(Note: I wrote three posts on the anti-feminist attack on The Family Place: One Two Three.)
Via Womanist Musings: Men’s rights advocate Glenn Sacks has gotten some press for protesting these ads, which were created by The Family Place and were displayed on buses in Dallas through November 30:
(Image description: The image shows a boy, perhaps 5-7 years old. The boy is wearing a striped shirt and smiling at the viewer. The text of the ad says “When I grow up, I will beat my wife. Men who witnessed domestic violence as children are twice as likely to abuse their wives. Break the cycle of domestic violence.” The first letter of the text is a child’s wooden block toy with the letter “W” carved on its surface. The ad also includes contact information for The Family Place.)
(Image description: The image shows a girl, perhaps 4-7 years old. The girl is wearing a pink dress and a toy princess crown. The text of the ad says “One day my husband will kill me. Girls who grow up in households with domestic violence are more likely to end up with abusive partners. Break the cycle of domestic violence.” The first letter of the text is an illuminated letter “O” in the style of an illuminated manuscript or a children’s fairy tale book with old-fashioned illustrations. The ad also includes contact information for The Family Place.)
From the Dallas News:
“The calls [for help and support] are coming more than we can handle,” Paige Flink, executive director of the nonprofit, told me yesterday. “That’s what we intended to happen.”
What Ms. Flink didn’t intend is happening just as quickly – an international backlash caused by a Los Angeles-based “men’s and fathers’ issues columnist,” Glenn Sacks, who blogs for the Massachusetts-based Fathers & Families nonprofit advocacy group.
Mr. Sacks is spearheading a campaign to get DART and The Family Place to yank the ads, saying they stereotype men as batterers and women as just victims of domestic violence.
“I think it’s over the top,” Mr. Sacks said in a phone interview. “And I think it is insulting.”
The Family Place created three ads, ((One ad I didn’t reproduce at the top of this post, since Glenn isn’t protesting that one. All three ads can be seen on this page at The Family Place’s website.)) all depicting female victim / male abuser situations. I wish they had done a fourth ad showing a boy child as a future victim. Men are a minority of victims of intimate violence, but “minority” doesn’t mean “nonexistent.” There are male victims of intimate violence who require assistance, and there seems to be virtually no outreach to abused men. (The Family Place provides assistance to both female and male victims of violence.)
But the best evidence we have indicates that most intimate violence — and in particular, the most severe and harmful cases — are typically cases of men abusing women. Given that context, it’s ridiculous that Glenn objects to the depiction of women suffering from male abusers. It’s notable that Glenn didn’t work to have a new ad added to the campaign, reaching out to male victims of abuse; that’s a goal I could support. Instead, he campaigned to have these ads removed. Whatever his intent, what Glenn’s demands called for wasn’t inclusion of male victims, but the erasure of female victims and male perpetrators.
Glenn assumes it’s an insult to fathers for domestic violence awareness ads to even implicitly talk about male violence against women. But why should fathers be insulted? The ads don’t claim, or even imply, that all fathers are abusers.
It doesn’t appear that Glenn attempted — or even considered — a more productive approach before he began grandstanding. Before demanding that the Dallas buses take down ads that might genuinely help raise awareness of domestic violence against women — and might even save a life — Glenn could have instead have contacted The Family Place and offered to help raise funds to help pay for a fourth ad intended to reach out to male victims of intimate violence. Instead, Glenn and other men’s rights advocates (MRAs for short) specifically attacked The Family Place’s funding:
A sub-group of our protesters who I selected called over 50 of The Family Place’s financial contributors to express our concerns about the ads. […] Several of The Family Place’s financial contributors withdrew or reduced the financial gifts they planned for the end-of-the-year giving season. I don’t say this with pleasure–I would have preferred that The Family Place do the right thing from the beginning rather than lose the funding.
Actions talk louder than words, Glenn. You specifically targeted The Family Place’s funding (although, as we’ll see in a future post, you didn’t succeed). This “I don’t say this with pleasure” plea is the worse sort of responsibility-dodging.
Glenn could have acted constructively. Glenn could have at least suggested that his readers give some money to The Family Place to make up for the funding damage Glenn claims they’ve caused. Instead, Glenn suggests his readers give money to Glenn, so that Glenn can organize more swell protests like this in the future.
That Glenn never attempted a constructive approach is telling. It’s typical of MRAs, most of whom are passionate about attacking feminism, and attacking people working to help victims of abuse and rape, but indifferent to helping male victims. Imagine if all the energy and time MRAs have put into bashing, hating, and attacking feminists for the last twenty years could be taken back and instead invested into building institutions that could help male victims of rape and abuse. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
This is the first in a short series of posts about the anti-feminist attack on The Family Place. Future posts will include never-before-published quotes from The Family Place’s Paige Flink, an examination of Glenn Sack’s statistical claims, more on how a constructive MRA movement would act, and explaining why Glenn’s protest actually didn’t accomplish much.
By the way, after talking to Paige Flink, I was very impressed by The Family Place. For decades, they’ve done good work to help victims of violence, regardless of sex. They should be encouraged and supported, not protested.
To donate to The Family Place, click here. Please let me know in comments or via email if you’ve donated to The Family Place because of what you’ve read on “Alas.” At the end of the week, “Alas” will match contributions made by “Alas” readers. ((Up to a maximum total of $800.)) So in a way, your contribution this week is worth double.
I really cannot refute point by point because you are correct. However the totality of the message taken away by your post is saddening at best. And is at opposition with the message of each of your points individually.
No activist of any stripe will choose the methods you choose for them unless they are clearly the dominant part of the dominant message, and need no initial traction. If you examine any movement you will quickly see a pattern of action that will prove succesful when you are the underdog message.
You are scripting a very nice, very lets be positive way for a group to waste money with no results.
I disagree with MRA groups on many issues but Fathers rights is one area that needs more attention. If the Family Place wishes to gamble on an imflammitory message, they should be the one to take responsibility if they overreach.
The MRA group involved used an effective tactict to counter an effective ad that carried a sinister undertone.
The counter example would be an ad that read.
“When I grow up I can kill my children, people will feel sorry for me, and I won’t go to jail”
It can work both ways.
I will back you backing women, but I protest at doing so at the expense of fathers.
I counter: You should assist the Family Place to redesign ads free of the sinister undertone. Raise money for them to do so. Help them create messages free of attacks. Let this be a positive call to action overcome your chosen enemies with constructive kindness.
Steve,
I am confused as to how this indicts fathers. The ads don’t say “Men/women who witnessed their fathers beating their mothers as children are twice as likely to …” They say “Men/women who witnessed domestic violence as children are twice as likely to…”
I suppose it could be seen as accusatory toward the male children who witness DV, or toward the male partners of female children who witness DV, but I’m puzzled by the claim that the ads are “at the expense of fathers.” Or do you just read every mention of “domestic violence” as “fathers beating mothers”?
“Men/women who witnessed domestic violence as children are twice as likely to…”
It doesn’t say that either.
It says “men who witnessed domestic violence as children are twice as likely to abuse their wives”.
it makes no mention of women being potentially violent towards children at all. Yet violence towards children in gender terms is pretty much equal.
There’s a very simple reason for why Sacks won’t support male victims of violence. Sacks and his ilk embrace very traditional gender stereotypes where men are strong and women are weak. It follows that if men are strong by default, any man who is the victim of violence is weak and deserves no sympathy, especially if he’s the victim of a “weak” woman.
Which just goes to prove that this has nothing to do with helping men and everything to do with getting women to shut up.
leta,
I was using the forward slash to include both ads into one statement. To make this really simple and now more verbose…
Ad 1 says: “When I grow up, I will beat my wife. Men who witnessed domestic violence as children are twice as likely to abuse their wives. Break the cycle of domestic violence.”
Ad 2 says: “One day my husband will kill me. Girls who grow up in households with domestic violence are more likely to end up with abusive partners. Break the cycle of domestic violence.”
NEITHER AD REFERS TO FATHERS ABUSING MOTHERS. Rather, both ads refer to children who witness “domestic violence” as being more likely to end up being part of domestic violence themselves: Men as abusers of their wives, girls as the partners of abusers. Please point out where fathers, a term not synonymous with “men,” are described as engaging in abuse or violence.
Last year I organized a small event that partially benefited The Family Place. They do great work, and I’m disgusted (but not too surprised) by Glenn Sacks’ “protest.” Because of that, despite being pinched for money, I donated $10 to The Family Place just now. Thanks for pledging to match it.
“NEITHER AD REFERS TO FATHERS ABUSING MOTHERS”
They both refer to husbands beating wives.
Ad1 refers to someone saying he will grow up to beat his wife…
Ad 2 says girls who grow up in abusive households are more likely to be abused by their husbands.
“There’s a very simple reason for why Sacks won’t support male victims of violence. Sacks and his ilk embrace very traditional gender stereotypes where men are strong and women are weak. It follows that if men are strong by default, any man who is the victim of violence is weak and deserves no sympathy, especially if he’s the victim of a “weak” woman.”
Sacks does support male victims of violence. He is just opposed to portraying the view that its only men who are violent. It is far too simplistic to just indite all men as violent just because more men are likely to be violent than women.
There is more to domestic violence than just men beating women PG. There are plenty of women who are violent to their husbands. Is it the same number as men? no. But that is no reason to portray all domestic violence as man against woman.
Ampersand, I think you’ve missed the point on which Glenn’s right. The ads are misleading.
The statistics used are on their face gender neutral. But they’ve been placed in a context which puts a heavy – man=abuser, women=victim – gloss on it. The gender neutral exposure statistic is completely at odds with their presention of a directional husband-beats-wife ‘cycle’ of abuse. No-one’s objecting to the depiction of women suffering from male abusers. They’re objecting to research being distorted through an extremely misleading context. This isn’t going to be solved by a third ad either. These ads would still be misleading even if another bus had a picture of a male victims on it.
Personally, what I found offensive was the use of children. These children are victims of domestic violence, not witnesses. Not only does it not recognise this – making it a really bad ‘domestic violence awareness ad’ – but the concern isn’t for them, it’s that they’ll do something years in the future. This is particularly the case with the boy. Not only don’t they recognise him as a victim, but to really rub it in, they also have him speaking in the first person as an offender. Can’t you see why this has upset people?
I tink what completely disgusted me is that he engaged in subterfuge by selecting a small group to call the list of organizations/donors in order to have the funding reduced or remoeved from Family Place. He “knew” what he was doing when he chose that course of action. He knew if he posted those plans on his site that numerous people would have called or written to these same groups in order to convince them to continue donating to TFP. He wants to see change, how is change going to happen when thbe vast majority of victims might not be served now due to loss of funding?
One of the claims made by Sacks and those who support him is that dv shelters do not allow men or teenaged boys in their shelters. I spoke to every shelter in my state (67 of them I believe) and all had some sort of plan in place for male victims and those mothers with older boys. Some simply allowed the boys to stay at the shelter, others got funding to obtain a hotel room for the mother. Now with male victims, they of course are not allowed at the female shelter, they are either referred to a church or the shelter puts him up in a hotel room. NONE refused services to anybody regardless of their gender or gender/age combination.
Now on an off note, I tried speaking on Sacks website, then realized I had been banned. I have been told that if I reveal personal information about me in a place I do not feel safe that my permissions will be reinstated. I also have plans on my website to expose a portion of Glenn’s posters and their true anti-feminine beliefs. Sacks has however for my ip and quite possibly for everyone removed all links in his posters names. No matter, they wrote enough for me to show exactly how they feel about women. Shucks this might take some of the pressure off of websites like this and other who try to give feminism good exposure in light of all the negative it gets at sites such as Sacks.
No worries though, I have tons of the sites from his website saved in my favorites or in my history :-)
“The statistics used are on their face gender neutral.”
Buh?
None of the following would be appropriate slogans for an ad campaign for an advocacy group which is supported by tax dollars:
(picture of a smiling boy in a police costume)
When I grow up I and my fellow racist officers will beat you with my nightstick when you fail to stop.
(picture of an effeminate male smiling into the camera)
When I grow up I will infect your son with HIV which I picked up at the bathhouse as a result of promiscuous sex.
(picture of a young woman in a prom dress)
When I grow up I will give birth in the toilet at the prom and leave the baby there to drown.
(picture of a girl smiling into the camera)
When I grow up I will smother my baby in a blanket and rather than be jailed like my boyfriend I will receive therapy.
(picture of a boy smiling into the camera)
When I grow up I will beat my wife.
(picture of a girl smiling into the camera)
When I grow up my husband will kill me.
These are inappropriate because each perpetuates a false and misleading stereotype. The majority of police officers do not bludgeon folks who they stop. The majority of gays live quiet lives. Most young women do not leave their infants to die in toilets at the prom.
It appears that the frame of reference for the Family Place is that men as a contingent will beat and kill their wives. This is a false and sinister message.
I am surprised that you refuse to see bigotry so plainly manifest.
The ads disgust me, but not because of father’s rights. To me, it’s more because of the little boy.
What message does that send to kids? Boys are obviously supposed to see him as a reflection of themselves. Telling little boys “you’re going to be a wife-beater” is cruel.
Because they’re speaking in abstractions, they make it seem like the boy is “generic boy” and the girl is “generic girl”. This makes it feel like it’s a statement about boys in general, and a statement about girls in general – boys will grow up to be wife beaters, and women grow up to be beaten.
That’s pretty damned nasty.
Look at it this way – if you had a picture of an adult black man dealing crack, to raise money for a project about fighting crack dealers, it’d be a little off but probably very few people would complain other than black activists.
If you had a picture of a black, smiling, innocent little kid, with the caption “when I grow up I’m going to be a crack dealer”, you’d see a different reaction.
Same thing here. Pick any negative stereotype that is grounded in a real problem (ie. crack in black communities). Now imagine the difference in reaction between showing an example of the stereotype vs. showing an innocent child that will inevitably conform to the stereotype.
See why it’s nasty?
Glenn’s Cult Writes “I tried speaking on Sacks website, then realized I had been banned. I have been told that if I reveal personal information about me in a place I do not feel safe that my permissions will be reinstated.”
Actually, “Glenn’s Cult” was permitted to publish hundreds of critical comments on my website. However, she repeatedly violated rule # 1 of My Rules on Blog Comments prohibiting “Personal attacks.”
Normally when someone violates the rules I send them a note explaining what the violation was. If they continue over and over again, I’ll ban them, but usually not until they’ve had several chances. Because “Glenn’s Cult” refused to leave a valid email address, I had no way of communicating with her after she violated the rules, so eventually I got tired of wasting time and banned her.
She could come back if she wants, but only with a valid email address.
BTW, a valid email address–which I ask for from all posters–is all she means when she says I’m demanding that she “reveal personal information.” Another example (sigh) of how feminists twist and distort simple, reasonable things I do. –GS
leta,
“They both refer to husbands beating wives.”
Surely, and the third ad in which Glenn is uninterested refers to a girl’s committing suicide. Again, what does this have to do with fathers? Glenn’s group is called “Fathers & Families,” not “Men & Families.” Steve complained that the ads were “at the expense of fathers.” So far, you haven’t pointed to the ads depicting or describing fathers. If this is all complaining about the depiction of husbands or men, please state that.
james,
These children are victims of domestic violence, not witnesses. Not only does it not recognise this – making it a really bad ‘domestic violence awareness ad’ – but the concern isn’t for them, it’s that they’ll do something years in the future. This is particularly the case with the boy. Not only don’t they recognise him as a victim, but to really rub it in, they also have him speaking in the first person as an offender.
You might want to read the explanation for why the ads were done this way. The whole point, as is made clear when one bothers to read the explanation, is that
a) Women are the overwheming majority of the people seeking The Family Place’s shelter — year to date, TFP has provided emergency shelter to 3 men, 269 women. Because the particular issue being addressed is adult-to-adult DV’s effect on children, the ads are situated in what is true for 98% of the shelter-seekers and over 90% of DV reported by the Dallas Police Department. If the issue being addressed were incest — TFP has helped 308 men and 326 women recover from childhood sexual assault and incest in their Incest Recovery Program — the ads would have reflected those statistics, in which men and women seem to have been abused in almost equal numbers.
b) TFP’s counselors have found that when mothers realize violence in the home is hurting their children, they are motivated to seek help. However, if the abuser never touches the children, the mother is unlikely to realize that the violence is hurting the children; she will assume that she is the only victim, and may think that the positives provided by the abuser for the children (e.g. having another provider in the home) outweigh the negatives that affect only her. The ads therefore explain that children who are physically untouched by the violence nonetheless become more likely to have violence in their futures as adults. This realization — that the children can get “hurt” even though they never get touched physically — is what TFP hopes will motivate more mothers to leave violent relationships.
I’m not quite sure in what sense you are saying that the children who see DV but are not themselves directly abused “are victims of domestic violence, not witnesses.” Certainly if criminal charges are brought, prosecutors will treat the children solely as witnesses, not victims. So far as I know, Texas doesn’t treat emotional damage from seeing another person hurt as making one the victim of a crime (although under common law, this may be basis for a civil tort).
roger,
“It appears that the frame of reference for the Family Place is that men as a contingent will beat and kill their wives. This is a false and sinister message.”
No. Try reading the ads. They say a specific circumstance — witnessing DV as a child — increases the LIKELIHOOD that a man will kill his wife and that a woman will be abused by her partner. If you don’t understand the difference between saying “all men will do X” and “if Y occurs, then men are more likely to do X,” you should complain to whoever was responsible for teaching you statistics and logic.
If you had an ad that worked on a similar basis, such as “(picture of a smiling boy in a police costume) ‘When I grow up I and my fellow racist officers will beat you with my nightstick when you fail to stop.’ Children who witness their parents expressing violently racist attitudes are MORE LIKELY to become violent racists themselves,” then you would have a point. Your failure to distinguish between ALL and IF/THEN MORE LIKELY means you currently have no point.
Silenced,
Your analogy suffers from the same problem.
If you had a picture of a black, smiling, innocent little kid, with the caption “when I grow up I’m going to be a crack dealer”, you’d see a different reaction.
Not if the ad said, “‘When I grow up I’m going to be a crack dealer.’ Children who witness drug transactions are MORE LIKELY to become drug dealers as adults.”
People would look at that ad and say, “Yeah, probably.”
What y’all don’t seem to grasp is that the ads all put the responsibility on parents not to let their children witness things that will have a deleterious effect on the children’s psyches and therefore their future behavior. It’s not blaming or stereotyping the kids; it’s saying that the parents should be aware that the consequences of what they do will extend far into the future.
keshmeshi:
There’s a very simple reason for why Sacks won’t support male victims of violence.
So when he is pointing out how under aged male rape victims are treated when their rapist is a woman (often a school teacher) he isn’t trying to help? Yeah…
It’s one thing to criticize someone’s efforts but blatant lies like that just aren’t nice.
PG:
Your analogy suffers from the same problem.
If you had a picture of a black, smiling, innocent little kid, with the caption “when I grow up I’m going to be a crack dealer”, you’d see a different reaction.
Not if the ad said, “‘When I grow up I’m going to be a crack dealer.’ Children who witness drug transactions are MORE LIKELY to become drug dealers as adults.”
I’m not so sure about that. While there may not be a massive uproar over it I think that if set of three ads were made and two of those three ads were of black children people would pick up on it. And I don’t think people would be so quick to tell them they are blowing it out of proportion or that they are misinterpreting it.
” No. Try reading the ads. They say a specific circumstance — witnessing DV as a child — increases the LIKELIHOOD that a man will kill his wife and that a woman will be abused by her partner. If you don’t understand the difference between saying “all men will do X” and “if Y occurs, then men are more likely to do X,” you should complain to whoever was responsible for teaching you statistics and logic. ”
There are two specific circumstances pronounced by the ads :
1) I will beat my wife.
2) There is an increase in chance that men who witness violence will be violent toward their intimate partners.
I read the ad as it would be read by a child standing on the sidewalk as the bus rolled past at 40 miles an hour. The boy who now knows that he will be suspect as an abuser of women for the rest of his life.
