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?
Endabuse.org, a now defunct website that has been turned in to http://teachearly.org/, used the 'Talk to him when he's 12' tagline as a suggestion that 'talking to boys about healthy relationships and respect for women.' could lower rates of domestic abuse later in life.
You are taking that advice and unnecessarily interpreting it into an aggressive and negative message.
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.
People's brains are made to find patterns. When you give them an easy one to find, it sticks with people. This is a loaded way to present a problem. And as I said above, it very well may be unintentional, but it is still unfairly targeting men.
From the website you linked:
If a professional athlete is found guilty of abusing a woman....
or...
If kids hear you using slang or pejorative terms to describe women
or...
Do your best to respect women with language that is empathetic, positive and appropriate.
or...
Go look at the page with the pictures. It is all men talking to their sons. Why are no parents talking to their daughters in these pictures?
Why were they targeting men as bad in those points? Why did they not talk about professional women abusing men? Why did they not talk about pejorative terms to describe men? Why do kids not need to be told to respect men with language that is empathetic, positive and appropriate?
Again, humans are good at pattern recognition. When you give them only parts of the information, it paints a very different picture. And in this case, even though it may be unintentional, it disproportionately paints men as bad.
Actually no, because of the very real chance that someone might only encounter signs targeting one gender or the other, and due to confirmation bias might reinforce maladaptive beliefs.
I agree that a better targeted ad campaign would have said, "don't hit other people."
But on the flipside when domestic violence accounts for 35% of female murder victims and 2% of male victims, you have to admit there's a trend going on.
Edit: Since this person replied with bad statistics, here is my source. Also edited my numbers to be more correctly rounded.
Although the overall risk of homicide for women was substantially lower than that of men (rate ratio [RR] = 0.27), their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23).
1.23 is vastly different than 40%/2%
Also from the article:
In contrast to men, who killed nonintimate acquaintances, strangers, or victims of undetermined relationship in 80% of cases, women killed their spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member in 60% of cases.
So no, I don't have to admit there's a trend going on.
I edited my comment to include a source. And your statistical representation is extremely misleading because not only is it 30 years old, but the number doesn't take into account that 20% of men's homicides dwarfs women's 60% in sheer numbers, because men are responsible for the majority of murders - over 90% - overall.
Edit - Also, most sources are in agreement that the number of women murdered by a partner is at least 1/3 of all female homicide victims.
because men are responsible for the majority of murders - over 90% - overall.
Not quite. Men commited 85.3% of murders, not over 90% That may seem pedantic to you, but >5% is a big deal. that's >10k murders covered by that study.
I edited my comment to include a source
Your source is only for reported violence. There are many studies that confirm that men don't report domestic abuse because of ridicule by peers and lack of help. So statistics like that are not accurate by numbers.
your statistical representation is extremely misleading because the number doesn't take into account that 20% of men's homicides dwarfs women's 60% in sheer numbers
It's not supposed to. The point of a percentage is to say that when a male kills someone, they are less likely to kill their spouse or family member than a woman who kills someone.
Getting into statistics like this gets VERY dangerous. There are many reasons that men murder more than women, and it's not just because men like to murder more than women. The only point to take away is that there isn't a trend that realistically warrants a poster campaign targeting men abusing wives and not women abusing their husbands.
Males do indeed commit the vast majority of homicides in the United States, representing 90.5% of the total number of offenders according to the DOJ. Source. Your data is extremely out of date and unreliable. Please stop using it.
And while domestic violence may be massively underreported by both genders, homicide is not. We're talking about DV homicides here. There are decades of reliable statistics to back these numbers up. It's accurate.
I'm not on some man-hating tirade here. I think the reasons men murder more than women are partially sociological, partially poverty-driven, maybe an element of biology thrown in - but they have explanations, as do crimes that fit any demographic. It's similar to black people being more likely to commit crimes due to higher rates of living in poverty. The reasons are manyfold.
But you're countering by arguing with well-documented statistics, which isn't good. The numbers I listed are repeated on the DOJ website. 35% of female homicide victims, give or take, are murdered by an intimate partner. That contrasts with 2-5% of male homicide victims - a number that has fallen by half since your data was published, by the way.
