2in2u.ie - government sponsered gender discrimination?

Aswerty

clouds wrote: »

But just because one group of victims are being highlighted it doesn't mean that other groups are being denied.

Like if I collect money for dffodil day it doesnt mean that I don't care about cardic patients. It' just focus

I'd only consider that analogy to be sound though if daffodil day collected for cancer patients of a specific gender. The complaint isn't that only domestic violence is being focused on but that domestic violence against women in heterosexual relationships is the only aspect being looked at.

clouds

Aswerty wrote: »

I'd only consider that analogy to be sound though if daffodil day collected for cancer patients of a specific gender. The complaint isn't that only domestic violence is being focused on but that domestic violence against women in heterosexual relationships is the only aspect being looked at.

The analogy is perfectly sound, as it's about focusing on one subset of victims.

tricky D

clouds wrote: »

But just because one group of victims are being highlighted it doesn't mean that other groups are being denied.

It is reinforcing a false and damaging stereotype for one group and completely neglecting the damage to another. An awful example of navel gazing (of sorts) at its worse. It's worse than denying as it actually damages.

Aswerty

clouds wrote: »

The analogy is perfectly sound, as it's about focusing on one subset of victims.

And one set of perpetrators.

Both the subset of victims and perpetrators are inherently discriminatory. It's a double edged form of discrimination. The victims are described as female and the perpetrators are described as male.

I might even compare the discrimination to the motor insurance discrimination picked up on by the ECHR. The fact that these subsets ecompass demographics entirely based on gender is discrimination. The subset that should be focused on is perpetrators of domestic abuse not men because they have the largest pool of abusers. Just like the motor insurance companies should focus on bad drivers as opposed to the gender with the highest cost of claims. (Though I'm probably shooting myself in the foot by bring up the insurance ).

If this was privately funded I'd agree that they have the right to focus on this specific subset but I'd still object hugely to the focus on a gender as opposed to the crime. Considering this has got public funding I consider it to be a disgrace.

evercloserunion

I think what's more outrageous than the sexism is that it makes you actually ticks the boxes and then gives you a single message saying "If you checked..." regardless of what you do.

Panthro

that could have been narrowed down to one question:
"is your boyfriend a nutbar?"
what a waste of time.

Kevin Duffy

clouds wrote: »

But just because one group of victims are being highlighted it doesn't mean that other groups are being denied.

Like if I collect money for dffodil day it doesnt mean that I don't care about cardic patients. It' just focus

The analogy doesn't work as collecting for medical causes doesn't blame or exclude anyone. The campaign, specifically the quiz highlighted in the thread, identifies men as the perpetrators of abusive behaviours by its language. The campaign should be aimed at all abusers, regardless of gender or sexuality, just the same as you'd distribute the funds from your collection to all suffers of the conditions.

spurious

Why is it that men do not organise themselves in the way women did (and still do) over issues like this?

Every time the issue of violence within relationships, or sexism in advertising comes up in this forum, there is the same old wailing about men being ignored, but no organisation.

It didn't happen overnight for the women's 'movement' and it won't for the men either, particularly as a large subsection of men seem happy to moan and groan and blame women for what is their own inaction.

Aswerty

spurious wrote: »

Why is it that men do not organise themselves in the way women did (and still do) over issues like this?

Every time the issue of violence within relationships, or sexism in advertising comes up in this forum, there is the same old wailing about men being ignored, but no organisation.

It didn't happen overnight for the women's 'movement' and it won't for the men either, particularly as a large subsection of men seem happy to moan and groan and blame women for what is their own inaction.

Firstly I'd say that I don't like the idea of gender specific movements. Why should we have separate movements for the same problem? The most obvious approach I see is for these female organisations to broaden into egalitarian organisations. Building up male organisations to compete for funding is absolutely daft. The fact is womens organisations built a big following when females were heavily discriminated against and this meant that when things started to balance their presence was still there and allowed resources to be plugged into them. Male organisations are more recent and are only beginning to pick up steam. To be honest I can only see grief down the long for society if we end up having seperate organisations for each gender.

