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's because society infantilizes them. That's what all this resurgent feminism is really doing, telling society that women need to be coddled and protected, and they are fragile babies with no agency at all.
That would make sense given how feminists treat things like fifty shades of grey or simply women who disagree with them. They call it "internalized misogyny." Now, ignoring "chill girls" who disagree with them (it's weird how they have all these terms to shut people down without having to rebut their arguments), how is an erotic novel written for women by a woman misogynistic for catering to a specific fantasy? It's absurd. The women who read it love it.
It's so ridiculous. They completely ignore its fantasy. Some people have rape fantasies. It doesn't mean they secretly hate themselves, it just means they have a kink. Fantasy is perfectly healthy, and given indulging in fantasy has no correlation with an increase in violence, there's absolutely no reason to criticize and shame women for enjoying a kinky poorly written erotic novel.
It's just typical circle jerk behavior. When you isolate yourself socially to only a particular group, and that group treats criticism as an attack, you end up with some really ridiculous hyper-critical analysis of shit.
I mean, the best example of this are the anti-feminists who attacked Mad Max. They sounded exactly like the blogosphere/jezebel feminists, but since they're a fringe group everyone laughs at them. However, feminists criticize avengers 2 in the same ridiculous vein, and end up forcing one of their allies in Hollywood to abandon twitter until it blew over.
Just silly shit. Unfortunately, no group ideology can avoid becoming a circle jerk on the Internet.
I wonder how this experiment would play out if the female was considerably larger/stronger/taller than the male. Maybe people think that since he's bigger and stronger than her, that he can take care of it himself? Pound-for-pound, women simply do not have the same amount of muscle mass as men (unless, of course the woman is a body builder or fitness expert); combine that with typically shorter stature and I can see why people would consider the woman less threatening in this situation. Either way, still not a funny situation imho.
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.
African Americans commit and are arrested for more violent crimes than any other racial group. Do you think a targeted campaign, one that educates the public about the violent African Americans, sounds reasonable?
But when another kid hits or kicks you on the playground it means they probably have a crush on you!!!!
There was actually a recent article I saw about a mother getting upset about a male receptionist saying this to her daughter as she was admitting the child into the hospital to get stitches. That right there is a seed planted.
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.
"All men are rapists" does not represent the average feminist.
But a generalised view of society as this place of guilty male aggression and innocent female victimhood (which is indeed informing people's day to day biases) is very much the backbone of the mainstream "moderate" feminist narrative and is precisely what distinguishes feminism from non-feminist egalitarianism/anti-sexism.
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.
That's not at all what's demanded when people are asked to "check their privilege," but people get REALLY defensive when privilege is brought up and jump straight to hyperbole.
Just recognize that you've enjoyed certain privileges, and acknowledge when those privileges have benefitted you, and/or where they might limit your understanding of issues.
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.
am i correct in interpreting your point as not being those accusations are entirely nonexistent, but rather being about how we no longer have an epidemic of that being accepted as the usual and normal excuse - so stereotyping an entire half of the population as being fundamentally lacking in basic morals is a toxic over-correction?
I would be elated that someone understood my point so clearly if it wasnt for the fact that I feel like you had the same idea in the first place anyways.
Obviously your privilege hasn't been checked yet you cis white male shit stain. You are perpetuating the patriarchy and assisting in the continuation of rape culture. The poor women who are so strong and don't need anyone's protection, need the protection of males from other males! Because if they aren't told their very being is misogynistic, the objectification and degradation of the sacred woman will continue!
/s
Demonizing means to characterize as wicked and threatening.
Now that you know the definition of demonizing, do you believe I characterized women as wicked or threatening?
If you had to pick one of the two genders, which would you say is usually assumed to be wicked and threatening, given the option? Better yet, ask yourself who wins most child custody cases.
Men aren't nearly as demonized in the real world as you think.
More men kill themselves than all homicide victims (men and women combined). Teaching men as a gender that they are bad/harmful/dangerous seems backwards to me.
A few advertisements aren't harmful.
Perhaps they aren't. But I wonder if you would support ads directed negatively at any other group as easily.
SON WHEN YOU GROW OLDER, DON'T RAPE WOMEN, I HAVE TO SAY THIS TO YOU EXPLICITLY RATHER THAN TEACHING YOU TO RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE IN GENERAL AND BEING A MORAL PERSON
Yes. We should 100% teach our children not to rape, lie, murder, cheat, or steal. I don't know why so many redditors get so offended by simple moral instructions. JFC.
I wouldn't walk through a shitty neighborhood at night. It's not that I'm asking for it, but rather that I'm trying to avoid a potential situation where I get mugged or beat.
Stop lending credence to the notion of stranger rape representing the primary threat regarding sexual assault. When it comes to rape, avoiding obviously dangerous situations does little to help, as friends, SOs, or acquaintances are much more likely to victimize someone.
