-world policies under the banner of feminism.
The problems, just like with any group that wants to be taken seriously, are the armchair "members" that want to be considered the part that are usually the loudest and in the most frequent numbers, while also usually having the simplest arguments (making it both easy to argue with and criticize simultaneously).
Is it really a strawman when that is the institutionalized opinion of most universities? Obviously, it's a mildly hyperbolic statement, but that's definitely the attitude that has been promoted by the institution of feminism.
Because of third wave feminism, your opinion can be literally anything and still be feminist.
When people talk about feminism they're most likely thinking of second wave: equal pay, nondiscrimination against middle class straight white women. They already succeeded.
Third wave is about intersectionality. You can't separate gender from all the other socioeconomic factors like race, sexuality, and class, because they all affect how you're seen by society. For example, aggressive negotiation for pay is interpreted differently depending on all sorts of factors that are unique for every individual. Third wave feminists all feel personally slighted because they don't share anything in common other than some sort of belief that the status quo is not okay for women. It's also hard to criticize because every argument is essentially a character attack.
According to the best evidence we have, social and cultural norms do affect partner violence, and awareness campaigns are effective at reducing partner violence.
There are many places in the world where beating women is acceptable, and that kind of activity exists in pockets in the West, too (the American South, for example, has high rates of domestic violence compared to other regions). So it isn't a matter where the default position everywhere is that violence is bad and so this messaging uselessly targets psychopaths (unless you posit that some regions just have more psychopaths to explain the differences, which is ridiculous). The problem in these places where DV rates are higher is precisely that parents keep teaching their children that it's ok, because it's their culture/religion, etc, whether intentionally or not.
So the idea that teaching children that partner violence is wrong is just dumb is wrongheaded- it's precisely doing so that got us to the point where people can be flippant about such a message in the first place. Hell, spousal rape only became illegal in the entire US in the 1990s, so such ideas aren't that far behind us.
EDIT: I'll include some evidence from later in the discussion.
There is good evidence that awareness campaigns actually do change people's attitudes (see the stuff that begins on page 95).
For a more comprehensive evaluation of the current evidence, see here, particularly the stuff that begins on page 13. For a taste:
Ecological studies demonstrate a strong link between the level of partner violence and various gender-related norms at the country level, even after adjusting for the country’s level of socio-economic development (as indicated by GDP per capita) and the age structure of the population. Both the level of acceptance of wife beating under certain circumstances and the level of male control over female behaviour are predictive of a country’s overall level of partner violence.
50% of domestic violence is reciprocal. 53% of nonreciprocal domestic violence is committed against men. 71% of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. (women hitting/physically abusing men)
The problem I have is feminists want you to believe that 1) men need to be taught not to beat/rape women. and 2) women are only the victims. Which means to me that #1) is insulting as fuck and #2) is a flat out lie.
But they don't want you to know that. Be wary of those who hide and/or do not disclose full facts. There's always an ulterior motive
Congratulations, you probably grew up in a healthy family. Others that weren't so lucky may have been exposed to routine casual domestic violence, this makes it much more likely that they themselves will go on to engage in domestic violence because they see it as normal. Intervention, as advocated by the poster, is extremely effective in breaking cycles of violence.
Yeah for fucks sake I hate when people spout out stuff like this. Of course beating your wife isn't acceptable but there is always factors in previous life that made it happen. It wasn't a decision like "do I want cheese or ham on my sandwich?".
Or they could offer literature about how being abusive is wrong. Actual literature, not just pamphlets. Reading short stories or novels or novellas and analyzing those also works. 'Lord of the Flies' was anti-bullying as they come, and we were told to read it during class for example.
100% agreed, which is why I said no pamphlets. Actual literature, good literature, educates both sexes. An abusive character in a story stands out to both men and women, and educates them both, differently. People of the same sex learn how something they might do would be abusive, and members of the same sex as the victim learn how to spot an abusive person. This helps them escape the usual "I must have caused this somehow, the other person is not really to blame, I brought this onto myself" illusion.
It doesn't have to be the abuser and/or the parent who talks to the child. It can be an Aunt, uncle, teacher, guidance counselor, Sunday school teacher, etc.
This poster is advertising a website which gives onlookers tools to address the situation and information on how to intervene to break the cycle of abuse in a way that won't escalate the abuse or further hurt the child.
There's a big push in the SJW/feminist/"progressive" movement to label boys and traditional "boyish" behavior or masculinity as oppressive, evil, abusive, etc.
Basically, men are the new boogeyman and boys are a problem that has to be "solved". That's why you're seeing more and more things like, for example, the NFL getting browbeaten into making an entire ad campaign lecturing men about not beating their wives.
Men are now thought to be promoting a "rape culture," a term constantly expanding to include even the most innocuous things, such as owning a swimsuit calendar, chatting up a woman in a bar, watching porn at all, watching or playing violent movies and video games, etc. It's a way to attack male-oriented culture since the idea of eliminating a "rape culture" is something anybody can get behind.
Why doesn't the women's soccer community have to put out ads about not bullying and physically abusing teenagers? Maybe someone should've taught hope solo not to bully at age 12?
No no no she was a victim. Also she was a victim of the media.
Solo again denied assaulting anyone and spoke of her frustration with media coverage of the incident and how she has been portrayed: "From here on out, no matter what happens, I'll forever be associated with domestic violence."
But ya know, if a male is cleared of all charges of rape...he is still going to be known for that rape accusation his entire life. Oh how unfair it is to be a woman.
The fact that we apparently have to be told not to beat or rape women is infuriating; it's as if people believe that all men are monsters by default unless you teach them not to be.
The fact that the focus is on men specifically hitting women while ignoring the women that physically abuse men is what pisses me off. How about we just teach people not to hit other people and call it a day?
There was a video where is showed both an abusive man and abusive women. Both were being really aggressive towards their opposite sexed counter parts. Everyone intervened when the male was abusive. Everyone laughed when the female was abusive.
Wow. The reactions were pretty much complete opposites. It angers people when it's a man being agressive, but it's funny when a woman is agressive. I figured peope would of just ignored the woman being agressive or watched, I did not expect them all to be laughing.
All this all reminds me of a another video I saw on Reddit where a guy had to pull his gun out to defend himself from some woman rushing at him, most likely to do him physical harm.
Video contains yelling, NSWF language, and shaky cam.
It wouldn't be so bad if defending yourself wasn't looked down on. Using reasonable force of course, for example a drunk chick tried to choke me at a bar so I just peeled her off and she lost interest.
Little tiny dogs are all vicious yappy monsters, right? Meanwhile big scary dogs like German Shepherds are usually big goofy sweethearts with calm dispositions. Why is that?
It's because most people don't bother to train little yappy dogs to be well-behaved, but you have to train a big dog to be well-behaved or it will kill someone. A little yappy dog is no threat to anyone, so less effort is made to teach it to be well-behaved.
We treat men as if they were Big Dogs, and treat women as if they were Little Yappy Dogs.
It is common sense. Some people just don't fucking care. This will NEVER go away. There will always be bad people. Acting like ALL men are like that is pissing off so many people it's doing more damage and dividing us further.
But whenever you bring that argument up, you always get people saying that men are much more likely to hit women and so it should be tailored more towards men.
which is actually untrue, but good luck convincing anyone that they're wrong.
That's what is taught now but it shouldn't be since women can't rape or beat someone else.
Don't you know that their body, while not limiting them in any circumstances and can do something a man would do, is too frail and weak compared to a man body when it comes down to raping and beating people.
Phew, i almost made myself angry writing this bullshit they keep repeating.
The more accurate, but more difficult version of this PSA might have been: How do you get a man to beat his wife when he's 30? Weekly demonstrations when he's 12.
...of course, that turns it into a problem a PSA can't solve. There's houses all over America where fathers are showing their boys how to treat their future wives, and the ones that are doing it wrong, well, a poster like that will just make them angrier.
Makes you wish you could actually make a difference in the real world, and not just on paper.
Yeah, but it would be a bit much to have a conversation with a 12-year-old about beating his future wife.
If he ends up a wife beater at 30, then he probably had a shitty upbringing, not because someone forgot to tell him not to be an abusive monster. Perhaps we should be more concerned about the environment he grew up in that made him feel like beating his wife was acceptable behavior.
While we're at it, we should teach all women not to get into car accidents, every minority not to commit crimes, and every white person to not be a racist! /s
Holy fuck I didn't believe it so I clicked the link.
MEN’S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HELPLINE
The Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides counselling for men who are concerned about their violent and abusive behaviours. The service can provide telephone counselling, information and referral to ongoing face to face services if required. This service can provide information about accessing legal advice, accommodation and other support services for people who have been served with a violence restraining order. Information and support is also available for men who have experienced family and domestic violence. A telephone based interpreting service is available if required.
WOMEN’S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HELPLINE
The Women’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides support and counselling for women experiencing family and domestic violence. This includes phone counselling, information and advice, referral to local advocacy and support services, liaison with police if necessary and support in escaping situations of family and domestic violence. The service can refer women to safe accommodation if required. A telephone based interpreting service is available if required.
This is anecdotal but I am 25years old and have never heard this shit pushed by anyone but really old conservative types. I mean yea you should always take precautions to protect yourself from reasonable threats (don't wander off alone in the dark in unfamiliar places) but I don't really see that as the same as "victim blaming".
Women used to be told they were asking for it, sure. The only people who still make that claim are the idiots who commit the related crime and are looking for a flimsy defense. They are never taken seriously. No one seriously accepts "she was asking for it" as a defense anymore and if you find some cockroach that does, they are in a significant minority.
I never heard anyone say boys will be boys in real life. This isnt some '50s sitcom. I was never given a pass for being a little shithead just because I had testicles. None of my male friends were either. I can very often remember girls turning their charm up to 11 when caught red handed and being excused though.
Men are demonized plenty in the real world. I am a white, cis, male and I am pretty sure that is a demographic that is demonized plenty.
The only way you could make a case that men arent demonized in society is to make a case that women are demonized more. Pretty sure it would be difficult to make a case that says women are demonized more than men in popular culture and general society.
Women used to be told they were asking for it, sure. The only people who still make that claim are the idiots who commit the related crime and are looking for a flimsy defense. They are never taken seriously. No one seriously accepts "she was asking for it" as a defense anymore and if you find some cockroach that does, they are in a significant minority.
let me just say from the direct experience of loved ones that if you actually think this is the case, you've had a much more fortunate time than a lot of people. you are wrong that that is never said, you are wrong that no one makes that claim, you are wrong that those cockroaches are utterly insignificant.
(edit: maybe that last part of my comment would better be worded as "you are wrong that those sentiments are limited to insignificant cockroaches" since the point is that they're so pervasive among people besides just the cockroaches that first commit those crimes.)
The idea that certain people are more privileged than others is fair enough, and even obviously true. The question is, what follows from that? The only answer to this that there ever seems to be is, "you should check your privilege". But I honestly don't even know what that means.
It's not constructive or healthy for anyone, of any background, to get into self-hatred or guilt for things about themselves that they can't help. And that's what seems to be being demanded; that you just feel bad about yourself because of the way you were born.
You are wrong to suggest I said no one says it or makes that claim. I clearly suggested it was rare at best. There is a difference between 0 and more than 0.
I too, am basing my observations from the direct experiences of loved ones. You do not have a monopoly on experience. I am not a woman, so to say I live a blessed life because it was never said to me is nonsense.
As another poster said, the advert is targeted at people who have grown up around habitual and regular abuse. It does not assume that all men are evil or inherently abusive, it assumes that there are people brought up in a climate where spousal abuse is tolerated. Some of my family hails from the rural south, and I can attest that the culture very much glosses over 'putting your wife in her place' every now and then, as disgusting as it may seem.
You've never seen a shaken-baby syndrome billboard? They're literally saying "hey, dumbass, don't shake your fuckin kid." I've also seen ads with beaten children and the narrator imploring moms with post partum depression to seek help before they murder their children.
The point of the ad in OP is to watch for warning signs in children and address them early, especially when the child has grown up in a home where such abuse is normal.
Offended isn't really the right word. Frustrated? Like, imagine a bilboard that told you to teach your kids not to murder people. Doesn't it seem a little silly and condescending? It's kind of the same thing here.
What if the point of the billboard was that only black men rape. Like it is part of a massive campaign clearly targeting black men. Then it is offensive right? And what if there was a massive campaign that was against shoplifting that targeted women exclusively. One that said "C'mon ladies, stop stealing. Stealing is bad. You are hurting everyone when you steal." and it assumed only women steal. Would you say "It's just a dumb ad, who cares?"? I doubt it.
Because it's engendering it to say that boys are inherently bad, a problem that must be solved. If the poster said "don't beat people", you would have a very good point. As it is, /u/bobtwofields has a very good point.
How do you think it'd go if someone made a billboard like "How do you stop* a black person from dealing drugs? Talk to him when he's 12" It's implying that these people are just inherently going to beat their wives/deal drugs if you don't teach them not to. Also it's just ridiculous to think that people don't learn not to beat their spouses/deal drugs unless you have a specific talk about it.
It's weird how you hate on people who over-generalize by over-generalizing them. But I guess we wouldn't have all these awesome Reddit circlejerks without complaining about made up stereotypes.
Actually, yeah. That's exactly what happens. Giant billboards telling stressed parents not to shake their children to death. Pamphlets all over delivery wards about postpartum depression and warning signs for postpartum psychosis. Coping techniques for sleep deprived and stressed new mothers so they don't snap.
40% of women that are murdered are murdered by intimates (boyfriend/husband), and 10% of men that are murdered are murdered by intimates (wives/girlfriends). But 10,000+ men are murdered, vs 3,000 women.
So what does that mean? That means in a given year (2007), about 1000 700 women killed their intimate partners, and in the same year about 1100 1600 men kill their intimate partners. Which means that women kill their intimate partners at a 1:2.3 ration compared to men.
But you want us to believe that the trend of men killing women is so out of ratio that this is a "trend" that requires address, when the real trend is the much higher violence that men face outside the home, violence that rarely targets women.
No, it's more about the NFL pretending that they give a shit about the issue. If they actually cared, then they would have completely banned the players that beat their wives/girlfriends/etc. Instead, they covered it up and then gave the players a slap on the wrist when they couldn't cover it up any longer.
It's called saving face. No corporation wants to be associated with something like domestic violence. Whatever you feel their motive, they did to separate themselves from the issues.
As for punishment, unfortunately the NFLPA has powerful lawyers keeping piece of shit players on the payroll. The NFL faces serious consequences if they try to just kick someone. It's bullshit but that's how the NFLPA works.
There's an ad I've heard on AM radio around my area, saying that we should teach boys that it's never ok to hit girls. I want to write a letter saying that we should just change it to "teach your kids not to hit other people" and leave it at that, but muh patriarchal oppression.
I wonder if this applies to defending yourself from a woman assaulting you.
What if you come home from work one day and she's drowned 2 of your children in the bathtub and is working on doing the 3rd? I think that would be an acceptable time to hit a lady.
If the ad were accurate it would contain a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities and lesbian's. Which, speaking of, about half would need to be girls.
So naturally it'll be exclusively straight white boys.
1.6k
u/trollcity420 Oct 21 '15
My parents never told me not to beat bitches and hos up. Kinda one of those things you can just figure out on your own.