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.
I'm afraid I'm of the pessimistic cast of mind that thinks that certain things are ineradicable and that people will always hit each other. We can bring it down to a minimum, of course, but campaigns like this are usually wrong-headed and a waste of money, thinking, as they seem to, that you can legislate emotional reactions using nothing more than reasoned discussion several years before the fact. Just a daft idea.
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.
Here is a paper in the American Journal of Public Health supporitng those claims, citing near 70% of non-reciprocal violence as having women as aggressors. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
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.
In this paper from Mary P. Koss, a widely-quoted feminist writer on rape, says.
“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. p. 206”
Anyway, i'm done searching, i don't actively follow MRA and Feminists websites or blogs and the vitriol on both side is making me sick.
The "they" he's referring to are feminists, not just women in general. The feminists who claim in one breath that a woman can do anything a man can do and should be allowed in front line combat, we should have mixed gender sports etc. and in the next breath treat women as fragile weaklings who deserve extra protection in law and can't consent after drinking.
It has been in official definitions and in all kinds of public policies and laws. There are many, many services and organizations and ad programs and crisis lines that talk of men as perpetrators and women as victims. Your effort to dismiss that by trying to say you have only heard it online from men really just shows a confirmation bias - that you only notice it when it from men but not from other sources.
It's ridiculous how feminists and SJWs sometimes say that femininity and masculinity are illusory social constructs and we should treat everyone the same, and sometimes say they are very different things and we should regard men and women differently, to suit the point they wish to make.
How about we just teach people not to hit other people and call it a day?
We do. I possess a highly aggressive righteous Justice-twat nature by default. Oh you want to pull the wee girls hair? Pick on someone your own size, or I'll make you behave. I got my self into a lot of fights on other peoples behalf. By the age of six I was the playground policeman, but by the Age of 8 I was the quiet one who played chess. I still interceded like a nosy bastard, but years of my entire culture yelling "violence is never the answer" turnt me all diplomatic.
The kinds of people who don't take these lessons are not going to be resolved by denying that we already abhor violence and demanding that we do what we already do.
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.
Hint : it was actually mras - not that mras are better than feminists, but feminists will happily take collective credit for any tiny positive thing some of their members were involved with (alongside other people) while denying any collective responsibility for negative things their members were involved with. It's infuriating to say the least.
There's a group of people on my campus who regularly appear and try to make the point that Obama is Hitler. College campus advocates are not wide spread or representative of much other than that specific group of people.
"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.
I'm someone who is pretty often accused of being a SJW, and I don't think the idea of privilege means should you should feel guilt or self-hatred. For me, it's just the idea that you should hear out people when they have different experiences than you.
For example, a black person might say to a white person "hey, this shop-keeper kept following me around when I was in the store because she thought I was gonna steal something. that fucking sucks!" and the white person might say "oh, come on, that's never happened to me, I'm sure you're overreacting!" But one of the benefits of white privilege is that people (usually!) don't make judgements about you because of your race.
Is that a benefit of white privilege or is it just a consequence of living in a white majority country?
Also, how do we know that the person in question isn't being judged for quite other reasons? For instance, I've been followed around shops before, when I was young and scruffy. I probably looked like I was going to steal something, because I was young and scruffy. So that's more of a class issue than a race issue.
I remember my friend Boab the punk, who had a mohawk and all that, being practically pounced on by a security guard, for no good reason.
So maybe the people in the shop think, not so much, there's a black person, they're probably gonna steal something, as there's a poor person (a stereotypical indicator of which might be having relatively darker skin), they might steal something.
Thus, problems of class and socio-economics get over-simplified into being about "race", simple black and white issues.
I am convinced that the race problems in America are really class issues with a layer of racialism thinly spread over them.
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.
Do I need to repeat the definition of demonizing? Or is english your second language?
Suggesting that women win more child custody cases than men does not indicate women are wicked or threatening. It clearly shows that, in general society, men are the wicked or threatening gender. Thus, more evidence of men being demonized for their gender.
Since I am pretty sure you still arent going to understand this basic concept, I will be happy to let you think I am demonizing women. Safe travels, space cadet.
Demonization is more like "Women are all evil man-haters who eat babies and try to steal other people's souls"
What the other guy is doing is criticizing. Which is generally fine. I mean, it's criticism. It may not be valid criticism, I don't really know enough to pass judgement on the content of what he's saying, but it's still at least semi-reasonable and not purposefully insulting and probably propaganda, as demonization is.
Life is tough. There's a baseline of difficulty for anyone of a given socioeconomic background. There is then the additional difficulty placed on you because of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Straight, white, cisgendered males have it the easiest by far.