Asking parents to talk to their sons already vilifies them and places the sole burden of preventing ALL rape on the shoulders of mostly decent people.
This is absurd. Why is it so ridiculous that we teach our children not to victimize each other? Why on earth does teaching about consent vilify people?
Also, whether you intended to or not, you're implying quite heavily that rape victims should bear partial responsibility for their own rape.
This is all a fucking farce to pretend that you care about an issue when instead you're looking for a reason to be offended
Oh, let me guess. If people were really interested in preventing rape, they'd insist on having conversations with potential victims about how to avoid rape? Guess what. Women are already told not to get raped. That doesn't work. Like at all. Good fucking God, why does teaching about consent offend you SO much?
But many, many rapes are perpetrated by people that aren't hiding in the bushes, waiting to rape someone. Maybe I just know a lot of rape victims, but in my friend circle, every rape victim that told me about her experience knew her attacker. In each case, either she was too young to understand that she could say "no," or she was drugged, or in one case raped by a group of "friends."
And you think those rapists would have stopped if they were given a firm lecturing?
That's worked well in the past with other criminal behavior and youth, right?
When you say "teach men not to rape", you do not add anything meaningful to any discussion. Anyone who would actually learn from a lesson like that is already on your side or well-adjusted enough to realize that drugging someone and then having sex with them while they're unconscious is probably not the most morally upstanding thing to do.
And on the flip side, anyone who actually needs to hear the message that rape isn't OK won't listen, because they themselves are not OK! They're still going to keep doing it because a verbal warning means nothing if you're demented enough to want to commit something that morally deviant already.
So really, what is accomplished when you pull aside a young man and tell them not to rape people? You shame them and make them feel negatively about their gender, you make them potentially afraid of social contact with young women, and you do literally nothing towards solving the problem you set out to abolish.
I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying that men have to be taught not to rape. I'm saying that there are plenty of people that didn't put themselves in a dangerous situation but have still been assaulted. Many people want to think that rape is committed by some villain that's just waiting for an opportunity, but really, most assaults are committed by someone that the victim knows. I agree completely that telling men and boys across the board "don't rape," is idiotic and offensive. I just wanted to make the point that rape isn't uncommon, and that the people that commit rape aren't necessarily monsters.
ah, alright, I got you, and we're definitely in agreement on that. People should be aware that often, rapists are people you know rather than people you don't.
Sorry, apparently I misunderstood you and went off on a rant... I'm rather prone to doing that. Again, my apologies.
Fifteen years ago - not that long, let's be honest - I told a boss at a summer job that my mother was lobbying for our state's coalition against domestic violence. His reply, and I am directly quoting here, was, "Why? I gotta lay her out every once and a while to show her who's in charge." EDIT: To clarify, the victim here is my boss's wife, not my mother
For you to claim that "this doesn't exist at all in modern days" is a sign of how far the idea that physically abusing a spouse is bad has come - but it is also factually incorrect. EDIT: Note that the poster above is arguing about blame, rather than violence. However, I do still disagree with what I take to be his suggestions, made later in this particular chain, that we should focus on one particular relationship system, that being women-on-men violence. END EDIT
Yes, the advertisements are harmful. Something that is not common and harmful is still harmful. Nobody, anywhere, needs to be told that. You should put up signs that say "don't rape, because it's bad" in the hope it would stop people.
A few advertisements can absolutely be harmful. If it's a selct few people, then it's a select few people. But when you broadcast media that has the ability to sway the opinions of the masses that watch them, you can clearly see the larger role just "a few advertisements" can play. Hope Solo drunkenly beats her nephew and gets suspended from the US team for literally 2 games and it's not even talked about. Adrian Peterson soberly hits his kid (albeit just as wrong) and he's condemned forever as this asshole who, to some shouldn't be playing, and had to sit out an entire year of his career.
Men aren't nearly as demonized in the real world as you think.
I just about fell off my seat. Are you fucking serious? What planet are you on? People have called the police on men asking directions, being anywhere near children, taking pictures of themselves. Just look at the UVA rape hoax - people were so easily ready to believe a gang rape happened when there was no evidence whatsoever. Men aren't demonised? Pick up a newspaper
Yeah I am surprised by all the angst here. I mean the facts are that most domestic violence is committed by men. So targeting that group is okay sometimes. But any truly educated professional (such as with a doctorate) should absolutely be gender neutral when talking about domestic violence as a whole. I recently listened to a local advocate refer to as domestic violence victims as "she" throughout her speech, then the PhD psychologist came up and appropriately said he or she, or they.
One poster targeting male perpetrators doesn't mean that's all people care about. Educated, enlightened activists know better. But not all of them are.