I see the formula which you have laid out and it makes perfect sense. I would suggest given the exponentially larger size of the letters of the headline that the first impression given will be that men as a contingent are abusers solely as a function of their gender. The second circumstance will be lost in the emotion.
“The second circumstance will be lost in the emotion.”
It appears you mean that the second circumstance was lost on you because of your emotion.
I assure you, it was not lost on me, or my husband.
You are not a microcosm of the universe.
” You are not a microcosm of the universe. ”
And I never claimed to be.
The ad’s primary message is problematic.
The ad’s small print is supposed to act like a disclaimer.
It is reasonable to argue that the main message which many viewers will take away from the ad is that of “my husband will kill me” and not “if my parents abuse each other I am more likely to marry an abuser.”
in fact, from certain distances, the main message will be all that is legible.
Big print /= small print, for feminists and MRAs alike.
The “big print” message is intended to grab the viewer’s attention. The viewer then looks at the “small print” (which, on a bus, is still pretty big) to get an explanation. Yes, some people may see only the large print message and therefore will be puzzled: “why does this child say he will grow to beat his wife? why does this child say when she grows up, her husband will kill her?” This happens quite often with advertisements put on moving vehicles. However, if roger knows children who believe everything they see for 5 seconds in an advertisement, I pity what his Christmas toy budget must have to be.
I would recommend, to those who find this styling of using an image and big print to grab attention and then providing explanation in small print to be completely outrageous, that they address their complaints to All Marketing Departments and Graphics Designers in the Known Universe.
If you have worked in advertising, you are very familiar with this tactic. Frankly, if you have thought about advertising at all instead of being a passive recipient of its efforts to manipulate your thoughts, you are very familiar with this tactic. All advertising is made to convince people to take some action. Particularly in our modern world of wall-to-wall advertising, it must do something to stand out. The effect of these ads is to make people read the large print and think, “My God, why?” It is intended to rouse the emotion of concern.
Unfortunately, for folks like roger, emotion apparently blocks out the ability to read the next sentence. I have no idea how such people coped with the absurdity of the seemingly-paradoxical statement “You can learn a lot from a dummy.” How it must have outraged them! the idea that they are so stupid that they could learn a lot from someone who is a dummy! Their emotions therefore caused them miss the follow-up “Buckle your safety belt.”
‘zacktly my point, Sailorman.
The whole text of the ad is a good message I can get behind… but the form that most people see is completely different, and I think would get a vicious reaction if it used any other negative stereotype.
We defend it because it’s fighting for a good cause, and because it’s vocal detractors are MRAs. But I have to disagree with PG – because of the teaser/details nature of the ad, it does send a message that wouldn’t be tolerated by any community if things were moved around, not just MRAs.
That’s why I disagree with Sacks on this one too. He keeps talking about it as a father’s rights issue, which I don’t think it is. More a general “boys will become abusers” thing, which is the message you see if you don’t take the time to read the fine print.
SiF,
So we’re arguing about whether there would be similar outrage in the black community and its allies if an ad depicted a black kid with the words, “‘When I grow up I’m going to be a crack dealer.’ Children who witness drug transactions are MORE LIKELY to become drug dealers as adults.”?
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen ads like that in Northern Manhattan (i.e. pretty much everything above 120th Street) — not with that precise wording, but with a child of color depicted as being endangered for the future by his parent’s choices. A minority child is depicted because the ad is trying to reach minority parents (who are actually the majority in that area). By using children of color, marketers improve the chance that the parent looks at it and thinks, “That reflects my life,” instead of automatically dismissing it as yet another slick bit of marketing for whitefolks.
Similarly, these ads specifically are trying to reach mothers who don’t understand that by staying in an abusive relationship, even if the abuser doesn’t touch the kids, they are setting their own children up for abusive relationships in the future. Because the ads are targeting mothers, who overwhelmingly are in relationships with men, the two ads being debated here posit a future in which their children play out the same heterosexual, male-abusing-female dynamic that the children witness. Frankly, I think if you made an ad targeted toward these mothers that said boys who witness DV are twice as likely to BE ABUSED by their future wives, the mothers would look at it and not believe it. (Neither would I; is there actually any research to back a claim like that?) It seems plausible that children will reenact the relationship gender dynamics that were modelled to them; it seems implausible that they would flip those dynamics.
That last point actually comes to the crux of the problem. Sacks is looking at a tragic but relatively unusual problem: women abusing their male partners. (I assume he also is concerned about men abusing their male partners, but such a small percentage of American children are in households run by two gay men that running ads for a general audience — i.e. that riding public transport — to include that situation really would be shooting at a small target.) He doesn’t want to publicize the claim that witnessing abuse makes boys twice as likely to grow up to abuse their wives. That’s why he can’t go the route Amp would support, showing a boy as a potential victim of abuse as well, because he just doesn’t want this to be talked about, full stop.
“ The “big print” message is intended to grab the viewer’s attention. The viewer then looks at the “small print” (which, on a bus, is still pretty big) to get an explanation. “
Well that is comforting.
The intended message will be delivered if the following conditions apply:
1) You are sufficiently close to the vehicle to read the fine print.
2) You care what the rest of advertisement says.
3) The vehicle is moving slowly enough that you have time to read anything other than the initial message.
4) There is sufficient lighting to read the entire message.
I am curious as to why we need to have to have adequate reading conditions in order for the public to receive the explanation that men as a contingent do not abuse their intimate partners.
If my logic and statistics were as good as yours I would understand why men as a contingent must overcome roadblocks in advertisement and in family court to prove themselves worthy to be more than weekly visitors in their children’s lives.
There are indeed filthy, ignorant, outrageous, abusive men and it is certainly appropriate to separate these from their children. To imply that the majority of boys will grow up and abuse women however and then expect the public to work to get the explanation for this sinister and problematic message is indeed unfortunate.
Buh?
Come on. It’s not complicated. “Men who witnessed domestic violence as children are twice as likely to abuse their wives” – is neutral – it says nothing about the gender of who’s perpetrating the violence they ‘witness’. It’s nothing that Glenn or the CTS studies he supports could take issue with.
Throw it on thick with ‘when I grow up, I will beat my wife’, ‘the cycle of domestic violence’, and people get a very different impression of what happening – something that isn’t supported by the statistic – and you’re distorting the research.
“Come on. It’s not complicated. “Men who witnessed domestic violence as children are twice as likely to abuse their wives” – is neutral – it says nothing about the gender of who’s perpetrating the violence they ‘witness’.”
So your problem is the acknowledgement that, in fact, they are overwhelmingly witnessing male violence?
“If my logic and statistics were as good as yours I would understand why men as a contingent must overcome roadblocks in advertisement and in family court to prove themselves worthy to be more than weekly visitors in their children’s lives.”
Men do not face additional roadbloacks to prove themselves worthy to be more than weekly visitors, blah, blah. So, there you go.
“To imply that the majority of men will grow up and abuse women”
Lucky thing no one did.
Now. I’m going to start policing the thread for lies. Once your points have been refuted, you can actually attempt to protest the refutation. But repeating the original point as if it were not refuted becomes lying.
So “it’s OK if everyone else does it?” That isn’t much of a response. The big print/small print difference can be fine, or a bit misleading, or downright and completely deceptive.
In this case it’s IMO misleading. And I’m not an, er, “passive recipient”, I merely disagree with you.
also,
On a thread where people are deliberately being asked to not be snarky or personal, why go after Roger like this?
Um… yes they do. While men have an advantage in numerous settings, they tend to have a disadvantage in certain other settings. Family court custody hearings tend to be in the latter category.
Do you know any divorce attorneys? Have a chat with them if you want some anecdotes.
In the last three weeks in Dallas, there have been two family violence related double homicide-suicides with the male being the perpetrator. In the first, the man killed his estranged wife (who had fled following filing charges of abuse) and her mother before killing himself. In the second, the father killed the family dog (terrorizing his wife and 16 year old daughter) before shooting them and then himself. That is FIVE (SIX with the dog) lives lost to family violence. It is time to take a stand and say that it is UNACCEPTABLE in any form – no matter who the perpetrator, man or woman.
In Dallas County, more than 90% of all DV cases are perpetrated by men. Of course, there are cases where women are the aggressors – they just go unreported for the most part. THAT is what has to change. Men who are abused, either by women or by same-sex partners, need to stand up and report it. Get the help that is available. The Family Place serves men as well – not only in the intervention programs, but in counseling and will shelter a man who needs to get out of a violent situation. There is no judgement.
But what this ad campaign was about had NOTHING to do with gender. It had everything to do with raising awareness that children who grow up witnessing domestic violence are more likely to get involved in an abusive relationship, drugs/alcohol, commit suicide or become an abuser themselves. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. And apparently, it accomplished that, because the calls for help to The Family Place increased.
What I don’t understand, and what no one has been willing to discuss, is why it is considered appropriate to go into attack mode when someone says something with which you disagree. Glenn Sacks and his minions attacked The Family Place, an organization that is very well respected here in Dallas, having been around for 30 years. They personally attacked the executive director and the employees who have dedicated their lives to helping ALL victims of domestic violence. No one gets into non-profit work to get rich, they do it because they are passionate, and to attack the people who are trying to make a difference in the world they live in is unjustifiable. For that, Sacks should be ashamed.
” Men do not face additional roadbloacks to prove themselves worthy to be more than weekly visitors, blah, blah. So, there you go. ”
Tell that to the men under false accusation of abuse and who must comply with a bogus restraining order.
**Correction**
SIX lives (seven with the dog)
Sailorman,
So “it’s OK if everyone else does it?” That isn’t much of a response. The big print/small print difference can be fine, or a bit misleading, or downright and completely deceptive.
I am not saying that it’s “OK” if everyone does it, and I’m puzzled by your use of quotation marks when I never said that. I’m being skeptical that this is the first time that anyone here — or even the newly-literate Dallas 6-year-old — will have seen such advertising. Heightened exposure to a particular form of advertising makes one less susceptible to being manipulated by it, which is why advertising has changed over time to deal with our being inured to its old come-ons. It’s not “OK” for someone to come up to me and say, “You are the woman of my dreams,” when he doesn’t actually think so and is just trying to get in my pants, but there’s a social expectation that I’m not so stupid as to believe everything I hear, and therefore should laugh him off from the outset, rather than burst into tears upon discovering his eventual treachery.
This social expectation is especially true with regard to advertising. If this ad isn’t actually misleading anyone — for those who didn’t get it, this child is a hired model, not a mini- psychopath declaring his intent to beat his future wife — then what’s the problem with it? Why do you declare it misleading? Are you disputing its statistical claim? If so, what is your counter-evidence that witness abuse actually makes children LESS likely to be in abusive relationships as adults?
On a thread where people are deliberately being asked to not be snarky or personal, why go after Roger like this?
1) Where did the moderators ask commenters not to be snarky or personal on this thread?
2) When I pointed out to roger that his reading of the ad was utterly illogical, he said, “I see the formula which you have laid out and it makes perfect sense. I would suggest given the exponentially larger size of the letters of the headline that the first impression given will be that men as a contingent are abusers solely as a function of their gender. The second circumstance will be lost in the emotion.” I then posited other situations where the first line of an advertisement is meant to rouse an emotion, and wondered at how one functions in the modern world if emotion roused by the first line blocks one’s ability to grasp the second sentence of an ad. Roger specifically disclaimed that he was a microcosm of the world, which means he is saying this is true for him personally. Therefore there isn’t really a way to address it without referring to him.
Does anyone know if these ads were printed on the sides of buses, as many people here seem to be assuming, or posted on the interior near the ceiling, as I had assumed?
It’s not an essential point, I’m just curious. The design of these ads look a lot more like interior bus ads to me, so much so that I didn’t even consider that they might be exterior ads until someone suggested it in this thread.
” Roger specifically disclaimed that he was a microcosm of the world, which means he is saying this is true for him personally. ”
You can’t be serious.
” The ads, which adorn the interiors of 300 and the exteriors of 45 Dallas Area Rapid Transit buses, first appeared a month ago today and will run through the end of November. ”
Family Place’s Dallas bus ads shock, but so does domestic violence (title of article)
09:35 PM CDT on Friday, October 31, 2008
Dallas Morning News
roger @ 35,
What do you mean? Mandolin challenged your generalization that “The second circumstance will be lost in the emotion,” saying “It appears you mean that the second circumstance was lost on you because of your emotion.” (emphases added) You seemed to agree that you were speaking of yourself personally and not about the general population. I therefore addressed to you personally my skepticism at the idea of someone’s being unable to grasp the totality of a print ad due to overwhelming emotion from the first line of it.
Writers use big text/disclaimers because they WORK. They use them because people often don’t read the disclaimers.
so when a front load washer
SAVES 50% OF ENERGY!
(as compared to a 2001 average of top load washers)
you know damn well they’re hoping you’ll walk away with “saves half my energy!” stuck in your head, and not think “hey, hmm, I wonder how representative the 2001 sample was?”
And when they say
“When I grow up i will beat my wife”
then you know damn well the remembered message for many people is “men beat their wives” and not “be sure not to be violent in front of your son, or someday he will be violent to someone else!”
Come on. How much of this is just hating on MRAs and how much of this is a serious honest defense of the ads as wondrously non-confusing and amazingly accurate?
Sailorman, there’s a big difference between the “SAVE 50% OF ENERGY!” ad and the “YOU CAN LEARN A LOT FROM A DUMMY” ad. Are you really unable to see the difference?
It seems to me these ads are much more in the latter category than the former. Do you disagree?
A video about the campaign against these ads, can be viewed here: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kQoEbA9nJOo
Perhaps we are just having a difference of opinion of whether these DV ads should be viewed as public service announcements (which is how I see them) or as some kind of political statement. If you look at PSAs that stick in people’s heads, they tend to have an iconic, attention-grabbing, not-meant-literally tagline that is followed by explanatory information or the action that is being encouraged. I mentioned the “You can learn a lot from a dummy” above. There’s also stuff like “Take a bite out of crime,” which most people grasped was not encouraging them to bite criminals, or “A mind is a terrible thing to waste,” which was not about the tragedy of an abstract concept’s going into the garbage bin. The only iconic line that I recall that contained the encouraged action within it was “Only you can prevent forest fires,” and even that has what Sailorman might call “fine print” under it.
But none of these, nor the ads above, actually have “disclaimers,” as Sailorman calls them. (Definition of “disclaim”: to deny or repudiate interest in or connection with; disavow; disown.) “Buckle your safety belt” does not disclaim the idea of learning from a dummy; nor “give to the United Negro College Fund” disavow the idea of a mind’s being a terrible thing to waste; nor “when you know all your neighbors, the bad guys stand out” disown the idea of taking a bite out of crime. The statistical statement about the greater likelihood of adult abusive relationships, for children who witness DV, doesn’t deny its connection with the “large print” iconic figure of the innocent child who will grow up to abuse others or be abused. Rather, the “small print” gives context to what otherwise is figurative, symbolic, metaphorical and otherwise not inherently informative language.
Or maybe this is just a liberal arts major thing? People accustomed to non-literal use of words and images may view these ads differently than people with an educational or experiential background where there is very little of symbolism.
No, I’m down with symbolism. Liberal arts major and all that.
Just that to me–and I obviously appreciate that views can differ on this–the ads in question are different than those in your examples. Mostly this is because the examples you give do not by their main text cause much of a problem:
“a Mind is a terrible thing to waste”
“you can learn a lot from a dummy”
and so on.
The ads in question do, however, send a main message which is problematic. They make an inaccurate general claim through the combination of pictures and words. They then disclaim* the statement through explanatory text. So I don’t like them.
I don’t really get the hostility, though.
*as in ‘repudiate a claim’, PG, which is, incidentally, a valid definition of “disclaim.’ Just FYI.
Sailorman,
The ads in question do, however, send a main message which is problematic. They make an inaccurate general claim through the combination of pictures and words. They then disclaim* the statement through explanatory text. So I don’t like them. I don’t really get the hostility, though. *as in ‘repudiate a claim’, PG, which is, incidentally, a valid definition of “disclaim.’ Just FYI.
1) “Repudiate” was in the definition I provided, so you’re not bringing anything new there. Just FYI.
2) How are they repudiating the figurative statement made in the first line of the ad? They say that witnessing DV as a child makes one more likely to be in an abusive relationship as an adult. The child in each ad, though presumably not LITERALLY planning to beat the wife or be killed by a partner, is SYMBOLIC of those who would not have been in abusive relationships as adults if only they had had healthy relationships modelled to them when they were children.
Is there someone who is getting a different message from this ad? Does someone think the child is actually meant to be representative of all white boys in blue-striped shirts or all black girls in tiaras? That would be a “general claim” being made in the first line, if that’s really what you get from it.
By all means, attack their statistics, attack correlation vs. causation, etc. However, saying that they are in any way “repudiating” the first line, by making the child in it representative of the phenomenon they describe in the second line, makes no sense.
PG:
To clarify, Glenn doesn’t limit what he talks about to only fathers. He does talk about things relating to men in general, he just has a particular emphasis on fathers.
@Glenn Sacks
And what assurance am I to have that this email will not be revealed to persons in your close circle? Like those same persons who called 50 of The Family Place’s contributors in order to lead them to the light?
Like I said, there are other ways to get around your block. However I have chosen to stop trying to preach to the choir regarding the bad chocies you and others have made in your assumptions which is why I have created my blog. It has had close to 200 visits in the last 24 hours. Those visits include people from North America (US and Canada), Australia, UK, and Japan and other countries.
I can also show on your site numerous examples of men revealing information about their exes (including location, name, employer) and information which could be construed as slanderous yet you do not remove those posts, nor do you ban those posters. I myself (as well as many others) have been personally attacked (unless those comments have been removed as other info has been removed from your site over the last 24 hours since the appearance of my blog). Now I do not intend to use this blog as my own forum. That is what my blog is for. If you choose to debate this issue, you are welcome to post on my site. Only I have the control to publish or not publish your comments. This is what this whole issue boils down to anyways, is control. Funny when I was in dv classes at my local shelter, that was the first thing we were taught. Abuse is not about violence, it is about power and control, just like rape. And God forbid a woman should have any power and control, especially over her own thoughts or actions. I am simply one of those women who was micro managed by my ex-husband pre and post divorce and I have had enough.
A side note to Ampersand – I will be sending in 5.00 dollars on Saturday to The Family Place mentioning your blog. I hope that many others contribute as well. I suggested this on Dallas’ newspaper (the one that ran this story). I do not know if it has been followed yet by anyone other than you. I hope many will follow suit. I only wish I could give more, but with an abusive ex-husband money is hard to come by in my household.
Glenn’s Cult, please keep your comments on topic. Although I appreciate your efforts and consider you an ally, this thread is not the right place for most of what you’re saying.
A lot of bloggers — me included — require an email address of folks who post comments. It’s really useful to be able to email someone if I want to moderate their comment or ask them a question without making a big public thing of it. My advice, if this ever comes up again, is to get a free email account and use it just for this, so that if the email is ever given out or flooded with jerks, you can just abandon it.
And thanks for donating to The Family Place!
#16 PG
This is why I left my abuser. I have a child with him and when this child at the age of three told me that child would not eat breakfast and if I forced child to do so, daddy would be told and he would beat my ***. I saw that this child was seeing violence as a normal part of life even though I did my best to keep the beatings secret, they were still being seen. So I left. Now the problem is because I could not leave this child behind, I am now being abused through the courts. Which is worse?
I did a little figuring. I am not familiar with buses running in Dallas, however I am familiar with my local buses and the ads contained in and outside the bus. Thes ebuses are approximately 40 feet in length. The ads on the outside of these buses is generally 20 foot by 5 foot (which coincides with the graphic on The Family Place website – scaled). So I calculated how large the large text is and how large the “disclaimer” is. The main text is approximately twice as big as the small text and the small text is 10% of the overall sign. So 10% of 5 feet would be half a foot. Six inches might not seem much but it is quite large. And that is if the buses in Dallas are the same size and use the same size advertising as the buses in my area. It should also be noted that the number and name under the ad is exactly the same size as the disclaimer. Those opposed to this ad had no problem seeing the name and number why did they not see the middle text? Possibly because they did not want to see it?