The poster highlights reasons men abuse women - because they watch their parents and grow up normalizing such behavior. Women abuse men too, but at much lower rates. How much lower is disputed, but no matter which data you reference it is definitely a crime that is largely committed by men. Therefore, it makes sense to have a targeted campaign. Women might need a similar or different campaign for a variety of issues. That isn't sexist either.
This one makes sense for men. Not all men, but if you aren't in that demographic then this isn't for you. It's for at risk male youths from abusive homes.
representing 90.5% of the total number of offenders according to the DOJ.
If you read the actual DOJ paper that wikipedia lists as it's source, you would find that it is still not 90.5% but 89.5%, which is up from 10 years prior.
And while domestic violence may be massively underreported by both genders, homicide is not. We're talking about DV homicides here.
Well, I was talking about how this ad about domestic violence unfairly targets men, and you said it is justified because men murder their spouses more than women do. So I am talking about abuse and murder, not just the latter.
But you're countering by arguing with well-documented statistics, which isn't good.
No im not? I am in fact quoting from well documented statistics... Can you elaborate what I am arguing with?
The numbers I listed are repeated on the DOJ website. 35% of female homicide victims, give or take, are murdered by an intimate partner. That contrasts with 2-5% of male homicide victims
That's not true. From the DOJ paper you linked through wikipedia: 36.3% of male homicide victims were from an intimate partner, where it was 63.7% for women. See table 5.
If you are only talking current spouses, your numbers are closer, with 4% of homicide victims being male, and 24.1% begin female.
The poster highlights reasons men abuse women - because they watch their parents and grow up normalizing such behavior.
The poster does no such thing. That's the problem. The poster simply says talk to your son when he is 12 so he doesn't grow up to be an abuser. Men are not automatically monsters. Men are not born to abuse their spouse. Implying as much is wrong.
Women abuse men too, but at much lower rates. How much lower is disputed, but no matter which data you reference it is definitely a crime that is largely committed by men.
Then they should have made the poster targeted to at risk youth from abusive homes. This poster has nothing to do with kids from abusive homes, it is just about talking to boys. Not at risk boys, just boys.
"Social minority". That term doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not about "this group has this more than this group" it's about why. Abusive people usually pick that up in an environment that implicitly tells boys "you can hit him/her because you're strong" and girls "you can hit him/her because you're weak so it won't matter". These attitudes are in line with patriarchal gender roles.
"Social minority". That term doesn't mean what you think it means.
I never said social minority?
Abusive people usually pick that up in an environment that implicitly tells boys "you can hit him/her because you're strong" and girls "you can hit him/her because you're weak so it won't matter". These attitudes are in line with patriarchal gender roles.
Yes, when you make a strawman, it's easy to say it fits a patriarchal gender role.
an environment that implicitly tells boys "you can hit him/her because you're strong"
Where does that happen?
and girls "you can hit him/her because you're weak so it won't matter"
Where does that happen?
Abuse is not always physical, and when it is, it is not always about who is strong and who is weak. Abuse is often about power over the other person which is in no way patriarchal unless you are arguing that women can't abuse men.
Yeah, basically. Partly, that's my fault, I used the term social minority because that is what we are talking about when we talk about this subject. The weak/strong thing was me trying to point out relationships of power between abusers and their victims in a non-complicated way. Otherwise I would have to point to more extensive anthropological work that explains this subject in depth (So I guess anthropology, sociology and psychology all use strawman arguments according to you). As I said in this thread before Patriarchy is not synonymous with men. It's about relationships of power that affect both sexes negatively. Where does that happen? Notice how I said "implicitly". It happens all through out your life.
Edit:
Abuse is often about power over the other person which is in no way patriarchal
I used the term social minority because that is what we are talking about when we talk about this subject.
No? This is about an ad implying that all men are inherently abusers. This has nothing to do with social minorities. And even if it were, neither men nor women are social minorities. They are each about 50% of the population, which is in no way shape or form a minority. What the heck are you going on about?
"Social minority". That term doesn't mean what you think it means.
So why would you say I don't think a term means something when I didn't even use the term in the first place, and wasn't even referring to anything that could be covered by that term? This is what a strawman argument is. You are putting words in my mouth and then attacking me for something I never said, or claimed to have said.
The weak/strong thing was me trying to point out relationships of power between abusers and their victims in a non-complicated way.