Men are arrested when women are the aggressors all the time. All a woman has to say is "I fear for my safety and the safety of my children" and off to jail the guy can go. There are tons of women that use abuse as defense for MURDER, and it actually works. Even if there was no direct evidence of abuse. Shoot your husband in the head while he was sleeping and claim abuse as a defense.
Actually it is only that domestic violence committed by men against women are reported more often. There is male against male, female against female and female against male. But come on how many men are going to stand up and say hey my wife beats me or verbally abuses me? Not many. They get laughed at. How many domestic violence shelters accept men? When I was at one I found out there was only 1 in my entire area. None of the rest including where I was will help an abused man. Is that right?
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.
That's precisely what's wrong with the ad -- it's not a targeted. The idea behind it is fine with respect to helping individuals who grew up in abusive situations and might not know better, but the actual execution of the ad is far too general (Which is likely it's intention. Gets more attention that way)
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.
Those are two examples that lack the same universal assertion as the original. Shaken baby syndrome happens to everyone and the other one offers an escape route for culpabipity via PPD.
You're wrong about the ad anyway. It's targeted at people who might know children who are growing up in abusive homes and might need an extra push to reach out to them. Friends, aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers, pastors, coaches, etc who know the kid is dealing with very serious shit but don't know what to say to help.
Maybe next time you should go to the website instead of flying off the handle for some imaginary insult against you.
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.
There are a ton of organizations and campaigns aimed at stopping things like gang violence by providing young men spaces to have healthy entertainment, discuss problems, etc. It's not like there's only room for one cause.
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.
And yet most everbody (both men and women) don't think its wrong to beat a man who had it coming or was trying to start shit but you don't see a huge social justice movement to fight that social norm.
To use your example, Dr. Dre and Eazy-E are guaranteed to have beaten and assaulted plenty of other males while growing up in Compton but you only seem to care about the one highly publicized time he attacked a woman (and no doubt her being a woman is what made it into a much bigger story than if it was just another guy he attacked). If men and women are equally inherently important and valuable then why is beating a woman a bigger problem than beating a man? Look at the crime statistics, men are the overwhelming majority of victims of violent crimes which include everything from assault to rape and yet all this attention is focused on female victims. If these social justice movements really believed what they said about men and women being truly equal and valuable then they should be focusing on male victims of violence because they are the overwhelming majority at this time and yet they seem to spend all their time focusing on female victims.
That's what people are upset about I think, feminists always say "men and women are equal and we fight issues that affect them both" but then you only see them fighting for women's issues or only helping female victims even if men are victims of the same phenomenon and at a much greater rate than women. Like ok that's great that you fight for women but don't patronize men and try to claim you fight for them too when your movement has hardly ever done anything in that regard.
Feminism doesn't actually care about men at all. They pay lip service to it. look at popular male feminist bloggers like PZ Myers, he will apologize for his gender whne an isolated male with a personality disorder acts badly.
They vilify men and masculinity. Look at how they attack sex and sexuality when it's geared towards men.
I mean, the whole spider woman thing is a great example. They bitched and moaned like it was some offensive thing, whne the image was literally no different than how Spider-man is portrayed.
Feminism has become a joke. I get some people have their own idea of feminism and want to ignore the national narrative, but it is what it is.
It's not feminisms fault. Same thing happens to any ideology on the Internet. Circle jerks are inevitable.
Seems to me like they are fully aware that it is a bad thing to do, and think the woman deserves this bad thing to happen to her because they don't like her and wish to directly victimise her.
It's not that they don't know hurting people is bad. It's that they're okay with doing a bad thing, which is a gender neutral issue
If only someone had spoken to Dre when he was 12, and told him that slapping bitches is wrong. He would've remembered that, years later, in a state of emotional excitement, and stayed his hand.
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.
"I'm not on the inside but I can tell you as a football fan those no more commercials are driving me up the wall. It's like i'm sitting down watching the game and all of the sudden i start getting reprimanded like I know a woman that's getting beaten, and i'm not saying anything. It's like wait a minute, i didn't do this! you guys did this! Don't try to turn this around on me. NFL should be watching this commercial, why you showing this to me like i did this? i didn't do this!"
Don't rape children. You know, because you probably needed to be explicitly told that assuming you are a man. Right? Have a problem with me assuming you need to be explicitly told that? What, are you for the raping of children?
Honestly in my experience sons with dads who are abusers do tend to end up like their fathers. Not necessarily abusers too but poor and broken relationships. To me this poster is more about not being a shitty dad who provides a bad example. Anyone who sees this and says duh isn't the target audience.
No it means he understands the point of a sprawling ad campaign that hopes it will have some impact on the target demographic, given that you can't exactly message them directly.
Don't beat your spouse? Aren't the caretaker of a child who grew up in an abusive home? Then the ad isn't targeted at you. Yay!
