News Violence Against Women Ad - Australia

[Sighs]

Thank you @joeylittle - you said it so much better than I did.

 

[Ellabella44]

I think the ad is a step in the right direction, but if it was focused more on parents / adults somehow being taught that they dont have to encourage their child to "man up" and "take mistreatment as being liked".

and I use the gender neutral of child because it doesnt matter if you are straight or gay, the reinforcement of these two ideas can still be in play in any relationship. If a child is taught to be a bully type personility, they may become the aggressor against boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse, partner.

the sad thing is I dont think you can reteach the parents themselves who have been in this situation as a child, unless they want the cycle to stop with them in their family

 

[scout86]

I liked the ad and here's why. Many people, regardless of gender, don't stop to think how those expressions sound to kids of both genders @Anarchy, I agree with most of what you said about the reasons for pay inequity. But I have also been told that I didn't "need " to earn as much as my male coworkers because I wasn't supporting a family. I've been told, in all seriousness, that "girls don't do science"

 

[scout86]

( darn phone!) I've totally lost count of the various times and ways I've been told my career choices aren't appropriate for my gender. Lucky for me I'm too stupid to get the message!

 

[Suzetig]

@Anarchy I can see where you're coming from in terms of trying to address violence as a base line issue in society however I think your assertions do deny the dynamics in domestic abuse which are largely gender based. I say largely because there is a growing evidence base in relation to female perpetrators and male victims and in both male and female same sex relationships.

It is still the case though that 80% of reported domestic abuse relates to female victims of male aggressors. That figure has moved quite a bit over the past few years from around 95%. Even taking under reporting of violence into account the figures heavily weigh in favour of women being most likely to experience domestic abuse and their attacker is most likely to be male. Two women per week, on average, are killed in domestic abuse incidents in the UK - there's now an research based tool to support assessment of risk to women of being murdered by their partner/ex partner, there's no such evidence base for male victims (or indeed same sex domestic violence) because the figures are so small a viable research sample doesn't exist yet.

Simply put gender dynamics come into play in domestic abuse in a way that they don't in bullying. Those messages about power in relationships come early in life and need to be challenged and I think this advert goes some way to doing that.

That's not to say men aren't victims, of course they are, and are massively impacted. Campaigns around knife crime (a massive issue in Scotland), gang violence etc generally address the issue of male experiences of violence because men tend to affected by this type of violence more than women. Not that women are never affected but are less so - different dynamic, different strategy to tackle and address.

 

[Anarchy]

I can see why there is a focussing on a narrow area of violence, in this case "against women"

rather than a blanket statement that any initiation of force is wrong

and at least part of that is because, the producer of the advert, reserves the right to legally initiate force (that is Max Weber - the father of sociology's fairly non controversial definition of a state; the institution that claims the legal monopoly on the initiation of force within a geographical area).

One of the first tactics which Schaupenhauer recommends in his "The art of controversy" is the widening and narrowing of deffinitions
by narrowing, a disputant can respond to a critical flaw in their argument - "Ah yes, but I'm not actually talking about that"

and by widening, other factors can be brought in to play.

In the wide sense, I'm arguing that the only place for violence is defensive - but we are never going to see that admitted by the maker of the advert or by believers in statism, as without the initiation of force, states cannot collect tax/tribute/plunder, enforce laws against victimless activities, and maintain monopolies. A state is a monopoly, without violence it simply becomes a provider of services that competes on the market for freely choosing customers.

so for the maker of the advert - aggressive violence in some context, such as male on female domestic violence is wrong, but in other contexts aggressive violence can be a good thing - like catching and robbing people who want to keep all of their income, or who want to ingest bits of certain plants.

--------------------------------------


Back to the narrower sense of the advert itself and discussion of domestic violence

It is still the case though that 80% of reported domestic abuse relates to female victims of male aggressors. That figure has moved quite a bit over the past few years from around 95%. Even taking under reporting of violence into account the figures heavily weigh in favour of women being most likely to experience domestic abuse and their attacker is most likely to be male.

I agree, massive under reporting
I think that there are two additional factors in there; due to the (on average) disparity in size weight and strength, male on female is more likely to result in physical injury, requiring medical attention, than female on male
and, though there is still huge stigma, there is possibly slightly less stigma now for female victims of male violence than there is for male victims of female perpetrated domestic violence.

I can feel a new thread and a survey coming on here, to see what the proportions were for members parents (rather than members themselves as we have a majority of female members, hence a built in skew).

Two women per week, on average, are killed in domestic abuse incidents in the UK -

I've got some very non PC suspicions about that. I wonder what the annual per capita figures are broken down by errr, "heritage"?
Most particularly with reference to Pakistan and north west India and perhaps also to a lesser extent Bangladesh?

If I am correct in that suspicion, Is an advert filmed with a wholly white cast of actors (why is it if good things are being advertised, the producers have no problem with a diverse cast - but when bad things are being shown, then suddenly the diversity disappears?) going to reach the groups most likely to be perps and victims, and be seen as in any way relevant to them?

In Britain, we've already seen a reluctance to address organised predation on young girls due to PC fears when the perps were from minority groups, eg Rotherham. Does that extend to wider categories of abuse and to other geographical areas?

Simply put gender dynamics come into play in domestic abuse in a way that they don't in bullying. Those messages about power in relationships come early in life and need to be challenged and I think this advert goes some way to doing that.

I fully agree with that, though the Advert itself does show bullying scenes which I can strongly relate to, and which I received the same response that the little girl did - not that it was because I was female but because I wasn't man enough. I've even got some pretty bitter memories of getting beaten up at my childhood birthday parties...

but, coming back to the main point that I have been arguing, I would also point to popular beliefs that some people are entitled to use violence on others.

How effective is attacking a specific area going to be, when aggressive violence is still endorsed in the wider sense?

 

[EveHarrington]

I do not believe that violence against women is a "narrow" focus.

This argument, taken to extremes, would deny -----any------ facet of society to have their own specific struggles with violence/abuse.

"Sorry little Johnny, but adults are abused every day, too. You're not so unique; you don't deserve to have attention drawn to the child abuse cause."

Is this a place we really want to go? I'd argue not.

 

[Suzetig]

In Britain, we've already seen a reluctance to address organised predation on young girls due to PC fears when the perps were from minority groups, eg Rotherham. Does that extend to wider categories of abuse and to other geographical areas?

In my personal and professional experience yes there's a nervousness about identifying abusers from minority groups as seen in the high profile investigations into CSE (child sexual exploitation).

Where I live, in the west of Scotland, domestic violence tends to run more along socioeconomic lines than race, ie much higher rates of abuse in areas where poverty is an issue. That's not to say abuse doesn't happen in "nice, affluent" areas but my experience is that it tends to be more coercive control than outright violence. There is of course the reality that people in minority's groups are less likely to be engaged by/engage with local services so certainly there will be much that is hidden but I'm very aware that domestic violence is very much an issue in white "indigenous" communities in the UK.

To my knowledge there isn't a higher proportion of women in minority groups killed by partners or ex partners. Honour based killings tend to be differentiated and recorded as such so aren't included in the domestic violence stats quoted above.

 

[Anarchy]

Hi Eve,
my argument isn't that violence against a particular group of people (however it is defined) should be ignored because a different group of people has problems.

It is let's condemn all use of aggressive violence and threats of it

The advert ends with a call to end violence against females - would it hurt or dilute that message to say that aggressive violence is not acceptable anywhere?*
@

_____________________
*I know that that isn't going to happen in a state funded advert, as the state is, in most definitions, an institution that claims the right to initiate violence. Turkeys (if they were bright enough) wouldn't deliberately draw attention to thanksgiving or cranberry sauce.

 

[scout86]

@Anarchy , I don't think it would hurt at all to end the ad that way. But the point I got from the ad, and maybe this is just because of my own experience, is that when the worst insult you can direct against a boy is to compare him to a girl, what message does that send to BOTH genders?

 

[Anarchy]

when the worst insult you can direct against a boy is to compare him to a girl, what message does that send to BOTH genders?

very much agreed

a silly and totally OT aside
My brother (who's gay) is getting a teenage girl as a sort of helper for the summer holiday (it's the old, "if you don't stick in at school, you'll end up in a shitty job like this). She's completely un girly. My father who is hard of hearing, mis heard her name and now calls her Eric. Surprisingly for him, I don't think he's worked out that she's female.

 

[EveHarrington]

PS

FYI for those that don't know......

It's #blacklivesmatter (TOO!)

Many don't realize the unspoken/hidden "too"------and I think this same dynamic is playing out in this thread.