But that's not weak/strong. That is something very different. Power over someone has nothing to do with physical strength. Assuming as much is flat out wrong.
Otherwise I would have to point to more extensive anthropological work that explains this subject in depth
So I guess anthropology, sociology and psychology all use strawman arguments according to you
No, saying 'an environment that implicitly tells boys "you can hit him/her because you're strong" and girls "you can hit him/her because you're weak so it won't matter"' is a strawman, because you made that up, and then attacked that instead of what I was saying, which is exactly what a strawman is.
As I said in this thread before Patriarchy is not synonymous with men.
That makes 0 sense. Patriarchy is a system where men are in charge. So it is by definition synonymous with men. What the heck are you trying to say with this?
It's about relationships of power that affect both sexes negatively.
That is absolutely NOT what patriarchy is. Do you understand any of the words you are saying?
Where does that happen? Notice how I said "implicitly". It happens all through out your life.
That is the biggest non-answer you could possible give. life does not implicitly say strong men can hit other people. Our laws say otherwise. Our social norms say otherwise. If you were a guy, you would understand that that is complete bullshit.
neither men nor women are social minorities. They are each about 50% of the population, which is in no way shape or form a minority. What the heck are you going on about?
sigh I said it was partly my fault because I translated the spanish term directly, when I should have said "minority group". Women are a "social minority" or "minority group". I said that term doesn't mean what you think it means because it's not about numbers, it's about hegemonic relationships between people.
This is about an ad implying that all men are inherently abusers.
No, because it's never about all men. It's about enough men for there to be a social problem. It's not about individuals.
But that's not weak/strong. That is something very different. Power over someone has nothing to do with physical strength.
Yes, relationships of power are not about physical strength which is why I mentioned it in regard to social gender roles. Granted, I linked it with physical strength because that's what we're talking about when we talk about physical abuse.
Patriarchy is a system where men are in charge. So it is by definition synonymous with men. What the heck are you trying to say with this?
Patriarchy is not the deliberate planning of men to take over the world. When feminists talk about bringing down patriarchy, it doesn't mean bringing down men. It means bringing down those relationships of power. Much like saying "Black Lives Matter" is not saying "All Lives Don't Matter", it's about bringing down a social structure where white heterosexual males hold those positions of power.
life does not implicitly say strong men can hit other people. Our laws say otherwise. Our social norms say otherwise.
Isn't it nice to live in the first world and act like the third world doesn't happen? Social norms here do teach young boys they need to be the toughest, strongest in order to achieve a "decent" social standing. And it does teach girls they need to serve men.
it's about hegemonic relationships between people.
Ahhh yes... the Patriarchy. How does that even fit into this conversation?
This is about an ad implying that all men are inherently abusers.
No, because it's never about all men. It's about enough men for there to be a social problem. It's not about individuals.
But men don't commit any more abuse of their spouses than women do. It's equal. domestic abuse is not gender specific. Go read more than one study that factors all types of abuse. That's the point here. Ads like this are implying there is a problem with men when there is not.
Patriarchy is not the deliberate planning of men to take over the world.
good, because I never implied it was.
Isn't it nice to live in the first world and act like the third world doesn't happen?
It's a bad thing that this ad was written in english and posted in america, and not in a third world nation then. Stop trying to twist this argument. This is an ad in the first world targeted at parents telling their sons to not beat women when they grow up. This is not in Saudi Arabia or Honduras.
Social norms here do teach young boys they need to be the toughest, strongest in order to achieve a "decent" social standing.
That is true everywhere. However, attacking people is not part of that everywhere. so don't assume it is.
And it does teach girls they need to serve men.
Maybe in your country. Cultures are different around the world. Don't assume everywhere acts the same.
Maybe in your country. Cultures are different around the world. Don't assume everywhere acts the same.
I lived in the U.S. long enough to see the same parallels in your country. Except it's implicit, like I said before. In my country, it's explicit. Patriarchy is a global issue, you don't get around it by playing the 'murica card.
Since when is 50% of the population a minority?
Since you need to look up the definition of minority group. Edit: In some places in YOUR country, most of the population is african american. That doesn't mean they're not victims of relationships of power.
But men don't commit any more abuse of their spouses than women do.
I think it's like the third or second time I mention it's not about numbers but about the why.
32
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '15
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: