News Violence Against Women Ad - Australia

[Mallaky]

@Anarchy That is a one year old discussion I have completely forgotten. Either you are excessively vindictive, or it really hurt you. I have reread that thread, and do not understand why I jumped at you. Shame you did not bring it up anytime earlier, I would have apologized then as I like to do now. I must have been at a very bad place to attack you like that. Not okay. I can see the humor now, back then I must have perceived some kind of personal attack. I was wrong.

It's a shame you chose to belittle and insult me for it, and successfully hurt me, one year after the fact. I did not attack you in this thread, the same way you did not attack me in that thread a year ago.

 

[joeylittle]

@Mallaky and @Anarchy - if you have anything else to say to each other re: past posts on the board, take it to PM: continued discussion of that issue in this thread will result in thread bans for you both.

Back to the topic:

My main point was that this particular advert is very narrow in scope, both the cast of the ad and the message,

I hear you. In terms of the message - yes, you could call it a narrow lens. You could also call it specific. Both would be accurate. In my opinion, whether narrow or specific, people respond to things that are more targeted. To argue that the narrow/specific lens tacitly implies exclusion to all other groups seems a bit of a stretch, to me. The real solution to what you are talking about would be multiple campaigns, each specific to a potentially targeted group. I don't think it would be a better solution to widen the lens; the message could get lost, frankly.

and that the funder of the advert claims to have a right to legitimately inflict aggressive violence, which possibly also explains the narrow focus.

It's a government funded campaign
Government gets its money either through tax or through printing more money and using legal tender laws to force people to accept what they print in exchange for goods and services....

Now, if the curlicue we need to go through here is the anarchists' lens - narrow lens - that the government is pro-violence...etc...that's a big loop-de-loop. But, more relevantly: that's an incredibly narrow lens, and utterly biased by your politics. Who should have funded it? Nobody? That's not really what you are arguing, I don't think - but you are arguing that government shouldn't really exist in the first place. Way off-course for this debate, as a legit point.

When the focus is child abuse, specifically - people drawing attention to the issue do a generally level job of drawing attention to both genders of children being abused. Child-on-child violence, same.

This ad is violence against women. I'm curious - are we debating that there should be an ad on violence against men, or violence against male children/adolescents? I'm thinking the latter would actually be the appropriate counterpoint - true or false?

 

[blackemerald1]

In Australia both Federal & State & Sporting Bodies & other entities, I can't remember them all... have targeted:-
The Coward's Punch (male v male violence resulting in catastrophic brain damage & inevitably death for the victim);)
Bullying against anyone
Indigenous discrimination
Terrorist recruitment to fight with terrorist's
Sign's of domestic terrorism activities
Addiction against Tobacco, ICE, Alcohol & Gambling & other prescribed drug's & other drugs deemed illegal by a Democratic political system & their mandated policies. Enforced by men & women who gave Oath to enforce those Law's
Drug dealers
Street crimes
Homelessness & it's causes
Violence against women
Violence against children
Discrimination against gender, disability, race, religion
Public appeals by Government to find abducted children
And I have left out a whole range of others, deliberately because there are so many deliberate acts, abhorrent inhumane act's that create VICTIMS, many die, many suffer intolerable disabilities such as PTSD!

I see no, conspiracy by any one entity funding awareness of our vulnerable members of society against abhorrent behaviour.

For your info if this thread is even still on topic Australia has at least 2 murders of women per week.Countless children, male & female, families lost forever in mourning for the senseless act of one or more against a women or child.

Nobody wants violence except dickheads!

Sorry @ Anthony & others, but I humbly suggest that if as a Society we run the risk of desensitization v giving the population a bloody good wake up to the status quo of what is being done to all these vulnerable people by running "awareness campaigns" against the all to often 'accepted' behaviours of perpetrators & HOW they came to believe that this behaviour is ok, well I humbly suggest that's a small risk against what is already happening.

These vulnerable people AND potential perpetrators, who could be stopped by being educated via media need a VOICE. If we don't have a discussion that reaches across the Nation. What on earth are we to accept? More of what we are currently experiencing? Is this behaviour accepted? I don't believe anything will change unless we, as a society are acquainted with the fact's. Then change for the better may have a chance. Or, do we stay blind... read about yet another child or woman being at the least disrespected & living out a lifetime of fear & believing this is how women should be treated, passing this onto their own daughters & sons to perpetuate violence & acceptance of violence?

No! If we just read about it in the headlines for a day, then years later after the trial or inquest, it doesn't give a voice to anything. "It will never happen to me" mentality reigns supreme. But, then it does. What then? Just another women killed, natural attrition? So, no discussion, no voice... No change!

As for there being more violence in our lifetime, as suggested, no! Remember the saying's, "A man's home is HIS castle" or "What goes on behind closed door's..." Perhaps before the "irreconcilable difference for divorce law was introduced, murder & violence abounded. But, legislation changed this. How...because murdering male or females & children became a big issue. It was discussed, given a voice. Does it matter who finally said enough is too much. I suggest not.

So, I am stepping off my soapbox now.

 

[shimmerz]

I just have to step in here to say that when I originally went to my women's outreach program, whilst in the midst of unbelievably violent abuse, I didn't even know what violence was. I had a general idea, but really didn't understand that my husband was being violent towards me.

I think we are best served to make up a curiculum in schools (all of them) and teach boys and girls what violence is. But the schools can't even figure out how to stop bullying for crying out loud. By the time we deal with 'women's violence' boys who have been abused have become men and girls who have been abused have become women and most likely have dealt with nuances and out and out psychological and physical violence but have learned already that 'that stuff is okay'. They see it modeled at home, in the school yards, with teachers, on tv, music videos.

We live in a terribly violent society. The only way we are going to change that is by having a commitment from the adults to teach children what violence actually is. Unfortunately the adults are already so broken that they aren't actually qualified to accurately provide definitions themselves.

 

[Nevermore]

You're so right @shimmerz - it starts at home. Not that long ago families were not as nuclear and insular as they are today. I have a feeling that may be part of the problem.
It really does take a village to raise children in the right way, especially when it's gotten to the point it's at today!
Wisdom and guidance - kids need it!

 

[Sideways]

I'm really struggling with the hoohaa on this.

There's been a big recent movement in Australia against domestic violence following some very public and atrocious cases in court. It brought the issue to the public's attention. We had a Royal Commission into it. The community seemed to be generally in favour of tackling what has been referred to as "our national shame".

Hence the ad. Maybe not the greatest ad, but it's better than SFA.

The ad isn't suggesting that DV is bad, ergo all other violence is good.
The ad isn't suggesting that only women are the victim of violence (though for DV, the stats are pretty clear that women make up the vast majority of victims most often at the hands of their partner or ex...for DV).
The ad isn't suggesting this is the only issue regarding violence in our community (like, to hell with murder, we only care about DV...wtf??).

It's an issue. We'd like to address it. The govt created a dodgy ad.

What on earth is wrong with that!?!

 

[Friday]

Ads like these are brilliant IMO. They take a generation to work, but the slow subtle changes are exactly how one does affect lasting change.

 

[Sighs]

Am the only one who noticed @Anarchy failed to respond to the direct question as to whether he was a white heterosexual male?

 

[Anarchy]

Am the only one who noticed @Anarchy failed to respond to the direct question as to whether he was a white heterosexual male?

how would race, gender, sex, orientation, social class, color of hair or any other characteristic affect the relevance or otherwise of the points that I have made here?

you can explain with reference BOTH

• to characteristics of me
• and to the logic of the comments I have made

you might also like to make reference to the logical fallacies of:

• ad hominem
• poisoning the well
• appeal to spite
• two wrongs make a right
• guilt by association
• red herring

 

[Nevermore]

Hey, personally I don't think it matters. It was a really interesting discussion. I'm female but I too see the flaws in separating violence towards one group of people from violence in general. And I've suffered violence from a man!
But I find the discussion around why and how to change it far more interesting and productive than just condemnation.

 

[EveHarrington]

how would race, gender, sex, orientation, social class, color of hair or any other characteristic affec...

It explains the viewpoint from which you make those statements.

 

[scout86]

Well, supposing @Anarchy ISN'T "white"? Or, supposing he's gay, or trans, or something else? Does that affect how you feel about his point of view? I'm with @jojo88 , the "how to affect change" part of the conversation is more interesting.