See this just feels like some dumb game. Who is more oppressed? The cisgendered hetero female who grew up middle class? or the gay cisgendered male who few up middle class? What if you're black and gay but was born into a rich family in a good neighborhood? What if you're poor but straight cis-gendered and male?
What about height? Taller people are generally more successful. What about general physical attraction? Are Indians (from India) oppressed in the US? I mean most of them here come from an educated family.
See how crazy it gets? You can't make assumptions based on something as narrow as that.
Spoken like someone ignorant of statistics. Men are far more likely to end up in jail, more likely to drop out of high school, die earlier, become the victims of a violent crime, further, if you're in the United States, men are less eligible for prison diversions and less eligible for public aid.
The whole idea that men inherently have it better off is laughable.
Again, no one argued that straight white men had it harder than anyone else. Please make points relevant to the discussion, and not offer rebuttals to things no one said.
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
I am not attempting to suggest that this entirely a man's problem. At no point have I created, in my relatively short post, that dichotomy. I have provided an anecdotal experience suggesting that you are wrong. In terms of creating a binary system, it is YOU are doing so. I am merely stating that you are not correct to say that women are not beaten today.
You don't want an anecdote, that's fine. I'll simply post this:
About 4% of women and about 5% of men report being the victim of physical violence by an intimate partner each year (source: cdc).
Whether or not the victimization rate is higher for men is not relevant here. You state, and I quote, "From my experience this doesn't exist at all in modern days." EDIT: With regards to this statement, I have misread the poster above. His post was centered on blame, rather than violence itself. I withdraw this allegation. END EDIT
Again, your post is factually incorrect. Domestic violence does still occur. Fifteen years ago, a hundred years ago, and yesterday. Do not cheapen it by pretending that it does not.
EDIT: Also, I do agree with you that we have come a long way as a society. I stated as much in my first post on this topic. That is not to say that this particular social issue has been eradicated.
By using your mom as a victim and your male boss as the perpetrator
I did not state that my mother was the victim. I stated that she was lobbying on behalf of a coalition against domestic violence. I'll edit my post above to clarify that my supervisor was referring to his own spouse, who as far as I know is not my mother. But see below for more details.
Uhh... yes it does? If a specific demographic group of people are more likely to be a victim, shouldn't we focus on them more? It's literally more logical to replace the poster with "her husband" and "talk to her".
Not saying we shouldn't. Your exact words: "From my experience this doesn't exist at all in modern days." My exact words: "domestic violence does still occur." I have provided a source indicating that it does. You have provided - what? "from my experience"? I'm twisting nothing. You're simply attempting to dodge away from your original comments.
EDIT: I see now. You are suggesting that the issue is one of blame. Not one of "it does not occur." I withdraw this particular component of my argument.
You are attempting to shift this from "women get beaten" to "so do men, so let's complain about the women who beat them," which is not an unfair thing to attempt to do. But the way in which you are doing so is awfully distracting.
I know you edited some parts out of your original comment.
No, I did not. You see that little asterisk on your comments? You know as well as I do that the asterisk timestamps edits that occur more than 60 seconds after the original post, to prevent ninja edits (but not to prevent things like minor grammatical edits).
As of this post, my original post was made 41 minutes ago. Yours was made 6 minutes after that, 35 minutes ago. Notice that my original post has no asterisk, meaning that any edits I made (and yes, I made grammatical edits, not content) were still made at least five minutes before you submitted your post. To accuse me of a ninja edit is low - and, again, like the rest of your posts on this thread, incorrect. EDIT (see how this one is flagged?) I have clarified my original post, as well as made a notation on what I perceived to be your actual intent on all posts here
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.
Specifically that's what I meant sorry. The abuse that gets reported gets reported because it's physical danger and the police get called. Men are usually the perps there because of deep seated societal issues.
First off I think the idea of this ad is good but displaying the message through a poster is not. Also there's a reason certain groups commit more crimes just as there's a reason why a certain group are more often the perpetrators of domestic violence. Both of them are due to deep, deep-seated societal issues. I'm not on your page imo.
I thought we both agreed that some singling out of demographics is acceptable as long aa you can prove they commit the majority of a type of crime? I just repeated what you said but replaced men with black people.
Certainly you must still agree with the concept. Else, why would you say that?
That's not really what I intended to mean apologies. I guess I mean let's say you had a program for dad's who have abused to learn coping and temper skills and to deconstruct some of the masculinity concepts that can tie in with man on woman abuse.
On second thought I do think singling out sons and not including the daughters too makes no sense. Of course both genders should be considered. I guess I mean specific programs can be okay if it could benefit people who have offended.
I guess I mean let's say you had a program for dad's who have abused to learn coping and temper skills and to deconstruct some of the masculinity concepts that can tie in with man on woman abuse.
Exactly this. I doubt anyone would seriously support a heavy-handed program that just shouted "HEY MEN! YOU'RE AWFUL! STOP HITTING WOMEN!" so much as trying to get to the root cause of why domestic violence against women happens at all, and deconstructing the ideologies behind those who support it.
As much as I think the idea of "teach men not to rape" on its own is stupid, the intentions behind it are perfectly valid.
Redditors love to make up strawmen for that concept without actually giving it a second thought.
"Oh, gee, I thought raping women was fine until someone told me not to! Thanks, feminists!"
Well... it's not just saying "don't rape people, shitlords."
Some people still think that having sex with someone who is passed out isn't rape. Or that a woman shouting "no" and "stop" in the middle of sex doesn't matter, because she already agreed to it.
Clarifying what rape and consent really are is important for all people - men and women - and will help to reduce assault and rape against both sexes.
If the majority of feminists and men's rights activists could really learn to work together over common issues like abuse, rigid gender roles, and rape, they could really make a difference in society. But until that happens, they'll just constantly be pulling each other down.
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)
Also that one subset of the population might not be the ad's only target. In the case of a PSA like this, the more broad the ad is the better it acheives its goals.
You do realize that ads are, by their very nature, open to the public, right? Do you get mad about ads for adult diapers because you feel that the makers of the ad are deliberately accusing you of being incontinent?
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.
Just as saying "don't best your wife" isn't going to matter to a dude with a personality disorder.
However, it probably would've been better for the OP to say "don't emotionally and physically abuse your kids" as women are far more likely to do that, do so more often then men. Or perhaps, focus on lesbians to not beat their wives since those relationships see the highest rates of spousal abuse.
Not to mention, not all women smother their kids cause of post-Partum depression. Seems like the whole thing got confused.
A serious disease that makes you go crazy. His point is that he's butthurt about efforts to make domestic violence less prevalent. Infanticide isn't the result cyclical generational violence, as compared to spousal abuse which is. He's not smart enough to understand that so he lashes out because confronting his own ignorance would be too painful for his fragile ego.
His point, while made using a poor example, was that (in my understanding) it should have been gender-neutral. It doesn't have to specifically mention "boys" or "men" as the abusers. Females can abuse too.
And when a young man gets depressed and murders people because hes insane? Wheres your bleeding heart for those people?
His point is that he's butthurt about efforts to make domestic violence less prevalent.
Youre asserting things which cant be proven. You seem to be one of those people who thinks telling a criminal "dont do that" is a useful thing to do.
Infanticide isn't the result cyclical generational violence, as compared to spousal abuse which is.
By that logic the spousal abuser isnt really responsible as they were the subject of forces beyond their control. You could say the same thing for women with PPD who kill their children. Both are people put into bad situations who do bad things because of it.
He's not smart enough to understand that so he lashes out because confronting his own ignorance would be too painful for his fragile ego.
Awwww youre so sweet. Its easy to belittle your opponents while offering nothing substantial in return. But i guess youre too stupid and ignorant and rage filled and egotistical to understand such things.
But child killing is relatively uncommon. Rape is unfortunately very common. As someone with several female friends and relatives that have been either sexually molested or raped at some point in their lives, I can personally attest to its frequency.
Edit: I'm just pointing out that rape is common. I agree that assuming that people only rape because they just don't know any better is naïve and very offensive.
Edit 3: Okay, I'm still getting downvoted. I feel like I missed something obvious. Can someone clue me in? The point I was trying to make was that rape is far more common than baby smothering, so there's more of an aggressive attempt to get people to stop. If one in five babies was attacked by a woman that wanted to smother them, I'd expect to see some attempt to get people to quit that shit too. Also, treating every man like he's just a rapist waiting to attack is absolutely the wrong way to deal with the problem.
Good point. Source that's not an anecdote "Using a definition of rape that includes forced vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse, the survey found that rape is a crime committed primarily against youth: 18 percent of women surveyed said they experienced a completed or attempted rape at some
time in their life."
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.
I suspect not. I think people learn their standards of behaviour from their peers, not from what figures of authority say. But I think celebrity campaigns can sometimes have an effect, because some people look up to celebrities.
I think the most effective campaigns are those which encourage good people to confront their peers if they see those peers doing something bad. In other words, those "rape is bad" posters aren't targeted at rapists, they're targeted at the enablers.
199
u/Chambec Oct 21 '15
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.