My apologies Amerpsand. I have been told horror stories from women I trust implicintly about MRAs that have discovered who they (the women) are due to their advocacy work and being vocal online and these same MRAs located her abuser and paid for an attorney for her abuser in order to help him gain custody of their child. I trust this site which is why I have given my email.
Thanks for your work in helping to expose what goes on even in the smallest way :-)
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Domestic Violence Shelter Targeted by Anti-Feminists: “Some of the vile language and verbal abuse we took on the phone was horrific.”
“It seems plausible that children will reenact the relationship gender dynamics that were modelled to them; it seems implausible that they would flip those dynamics.”
Male rape victims in childhood are more likely than non-victims to become rapists. They reverse the gender dynamics often as well (being abused by a woman in childhood, while not the most prominent, still happens).
Just saying, that while logic says someone would re-enact the same kind of dynamic they see, this isn’t necessarily the case. It doesn’t help that children victims of abuse are often not treated.
Schala,
1) I was stating what would seem intuitively plausible to someone. Are there any statistics, on the abuse dynamics enacted by boys who witness male-on-female abuse in childhood, that would support the idea that they are more likely than men in the general population to be abused by a female partner?
2) There is a difference between witnessing abuse or rape, and being abused or raped oneself.
Glenn’s Cult —
The “disclaimer” isn’t a “disclaimer” — it’s part of the offensive text. The text in big type is also offensive. If you take out the genders you wind up with
“People A who witnessed abuse as children are more likely to abuse People B. Break the cycle of domestic violence.”
“People B who grow up in houses with domestic violence are more likely to end up with People A. Break the cycle of domestic violence.”
The message is clear — People A beat People B. This isn’t a gender neutral message, or even something tentative. It’s a very clear message — if you’re a boy and you see a Parent beat Another Parent, you will beat your wife. And if you’re a girl and you see a Parent beat Another Parent, you’ll marry someone who will beat you. It doesn’t distinguish between boys or girls who see People A beat People B, or People B beat People A, it just says “if you grow up surrounded by domestic violence, your future depends on your gender.”
Could Glenn be a lot less offensive in his message? Sure. But the “script” he’s fighting against isn’t one that allows for any less offensive a message.
I think FurryCatHerder’s characterization of message is fair, but I think it’s still debatable whether that message is “offensive.” If the message is untrue and unfairly stereotypes men as abusers as women as victims, then it is offensive. If, however, the message is true, I don’t see how one could be offended by it. Based on the numbers mentioned in this post and thread, it does seem to be the case that the large majority of domestic violence is male perpetrator/female victim. If violence does in fact happen in a cycle as the adds purport, it may the be factual reality that kids who witness DV are largely witnessing men abusing women, and then largely going on to form the same kind of male perpetrator/female victim relationships as adults. If the reality is gendered, it only makes sense that the statements would be gendered, too.
So, FurryCatHerder, if you want to argue that the numbers are wrong and the rates of victimization are comparable for both sexes (or something along those lines), go right ahead. The data very well may be biased. But saying that People A behave differently from People B is only offensive if it’s not true. If it is true, there’s no way to get around saying it.
On the other hand, while it’s not necessarily offensive, it is certainly exclusionary — that’s why I like Amp’s suggestion of campaigning for a fourth add raising awareness about male victims. As other have said, being less common isn’t at all the same as being nonexistent. As an analogy — as a gay person, I’m not offended that the large majority of, say, Valentine’s Day advertising is directed at heterosexuals, because the large majority of people are heterosexual. But I do get offended if someone claims that homo- and bisexual don’t (or shouldn’t) exist. There’s a line between acknowledging that most cases are one way and saying that the exceptions aren’t real or don’t matter.
And an addendum: I think it also matters why and how one is using the factually true statement. Using the same data to demonize men or argue that women are helpless would indeed be offensive. But using the data to try to stop the “cycle of violence” doesn’t seem like it could possibly be offensive to me. It’s like the difference between using girls’ lower math scores (when they do in fact exist) to argue that girls are suited only for childbearing versus using the same data to argue for scrutiny of sexism in the classroom and a wider variety of teaching techniques. And while we’re on that example, while it’s not offensive to note that girls’ sometimes have lower math scores and boys sometimes have lower reading and writing scores, it is offensive to deny that there are some women who are great at math and some men who are great with language. That’s my point, really.
Daisy,
I think a fourth ad speaking about male victims would make a lot of sense, and I think would have taken any wind out of Glenn Sacks’ sails.
That said, the reason Glenn has a forum in which he’s taken seriously is because so much of what happens in the family court system and beyond is still so strongly gendered.
A major problem in this field is that many attempts at discussing the subject matter are shouted down, not based on factual errors, but on the basis if ideology. We know for an absolute fact that there are male victims of domestic violence. Yet here we are discussing whether or not it’s “offensive” to fail to mention that.
The experience of men who’ve been victims of domestic violence are all consistent — they attempt to get help, can’t get help, aren’t believed, are socially ostracized, have their experiences denied or questioned. What tells me these men are being truthful is that unlike MRAs who demand continued access to their victims — and I know one guy who used to tell his ex-wife that they were “still married in the eyes of G-d” — these men don’t want access and don’t want to somehow punish women.
We see this same thing play out every time domestic violence is discussed on this blog. Here we are, doing it again. How many male victims have to be proven, vetted and given the Feminist Stamp of Approval before it’s enough?
FCH,
Your comment seems to suffer from the same problem as roger’s hypotheticals. To reiterate, the phrase “more likely” means that the ads are not saying that all People A [boys who witnessed DV] beat all People B [girls who witnessed DV], but that witnessing DV increases the probability of A’s beating B. Again, would you be offended by an ad depicting a white child that said, “‘When I grow up I will beat up minorities.’ Children who witness their parents expressing violently racist attitudes are MORE LIKELY to become violent racists themselves”? If you would be offended by such a campaign, would it be cured by one that featured a black child and said, “‘When I grow up I will beat up whites.’ Children who witness their parents expressing violently racist attitudes are MORE LIKELY to become violent racists themselves”?
In short, is your objection to disseminating the (apparently accurate) claim that witnessing domestic violence increases the probability of perpetuating that violence in the next generation? Or just to disseminating that claim without also depicting men as DV victims?
And if you feel there is a necessity to depict DV-witnessing boys as future victims of DV, do you have any research to back up that parallel claim that witnessing DV also makes men more likely to become victims — not just perpetrators — of it? Because otherwise you’d be asking for an advertisement that actually IS false, in contrast to the ads above, the statistical accuracy of which I have seen no one in this thread challenge.
“And if you feel there is a necessity to depict DV-witnessing boys as future victims of DV, do you have any research to back up that parallel claim that witnessing DV also makes men more likely to become victims — not just perpetrators — of it? ”
It seems to be logical that it would exist, seeing as not all men nor women are automatons programmed absolutely in socialization and who were blank slates at birth. This theory took only what…32 years to debunk? In other words, everyone will react differently, and tendencies rely on reports from victims and perpetrators.
As stated before, men are VERY likely to underreport, for social and other reasons (such as getting minimal or no help anyways, if not outright scorn, or even being referred to an abuser hotline…when calling as a victim). So the theory that men are more likely to become victims of DV if they witness DV as children cannot be proven or unproven, we’re seriously lacking data.
Schala,
So the theory that men are more likely to become victims of DV if they witness DV as children cannot be proven or unproven, we’re seriously lacking data
Women underreport rape, although this has become less of a problem over time (just as I bet men’s underreporting of domestic violence is becoming less of a problem, though it probably is worse than women’s rape underreporting). We still produce lots of studies and data about rape victims even though we know we don’t get the whole picture.
Why do you think that because men underreport DV, we cannot figure out whether those men who do report it witnessed DV as children? Are you saying the n of men who report DV is so miniscule as to be worthless? or that there is reason to believe that men who witnessed DV as children and who are adult victims of it self-select out of the DV-reporting male population at a significantly greater rate than men who did not witness DV as children?
I can’t conjecture on your last two questions, and I’d rather we have sufficient data instead of *hoping* the sample we’d get is representative.
I’m pretty sure much less than 20% of male victims of abuse report it. The remaining 80% might have very different motives for wanting people not to know. I got a number like that, but the point is saying, the overwhelming majority is unreported.
It’s also harder to put such a study. Other studies can take their samples from shelters. If studies tried to do the same for male victims of DV, they’d find they’d lack shelters to visit. Services to men are hotel rooms mostly.
Schala,
1) Where do you get your 20% reporting number? We know that rape is underreported but may have improved in reporting because of the National Crime Survey; the DOJ polls a representative sample of Americans about whether they have been crime victims in the past year. If 1% of the women in the survey are polled as having been sexually assaulted, but only 0.5% of women in the population have reported a sexual assault, we estimate that 50% of sexual assaults are not reported.
2) There are lots of ways to get data on the men who are victims of domestic violence. The most obvious would be the counselors of those men — a service provided by The Family Place, btw, but not Sacks’s group “Fathers & Families.” Simply being in a shelter doesn’t automatically make women accessible for being questioned about their backgrounds, and the same would be true for men. Another methodology would be for all service providers — including those who give hotel vouchers — to request that clients fill out a questionnaire that did not ask for their names or other personally identifying information, but that included questions about whether they had witnessed DV as children, and if so, between whom.
Pingback: "Men's Rights Advocate" Glenn Sacks Protests Domestic Violence Awareness in Dallas | Menstrual Poetry
I made that number up, to say it was overwhelming. It was simply a way of illustrating it with some concreteness. I said so in the next sentence.
While some, perhaps many, shelters give hotel vouchers to men, the response to many is to ignore them, belittle them, think that they are actually abusers in disguise (assume bad faith, which they probably don’t of their female clients) by referring them to abuse hotlines. And there is not outreach.