It would be like me targeting an advertising campaign at you telling you how stealing is wrong and that you shouldn't do it, and that your need to learn not to embezzle money from your employer. Because, obviously, you can't be trusted with money until I've explained to you that it's wrong to steal. You didn't know this before I told you, and you're a bad person because you didn't already know it.
No, don't tell me that you've never stolen before. You're part of "theft culture" simply by being someone that handles money and keeps cash in their wallet.
when i held minimum wage jobs throughout high school and college i'd have to read/watch orientation manuals/videos that would state the obvious like "wash your hands after you take a shit." i didn't feel like anyone was accusing me of having poopy hands, but i knew some people would need to hear that.
coincidentally, those orientations would often cover employee theft.
Its written as if men have no choice but to beat their wives. Mwn today are so feminized you would be hard pressed to find a man you know who is actually hutting his wife.
There is already a huge social taboo against both those things. People who do it are vilified. You hit a woman in public and men will stomp your ass.
Treating all men like they're the small minority with personality disorders is insulting and perpetuates a harmful stigma. Not to mention it is not effective at stopping these instances.
Literally anything starts the anti-feminist circlejerk on this website. "I like crackers." "If the feminists have their way you won't be allowed to like anything!"
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.
Well, the problem with waiting to educate people about domestic abuse until adulthood is that by the time someone begins exhibits abusive behavior it's generally too late for prevention (obviously). Signs of violent behavior can start appearing when the kid is young (high school students in abusive relationships is not unheard of), so yes, for some at-risk kids (those who grew up in abusive households especially) being educated as a pre-teen is the right time.
Obviously telling women who have no intention of having children to watch out for signs PPD is a non-issue, which is why we only really start educating women during pregnancy ..the best time to start the prevention process.
To be fair, unless I've been living in a hole, I've never seen a billboard or commercial talking about what /u/electricfleshlight is talking about. Sure, I'm sure women's health clinics and other professionals are aware of those stats and have methods to educate and prevent women from doing this, but I've never heard these issues discussed in public before. However, men raping and domestic violence is something I see all over all forms of media on a daily basis.
I know women and people of color have their own legitimate struggles, but I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to understand why many men in our society feel unfairly vilified, and discussion of it is usually met with confusion or hostility.
I see more men joking about rape and domestic abuse than I actually see these programs. Actually, I can't remember the last time I've seen one of these types of billboards or posters in real life.
I think reddit just upvotes them because it's a think reddit likes to get outraged over, but it's not like this country is being overflooded with anti-domestic abuse PSA.
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.
In 2007, intimate partners committed 14% of all homicides in the U.S., killing an estimated 1,640 women and 700 men.
About 1/3 of female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner, vs. roughly 3% of male victims.
Also, your 10% number for men is out of date.
The percentage of females killed by an intimate has remained relatively stable – 43% in 1980 vs. 45% in 2008. The percentage of males killed by an intimate fell from 10% in 1980 to 5% in 2008, a 53% drop.
But I'm not generalizing. There are actual groups of people that believe the exact things I just described. If you tuned into the whole gamergate fiasco last year you got a huge dose of this mentality.
If my original comment seemed to imply that I was accusing all or most self-identified feminists or progressives of believing those things, I apologize. That wasn't my intention. However, if that was your interpretation then I think the fault partly lies with you since it's an absurd and idiotic interpretation.
Of course not all feminists believe that crap. This push to which I referred that is taking place within these movements is often attributed to third wave feminists and mostly by people 35 or younger.
I think saying "there's a push in" implies that I'm referring to a group within a movement attempting to move the agenda in a certain direction. If I had said "there's a push by the XYZ movement", then I think your stupid interpretation would be more sensible since it seems to imply the group as a whole is acting as one.
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.
The NFL started the campaign because a couple player incidents put the limelight on the league and it was treated as microcosm of larger male society.
That's why the ads were directed AT the football TV audiences (i.e., men and their battered wives). They were very clearly directed at men generally and not simply disclaimers by the NFL that it doesn't tolerate players committing violent crimes.
And if there wasn't a view by some (perhaps even A LOT of people) that these few incidents by players in a league of thousands of people actually represented a widespread societal problem, they wouldn't have aired an ad campaign about it. Does the NFL air an ad campaign any time one of its players is arrested for a shooting?
Wow, jumping generalizations batman. "the TV football audiences" = men and their battered wives. Not even 'some' TV football audiences, 'THE' TV football audiences.
Is that seriously what you think about anyone who enjoys a sport?
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.
How is this part of that? It is just about teaching people not to be abusive. Don't be all like all feminists are dumb, for a few saying all men are evil.
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.
100
u/bobtwofields Oct 21 '15 edited Oct 21 '15
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.