Much like transsexuality, or asperger syndrome, or many intersex conditions feel like “being alone with that in the world” (because no one openly speaks about that in everyday conversations, and news sensationalize it), the same can be said of rape or DV for men victims, for whom it is said to be either impossible, them being weak, or them asking for it.
The same way I find it deplorable for a female victim of rape to be told she asked for it for how she dressed, I would find it as deplorable for a man to be told he HAD to bring it on himself, because of some or other factor unrelated to their part in the incident. Or that he’s no longer a man because of the incident / because he comes forward about it.
Schala,
Yes, that is deplorable.
I researched a paper in college for a law & sociology class, on the topic of “atypical” American domestic violence victims — i.e. those who were male, queer, non-white and/or non-citizen — and how they were treated differently, both legally and even in the DV literature. (E.g., in contrast to white middle- and upper-class white citizen women who generally are counseled to leave the abusive situation immediately, women of color, particularly in immigrant communities, often receive help in the form of efforts to counsel the abuser or otherwise keep the relationship together.) Admittedly that was undergrad and a decade ago, but I do feel that I’m reasonably familiar with the difference between how the “typical” DV victim is treated versus how others are treated.
I appreciate your efforts to be educating but I don’t think I need to be educated in the topic beyond what I have been asking for, which is empirical data on whether it actually would be accurate to make an advertisement depicting a male DV victim or a female perpetrator that gender-flips those above but retains the same message: by staying in the abusive situation, the victimized parent is making it more likely that the witnessing boy will be beaten by his future wife, or the witnessing girl will kill her future partner.
If there is nothing to back that claim of increased probability, then it would be dishonest for TFP to create such an ad just in the interests of superficial parity. However, if anyone can refute TFP’s claims that there is increased probability for what the ads posit (boy growing up to be abuser, girl growing up to be victim, child committing suicide) — i.e., can show a study that shows the probability of those events actually declines or is the same if one is a DV witness compared to non-DV witnesses — then I would also question whether the ads ought to be up.
I’m not knowledgeable enough about such studies to be of much help there. I’m a lay person as much as can be. I work in testing videogames, so those issues don’t come up (the place is very accepting of difference, sexism is all but unseen, and foreigners are welcomed with open arms in this international business – similarly my transition caused no issue, and I am recognized for all intents and purposes as female at work).
DV issues also don’t come up often if at all, or are kept under tabs for the same reasons as elsewhere.
My education is only high school, though I more or less aced it. I lacked ambition, and then funds, to go further. I’ve lost much faith in humanity as a whole because of personal experiences, news, etc. I don’t even read or watch the news anymore. I’ve little interest to contributing more than necessary to its perpetuation (speaking of humanity), and am sort of glad about being infertile in this context.
Schala:
Then perhaps it will interest you to know that in the arena of social services, folks don’t tend to rely so much anymore on “well this is probably true because it just seems logical!” as a basis for planning, outreach, and policy. Intuition and anecdote are fine bases for outlining new areas for inquiry and designing research hypotheses, but they are a poor choice for guiding agency actions.
In fact, they’re what led to the “well she should just LEAVE!” dogma that used to pervade women’s shelters, which in turn shut a lot of victims out of services because they were too financially dependent on their batterers, were unwilling to give up property or other investments, had children who could not be adequately accomodated in shelter or who had loyalty to their batterer, had parenting relationships with children not biologically theirs, had pets that could not be brought into shelter, had dependent parents that could not be brought into shelter, saw benefits to continuing the exsting relationship, could not themselves be accomodated in shelter because they were trans or male, and etc. etc. etc. It’s only research that has systematically revealed the faults in a “just LEAVE!” approach to DV intervention, and helped identify populations being poorly served, barriers to services, harm reduction strategies that can be used for those unwilling or unable to leave, and so forth.
You seem to depend an awful lot, in this thread and elsewhwere, on just making stuff up or making statements based on your own solipsistic ideas, what feels right to you, and never mind pesky things like “facts” and “research.” It seems like it would be really helpful if you could critically engage with information provided here rather than just denying it, and seek out information to help you inform and evaluate your positions before clinging to them so fiercely.
“You seem to depend an awful lot, in this thread and elsewhwere, on just making stuff up or making statements based on your own solipsistic ideas, what feels right to you, and never mind pesky things like “facts” and “research.” It seems like it would be really helpful if you could critically engage with information provided here rather than just denying it, and seek out information to help you inform and evaluate your positions before clinging to them so fiercely.”
Facts and research do say that men are extremely unlikely to report and give reasons for it. I read it, I’m just not aware of links, who made the research, and such.
I also don’t think I’m denying anything. Saying it sounds logical men witnessing DV would reproduce the same gender dynamics is something PG said. I countered with non-cited evidence that the dynamic is often reversed in other types of abuse, so logic is not necessarily right. PG then asked for evidence that male witness of DV would be more likely to become victims. And I’m unable to provide such. I never said I could. However I wouldn’t strike off the possibility.
When more male victims come forward, it will be easier to research it, and have bigger samples for those studies as well.
Schala,
PLEASE don’t make numbers up. Finding papers on battered husbands is fairly easy if one drags out Google. The problem is that if someone produces a paper, the first response is to attack the paper on ideological grounds, or to claim that for some reason unrelated to statistics, the paper is invalid. That’s what was done with the earliest papers that led to the so-called “Conflict Tactics Scale” — the work couldn’t possibly be valid because the conclusions were unacceptable (and in all fairness, the earliest work WAS bad and the conclusions in need of refining).
The best numbers I’ve seen on female-on-male DV — and this link repeats values in the same range — put it in the neighborhood of about 1 in 10. My guess is that is an under-counting because men do have alternatives to looking for a shelter that women don’t, and women are less physically capable (on average) of inflicting serious injuries on men. But that’s the number that keeps showing up — something in the range of 1 in 10.
What’s getting glossed in the conflict over the ad campaign is, I think, the most appalling aspect of the MRA response: that, when confronted with advertising they found offensive, their first move was to attempt to cut funding to a shelter that provides essential services to victims of domestic violence, including men; this spectacularly dickish, shortsighted move was accompanied by verbal harassment of the shelter staff–not marketers, not directors, but counselors and volunteers.
Is it worth it, Glen and co.? Is this what your idea of justice looks like?
Pingback: Men’s Rights Activists Attack Domestic Violence Shelter « The Czech
Ok Im going to speak from personal experience here a little then I am going to get back on track.
Im outside of the states therefore I cant actively participtate in any campaign against the adverts but I wanted to add my views simply because these situations have effected my life.
Firstly the comments on the use of text in adverts….. As a man with a degree in Marketing advertising and PR i feel i am qualified to comment here and it simply boils down to this in its most basic format …… when an advert is created they use the large font to make the point they want people to see , the smaller text usually has the catch and as shown in the following link Daily Mail shows that in any advertising situation the smaller text can often be overlooked.
In terms of domestic violence ill say this as someone who ended up in a care home due to abuse by my mother ( yes it does happen and more than people realise i work with a large organisation on a voluntary basis and many men i speak to wanting to end their lives are in very abusive hetrosexual relationships ) I found myself in later life involved with a woman who was abusive also . after a few years of therapy and a serious distrust of the police im with someone who views me as an equal who respects me and has reaffirmed my faith in the female gender.
The point being …. I belive in the ideals of those campaigning for mens rights , I belive that the adds do paint a negative image showing men as abusers and women as victims to the average person who does buy into what they see without looking deeper.
A simple thing ill put forward ….PG as you do seem to me to be the one who feels these adverts are fine … would you not agree that both adverts would have been better served having a male and female in each advert and changing the wording of husband/ wife to simply partner, this way making the adverts gender neutral while still keeping the impact many feel is justified?.
“PLEASE don’t make numbers up. Finding papers on battered husbands is fairly easy if one drags out Google.”
My numbers were about underreporting. You can’t “know” what isn’t known in exact numbers. I doubt studies on underreporting show an exact percentage, wether pertaining to men, or women. Though if I’m wrong, and some reliable papers do show exact numbers about underreporting, please point them out to me as I’m always interested to learn.
“this spectacularly dickish, shortsighted move was accompanied by verbal harassment of the shelter staff–not marketers, not directors, but counselors and volunteers.”
Glenn did say he didn’t condone and actively disencouraged such actions. While his readership may be questionable, his own character sounds honest enough.
Schala,
My numbers were about underreporting. You can’t “know” what isn’t known in exact numbers. I doubt studies on underreporting show an exact percentage, wether pertaining to men, or women. Though if I’m wrong, and some reliable papers do show exact numbers about underreporting, please point them out to me as I’m always interested to learn.
Of course underreporting won’t have an exact percentage, but it at least can have an estimate. As I described to you above with regard to how the numbers on underreporting of sexual assault are derived, there will be a margin of error as in any survey that uses a sample of the population rather than being a year-long multimillion dollar effort like the U.S. Census. But there at least is some basis of fact behind the numbers on underreporting of sexual assault. You just made up the “80% of domestic violence against men isn’t reported” out of thin air. That’s what Elusis and FCH are objecting to.
And while I also “wouldn’t strike off the possibility” that witnessing DV makes men more likely to become victims of DV as adults, it would be incredibly dishonest for The Family Place to make an ad claiming that they do unless it has some research to back up that claim. You’re saying it’s impossible for there to be such research due to underreporting by men. Are you asking TFP to put out ads based on a not-struck-off-possibility?
This is where my issue lies. When women such as myself attempt to show him and nearly all of his followers that there are indeed women who have been abused and who were treated unfairly in family court – we are called liars. Not in those words by Glenn himself, but most definitely by his followers. I told thoise on that board, if Glenn is still around when I know my child will be safe from our abuser (in other words – he will be unable to get physical custody) I will then share my story. My story is verifiable in more ways than some of his posters. My story has made the news. Yet I was called a liar when I shared bits of my story (granted the bits I shared were extremely vague but they still happened). I have been told that I could have several books written about my life and I have not even begun living yet. I have been walked all over by family court from the time I was 14. In every way. And because I spent weeks and weeks trying to get these men on there to see that sometimes not every woman is lying about dv, I was branded a liar and worse. This was why I began my website.
Women also under-report. It took me nearly 2 years before I finally reported. There had been hundreds of abusive situations and dozens of batterings before I decided enough was enough. But again this is slightly OT and I am only one woman. But I did see many many women at the shelters and all of them said the same thing I did. They suffered years of abuse – one went through it for 25 years in order to get all of her chidlren out on their own. She had been stashing extra from her food budget and when the youngest child moved out she filed for divorce.
There are crazy women who beat men, beat women, and there are crazy men who beat women and beat men. Men are more often the perps of the most violent dv – murders. The women we see who have commited dv murder are so few and far between we see them on the news over and over and over.
Sacks however, will rile up his followers and then sit back and say oh I didn’t mean for that to happen. I have 5 kids and the older two were like this. They were very close in age so they grew up together. The younger child (my dd) would egg her older brother on to do stuff and then he would get caught and be in trouble. I remember one time my oldest dd tried to get him to bake cookies for everyone. They could not reach the mixing bowls so they made their recipe on the kitchen floor. These cookies were going to be some really nasty cookies. Ingredients were eggs, milk, koolaid, dr pepper, sprite, ketchup, mustard, flour, and sugar. All over my floor. I am the kind of mom though when kids do this kind of crazy, I just sit wherever and start laughing so hard I start crying.
The whole point of this story is that my oldest dd had the uncanny ability to con her big brother into doing just about anything and try to keep herself out of trouble because she would be nowhere around. We knew and we know how Glenn works too. Now I am not trying to be snarky or anything just calling it like I see it. This is why you see comments from him like the ones on this blog. Thats why he has disabled all commenters links. He will deny it but this is why.
“You’re saying it’s impossible for there to be such research due to underreporting by men. Are you asking TFP to put out ads based on a not-struck-off-possibility?”
No, I’m not. However, I’m asking for people in general, which includes feminists, to consider the possibility. I’m not asking people to publish hypotheticals, just to not dismiss them.
“Of course underreporting won’t have an exact percentage, but it at least can have an estimate.”
If TFP’s statistics are accurate, and your statistic that men are represented at 16.6% of victims, 15 men versus 800 women, 16.6% of 800 being 132.8 men. 15 versus 132.8 = 11.2% seek services, 88.8% suffer in silence, or cope. Are my statistics right (as I often make mistakes that I can overlook)?
Schala,
1) It was not my statistic that men are 16.6% of the total number of victims of DV. Rather, one person proffered the statistic that 5 times as many women as men are victims of DV. Sailorman took that to mean that 20% of DV victims are men. I corrected Sailorman’s interpretation of the “5 times as many” number by translating the fraction into the correct percentage; I did not endorse it.
2) TFP’s statistic was about the number of men and women to whom they provide emergency shelter each year, not about the number of men and women who report DV. TFP is a single organization in the city of Dallas. To say they are somehow making claims about the number or percentage of men who report DV, whether within Dallas or nationwide, is ludicrous.
3) If you are going to misinterpret my statements and those of others in this fashion, I don’t think we can have a productive discussion.
I didn’t say it was about report. Since I’m comparing one number about seeking services versus another about seeking services *amongst* those that purportedly are victims (not the general population). The result is a discrepancy in those seeking services, no?
So either the 16.6% statistic is right, and only 11% of male victims seek services (as compared to an hypothetical 100% of female victims – if it is 50% of female victims who seek services, then male victims also shrink in half to 5.5%)*. Or the statistic is near 2% male/98% female victims, which is pretty extreme even with conservative numbers. Or something in-between, or totally different.
I’m curious how underreporting is estimated though. Given that someone counted as a victim probably did report it (if only to the survey/organization making the study).
Since CTS studies are considered as flawed by feminists in general (I’m neutral on this issue, since I don’t know what would make it valid or invalid), and these are about one of the few who are gender-balanced (ask the same questions of men and women), I don’t know what to rely on for underreporting rates.
And then there is the question of one-time events versus long-standing DV, which I don’t know studies being able to differentiate the two (maybe there are, I just don’t know them). This issue can complicate matters.
The wording in many studies implies that one who is a victim must see themself as a victim to count. In other words, the wording used will undercount both male and female victims who don’t see themselves as a victim of a crime. I heard it is more likely to undercount male victims, who shy away from the term victim, or don’t consider it a crime – for social or other reasons – than female victims.
It probably isn’t intentional bias, but it has a real effect.
*Explanation of what I mean in the parenthesis above:
11% of men versus 100% of women is totally hypothetical.
Based on 15/132.8 versus 800/800
If numbers are more like 800/4000 female victims (only 20% seek services). Then male victims represent 16.6% of that new number. So 15/664 (only 2.2% seek services).
If you didn’t mean to be talking about reporting, then
1) why did your comment say:
There is no reason to quote my statement about underreporting unless you were making a statement about (under)reporting.
2) What are you talking about with your statistics? Are you trying to figure out what percentage of all male DV victims seek services? If so, relying solely on TFP’s number of men served continues to be utterly ludicrous as a method for determining this. TFP is not the only provider of DV services in the Dallas area, and of course it is not the only provider of DV services in the U.S. Its numbers can’t tell you what percentage of all DV victims seek services; they can tell you only what percentage of DV victims seek services at this particular organization. It’s about as sensible as looking at the number of cancer patients versus heart patients served at the Cleveland Clinic to figure out what percentage of all cancer patients get health care in the U.S.
That’s why I’m finding this discussion frustrating. You seem to be grabbing for any numbers that you can to make your point, even when the numbers are completely inappropriate to your purpose.
And yet, the logical conclusion never reaches some people’s heads.
Measured on a scale of likely damages, then, F-M DV is to M-F DV what blowing up a car is to blowing up a bank.
“Why does society focus on the bank-bombers more?” Well, you just sort of answered your own question there, buddy.
Look, DV is a problem, regardless of the gender of the victim or the gender of the perp. I’m open to any and all suggestions to tackle the often ignored problem of F-M domestic violence. But a lot of advocates aren’t doing themselves any favours with tactics that belie an appalling indifference to victims of the other sex. (Yes, this is true of the other side as well, but because of the strength disparity between the sexes, I prioritize that side anyway. And I think this is true of most outside onlookers.)
Consider the forced acceptance of male victims into currently female-only DV shelters. I raised this question on another thread: how integrated shelters would cope with the potential problem of abusers masquerading themselves as unrelated victims, so that they come fetch their partners? I received, I believe, a response that stated that this isn’t really seen in gay couples that currently use such services. (I think… my memory’s hazy, and it was quite a while ago.) A related responses I’ve heard in the past is that, if that was going to be a problem, abusers would be right now sending female friends or relatives en masse. The first misses that heterosexual couples make up the vast majority of all couples, so we don’t know how things like this would scale, especially since the gay community is a somewhat culturally distinct entity with some of its own social norms. The second misses that most abusers probably keep it a secret, and even those who have an outside enabler, the vast majority probably aren’t comfortable to actively engage that person in the crime, or she’d refuse even if he tried.
I mean, if your answer is, “what potential losses in security for female victims is worth recognizing male victims”, then just say it – it’s a case that could be made, if not universally agreed upon – but any sort of silence is telling.
This is not even mentioning the far worse tactic of actively trying to defund existing DV shelters that, whatever their ideological faults, provide a crucial and necessary service to thousands of victims. By this point, any pretense of caring about female victims as well, but-you-also-care-about-male-ones-unlike-those-haughty-feminists, is lost.
Perhaps your movement is marginal, not because everyone, the media, and their uncles is persecuting you, but for a damn good reason?
Sorry if this was off-topic. I don’t self-identify as feminist, but I do share some of these frustrations.
” TFP is not the only provider of DV services in the Dallas area, and of course it is not the only provider of DV services in the U.S. Its numbers can’t tell you what percentage of all DV victims seek services; they can tell you only what percentage of DV victims seek services at this particular organization.”
TFP is one of the few organizations who provide more than outside referrals to male victims, they actually counsel them, from what they say. Secondly, the extreme discrepancy in statistics (15 vs 800 seeking services) is telling, even if it’s not wholly representative, unless Dallas, Texas sees only M-F DV and is an anomaly US-wise in this regards (of F-M DV not happening at all, as 15/800 is minimal).
It won’t give us exact numbers, it might be 11% there, and 15% elsewhere, and 5% somewhere else (seeking services %), but the ratio is incredibly low regardless, and this is pretty observable in general elsewhere even without precise statistics. Isn’t this what generates sayings like “95% of DV victims are female, 5% of DV victims are male, most of which are gay men” ?
Cause this argument has been put forth more than once, by DV organizations themselves.
FWIW, same-sex partners of DV victims entering shelters to look for their victims *is* a known problem when providing services to queer people. I’ve seen people speculate back and forth on this in these threads, and wanted to interject that information.
Elusis:
So, then how do they address it? And why can’t the same techniques be used in co-ed shelters to deal with heterosexual abusers?
Sylphhead,
I don’t think any who actually cares about this problem is suggesting that there be some kind of “integrated” shelters. That’s a straw-man that is brought up most every time someone suggests there be some kind of care for male victims of domestic violence.
I wouldn’t have a problem if vouchers were given out — it would have been better than hanging around for another two weeks while I waited to get paid again. But what I really needed wasn’t just a spot to plotz. What I needed was someone to tell me that abuse wasn’t “okay”, because I grew up thinking that abuse was normal. Not because my Dad beat my Mom, and not because I’d ever seen a husband beat a wife. I grew up thinking abuse was normal because the States has a culture that glamorizes violence. Being beaten is treated as a rite of passage for boys, and weak boys supposedly become “stronger” (HA!) by being beaten.
A hotel voucher wasn’t going to do for me what I needed. Some rather expensive time with a therapist — and I’ve been seeing one off and on for 20+ years, thanks to the abuse I personally experienced growing up — did, and unless TFP is sending people to those hotels to get men to understand they aren’t “whimps”, “henpecked” or “p*ssywhipped” because they “let” a woman beat them, TFP is doing men a grave disservice.
Because heterosexuals outnumber queers by lots. If I go to a women’s shelter, most of the women around me are going to be straight. If I was fleeing a man who’d battered me, most of the men there would also be straight and it would be a lot harder to separate the straight dudes who are trying to follow their wife / girlfriend from the straight dudes who are fleeing violence.
Co-ed shelters are a profoundly DUMB idea.
It’s an ongoing concern for shelters, Mandolin. I don’t think any clear mandate has emerged on how to handle it. Some ask those who come in for service to present identification, and have an informal list of folks that should not be allowed in (because they have been identified as abusers of those already in shelter) or who should at least be further screened and then given a voucher for a hotel if they indeed need shelter.
It’s a thorny issue, but it shouldn’t preclude giving services to victims of same-sex DV. I only commented because it seemed to be being invoked as a hypothetical or a non-issue (more as a political footbal than as a real problem.)
Elusis wrote:
I am not everywhere all around the world, I only know of my own area. I also know this is a problem – men coming to get their victims at a shelter. I know of one man who sent one of his relatives who just so happened to be a LEO to go get the woman and tell her to come home “or else”. She did. If he claimed to be a victim and got into the shelter what could or would he have done to her?
From what I hear sometimes, it sounds like integrated shelters is exactly what some are clamoring for, actually. I guess these are just those who don’t actually care – or, actually thought about – the problem.
I agree that hotel vouchers are not sufficient in scale. I’m assuming the answer for more serious men’s advocates is somewhere along the lines of having two parallel, separate shelters.
It goes without saying that the two shelters would have to be geographically separate. To some extent, they’d have to be somewhat separate at an organizational level, as well – at the very least, the means of contacting each must not intertwine. The problem is, of course, the cost. If it were simply a matter of opening the doors to existing shelters to more members, it could probably be done quickly. We’re dealing with mostly sunk costs, after all. But for reasons we’ve agreed on, this is unacceptable. So it looks like we’re going the more expensive route of buying up more premises, more staff, more amenities, etc. and always there is going to be this similar trade-off between security for existing patrons or the speed at which we can accommodate a new group.
I think men’s advocates are all for the latter, but try to remain silent about it, and cry foul when the question is even brought up. Which just cheeses me off, and doesn’t help that I just haven’t gotten over my suspicions of a good chunk of the movement yet, which is a shame because we’re mostly aligned in our goals.
Everything I’ve said up to this point, in fact, was a little bit more than a mental exercise, since my own opinion is it’s silly trying to set up a literal “men’s shelter” in opposition to women’s shelters. That’s simply trying to force an overly literal gender equivalence where it is not appropriate – the same thing I challenged PG on, in another thread at the complete opposite end of the graveness spectrum. Men and women aren’t affected by DV in the same ways. Due to obvious differences in size and strength, I doubt any men could be physically scared into hiding the way women can. If a man wanted to restrain his abuser, he most likely could. He probably doesn’t out of a fear that if he does, he will be cast as the abuser, and no one will believe his side of the story.
So male victims probably don’t need physical protection so much as social: continuing to push male victims into the cultural consciousness, as well as connecting male victims into a network with each other, so that they don’t feel alone or singularly unworthy, unmanly, or what have you. I’m thinking more “support group, with government assistance and associated media sponsor groups” – more along the lines of AA – rather than “shelter”.
But the best evidence we have indicates that most intimate violence — and in particular, the most severe and harmful cases — are typically cases of men abusing women.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
How many times must this link be provided before people will realize that statements like the one above are false at best.
sylphhead,
since my own opinion is it’s silly trying to set up a literal “men’s shelter” in opposition to women’s shelters. That’s simply trying to force an overly literal gender equivalence where it is not appropriate
This seems incredibly heteronormative. You say, “I doubt any men could be physically scared into hiding the way women can,” and ignore that many male victims of DV are smaller than their (male) partners. TFP notes that most of the men who seek their services are gay. Moreover, would you want to exclude lesbians from women’s shelters, since lesbians presumably are more comparable in size to their partners than het women? Such an exclusion would “solve” the problem of lesbian abusers coming to shelters to harass their victims, after all.
I stand by my statement. I addressed the kind of studies described at your link in a great deal of detail here.
I don’t think you really addressed the issue. Rather, you did what is so often done to discredit the claims that men are physically abused by women — you made it all about how severe the violence is.
Do more men murder their female partners than do women their male parters? Sure. Point conceded. But that’s not the claim that men’s rights activists make — the claim is that violence is a two way street, and the earliest CTS work, as well as the follow-up by the BJS, found that yes — violence is a two way street. Because what saying “Men aren’t shot as often” says — just my perception, and I admit to be very biased because I lived through it — is that men just have to stand there and “take it” for anything less violent than a gun or a knife. It’s hard work to restrain someone in a violent altercation. Grab an arm, and they’ve still got another arm and two legs.
This “pick them up and carry them to another room” silliness is exactly that — it’s silliness. A 130lb woman is not like a 90lb bag of concrete — it doesn’t want to just slump there on your shoulder and stay put. It makes a great movie scene — wasp-waisted blond slung over the shoulder of the swarthy he-man, kicking and screaming. There’s a reason fire fighters use the “Fireman’s (sic) Carry” and not some Hollywood “throw the blond over the shoulder” routine. It’s hard enough carrying an unconscious body — carrying a violent spouse to another room so they can have a bit of “Time-out” ain’t so easy.
What you’re saying is that below some level, violence isn’t violence. And that’s just wrong.
:shrug: Severity counts. Father’s rights activists, in their endless quest for “equal victim!” status, like to pretend that it doesn’t mean anything, but it does.
(Contrary to your claim, however, my linked post wasn’t just about severity, but also about frequency.)
If you want me to agree that there are some men who are violently abused by their female partners; who need help and services; and who aren’t getting the help and services they need, then I agree. If you want me to agree that there should be more outreach to male victims of intimate violence, then again, I agree. This is what I’ve been saying for years.
But that’s not what MRAs want. MRAs, by and large, want “equal victimization” status. MRAs object to ads talking about men hurting women for the same reason that they’ve spent years attacking statistics about rape. For most of them, it’s not about helping male victims in need.
Glenn did not agitate for outreach to male victims of DV; in fact, he attacked an agency that helps male victims. What Glenn and his fellow-travelers object to is the admission that domestic violence against women, usually perpetrated by men, is a severe problem — and not an equal problem.
Amp,
Severity matters in terms of needing a trip to the ER. Financial resources matters in terms of needing a trip to a shelter or assistance getting somewhere else.
But neither access to money, nor the number of facial lacerations, bruises or stab wounds means violence did or didn’t happen and the family household is “safe”. That’s the cop-out that’s used to trivialize or minimize abuse. It’s the same thing my brother used to get out of accepting that he sexually molested me — “It wasn’t that bad”.
No one has to endure abuse. What I get from your comment is that bigger and stronger men have to put up with abuse and not receive any assistance either in learning that abuse isn’t okay or getting out of an abusive relationship. I’m not willing to accept that that is the best that can be done. And knowing that feminism isn’t about “It wasn’t that bad”, I also don’t think it’s a feminist response. Feminism is about subjectivity — “I was”, not “You weren’t”.
Here’s what Furrycatherder heard:
Here’s what I actually just said, in the comment FCH was replying to:
Since it’s plain, FCH, that you’ve decided what you’re going to “get from” my comments, regardless of what my comments actually say, I don’t see any point in continuing this exchange.
And here’s what you started with —
I don’t think putting “equal victim” in scare quotes means anything other than you think they AREN’T equal victims. Once you’ve denied men who are slapped and punched are no less victims than women who are slapped and punched, even if the men aren’t as severely injured (“Severity counts.”), I don’t give a flip about the rest.
Severity DOES NOT COUNT. It doesn’t count in rape, and it doesn’t count in domestic violence. There’s no such thing as “just a little raped” and there’s also no such thing as “just a little beaten”.
Sheesh.
FCH, imagine that one man gets beaten to a pulp by his lover, to the point he can’t move. Meanwhile, another man has the experience I had: punched once by his lover, but never felt any fear or threat, and barely even had a bruise.
Would you seriously claim, comparing these two events, that “severity does not count”? There’s no difference in these two events, in your opinion?
I don’t think men as a group are equally victimized by intimate violence, which is what the scare quotes indicated. I do think some individual men are equally victimized.
Amp,
I’d say that the two men in those examples have two very different NEEDS. Both were “beaten”. Only one needed a trip to the hospital.
What should determine treatment or social support is NEED, not gender. In that sense, yes, of course severity does matter. Someone who thinks “Only whimps let women hit them” and then psychologically turns inward on themselves might not have been beaten to a pulp, but despite the lack of serious physical injuries, they still have psychological NEEDS. In that sense, severity doesn’t matter.
And the reason I’m stuck on this point is because that’s what was used against me — because the people who sexually abused me didn’t violently and brutally rape me, it took me years to understand that what happened was real. And it was real because the psychological impacts were real, even though the physical harm wasn’t as great as it might have been for someone else.
Likewise, when my ex-wife was sending me to work with a bloodied face, even though I had no broken bones, stab wounds, and hadn’t been shot, it took me years on a therapists couch before I was able to deal with and recover from what happened. That’s the risk of “Severity matters!” Sometimes the worst injuries aren’t to the body. I suffered from PTSD for 20 years without once having be shot or stabbed. Shot AT, yes, but not actually shot.
SO, no, severity doesn’t matter. If someone tells me they were slapped, I listen to them. I don’t ask if they had broken facial bones, or if they were “in fear of their life”. I’d suggest that if the worst you’ve experienced is one partner punching you once in the chest that you lack the reference frame to be making such pronouncements.
— Julie.
Erm…isn’t that just another way of saying, “severity matters”?
It sounds a lot like you two are agreeing that severity matters. In fact, I bet you would both agree on where to draw the line between “not serious” and “serious”. As far as I can tell, you’re arguing over semantics.
I doubt very much that Amp would argue that somebody who has suffered emotional (but not physical) damage from DV is not a genuine victim.
Correct me if I’m wrong.