And the reason their is wailing and gnashing of teeth is because some female organisations such as in this case are actually negatively affecting males. For some reason they don't believe in domestic abuse within gay couples or else don't deem it worthy of highlight so any lesbians should be giving them short shrift in this case as well.

The main thing is that it baffles me that someone will join a movement that actively excludes one of the genders. A problem stemming from this is that the female only organisations (due to lack of integration) are forcing the makeup of male organisations as opposed to egalitarian ones.

Kimia

chicken fingers wrote: »

Absolutely disgusting site.
Obviously made by a woman or women who have SERIOUS issues with previous relationships and are generalizing those experiences somehow into a government funded campaign. Its apparent by the very narrow bands of possible outcomes, the skew and the bizzarely worded situations.

Whoever decided to spend taxpayers monet on that should be sacked but they probably got a promotion for it.

I find this post pretty offensive tbh. So the whole Woman's Aid charity is just a bunch of women with issues? So you're saying that domestic violence against women should receive no government funding whatsoever? Your post just makes you sound misogynistic tbh.

I don't see the big deal either and I think BOS and Clouds make some valid points. If I saw a site that highlighted domestic abuse against men, by women, I would cheer because isn't it wonderful that the issue is being raised and maybe some good will come of it. Maybe an abused man who doesn't know how to handle it will find some courage to ask for help from it. I certainly don't bitterly shout it down as an affront to women country-wide.

I don't understand that view point - why is it disgusting? They are clearly not calling every man an abuser, just as a hypothetical Amen campaign for the very same issue (which all the naysayers on here would love, presumably?) would not be calling every woman an abuser.

Some pushing of individual agendas here I reckon.

ApeXaviour

spurious wrote: »

Why is it that men do not organise themselves in the way women did (and still do) over issues like this?

As with any behaviour that apparently differs on a whole between the sexes, it comes down to a mixture of nature and nurture: evolutionary psychology and (the greater influence) culture and stigma.

You'll see examples of white-knighting all the time, man rushes to defend woman (sometimes violently) while being completely ignorant of their situation. It happens even on the internet. In a way we're bred to do this. Our reptile brains know that women's safety > men's for the continuation of the species.

Then there's a stigma against men gathering seemingly (and wrongly) "against" women... it doesn't help that the other gender advocacy community, feminism (well seated in society), tends to undermine most attempts by fathers rights groups etc. Something I find quite bizarre, I would have expected a modicum of solidarity. The cultural aspect is mostly ignorance... the concept of masculism or men's rights or male gender advocacy is laughable to the majority because they base their metric on the upper fringe of society. Yes there are more male CEOs, billionaires, sports-stars, stunt-pilots, celebrity chefs, politicians etc... there are also more males homeless, in prison, dropping out of school, drug addicts, in dangerous low-paying jobs etc. Yet any movement strikes deep in many hearts as some sort attempt to reclaim male patriarchal oppressor status.

It's basically just unpopular to have sympathy for men as a group...

ApeXaviour

Kimia wrote: »

I find this post pretty offensive tbh. So the whole Woman's Aid charity is just a bunch of women with issues? So you're saying that domestic violence against women should receive no government funding whatsoever? Your post just makes you sound misogynistic tbh.

In fairness you're building a bit of a strawman. Also the site isn't even about domestic abuse, it's about controlling insecure boyfriends, something that should have no gender bearing, and who's message wouldn't be lessened in the slightest were it to be gender neutral. It's the one with an agenda.

As to whether the creators have issues, yeah sure its unsubstantiated conjecture I'm sure chicken fingers was venting.

Thought experiment. Reverse the genders... maybe something you'd expect in a men's magazine, fine (if it was in cosmo I'd not bat an eyelid). But a publicly funded national campaign (!!) painting women as emotionally unstable, jealous, bunny-boiling control-freaks (and by extension implying men as cool and collected). You can't doubt for a second that women's groups would publicly lynch the creators. I would not be too happy about it either.

Fukuyama

clouds wrote: »

Well said Bottle of Smoke.

Ironically it's the people (usually women it has to be said) who are being abused and controlled who have the hardest time differentiating.

Men are the biggest victims of domestic violence and controlling behaviour. Just when a women slaps a man it's not domestic violence. :rolleyes:

clouds

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

The analogy doesn't work as collecting for medical causes doesn't blame or exclude anyone. The campaign, specifically the quiz highlighted in the thread, identifies men as the perpetrators of abusive behaviours by its language. The campaign should be aimed at all abusers, regardless of gender or sexuality, just the same as you'd distribute the funds from your collection to all suffers of the conditions.

TBH I've no problem for blming nutjobs for wrecking the lives of those around them. Sometimes blme is neccessry. But a very significant subset is comprised of male nutjobs and female enablers. Why not reflect reality? Again I exclude the vst majority of normal non abusive men. Doesn't everyone?

Women tend to think that the behviours given are romantic or a sign of how much they are loved. Men don't, they generally think bunny boiler and needy and desperate. Society shores up this view. So for that reason I've no problem with the genders depicted.


sorry my 'a' key is sticking

Kevin Duffy

clouds wrote: »

Again I exclude the vst majority of normal non abusive men. Doesn't everyone?

Women tend to think that the behviours given are romantic or a sign of how much they are loved. Men don't, they generally think bunny boiler and needy and desperate. Society shores up this view. So for that reason I've no problem with the genders depicted.

Firstly, no, not everyone does exclude the non-abusive men. That, among other reasons, is why campaigns like this need to be better thought out.

Your last two statements are sweeping generalisations. They don't reflect how I think, or the thoughts of many people I know, men and women.
Whatever problems there are in society's view, or in addressing the behaviours, they won't be helped by lazy generalisations or poorly worded, divisive campaigns.

cantdecide

clouds wrote: »

TBH I've no problem for blming nutjobs for wrecking the lives of those around them. Sometimes blme is neccessry. But a very significant subset is comprised of male nutjobs and female enablers. Why not reflect reality? Again I exclude the vst majority of normal non abusive men. Doesn't everyone?

Women tend to think that the behviours given are romantic or a sign of how much they are loved. Men don't, they generally think bunny boiler and needy and desperate. Society shores up this view. So for that reason I've no problem with the genders depicted.


sorry my 'a' key is sticking

Thats all fine and well for you, personally. The point is you are not a government. A government must be impartial.

Let's say that this behaviour was generally accepted as particularly associated with a specific ethnic minority. Do you think it would it would be okay for a government to endorse a similar campaign if it had racist instead of sexist undertones?

clouds

Dean0088 wrote: »

Men are the biggest victims of domestic violence and controlling behaviour. Just when a women slaps a man it's not domestic violence. :rolleyes:

eh? link please that's interesting

clouds

The only division I can see is between abusive bastards and teh rest of us.

Like in general I see a division between murderous bastards (mostly men according to the stats) and the rest of us. I'm comfortable with those divisions. Who wouldn't be?

Aswerty

clouds wrote: »

The only division I can see is between abusive bastards and teh rest of us.

Like in general I see a division between murderous bastards (mostly men according to the stats) and the rest of us. I'm comfortable with those divisions. Who wouldn't be?

Tricky D though provided some stats that indicated that when taking severe and minor abuse into account that the stats are pretty even. Although I accept the ratio of severe abuse was 15:6 in favour of woman suffering abuse but the fact is it is a significant figure for both genders. I would also point out that in gay couples the abuser and victim are of the same sex and an organisation that differentiates between genders in a heterosexual context (as in this case) completely misses this entire demograph.

I think our main difference arises when an organisations has a platform to promote awareness of domestic abuse but focuses on only one gender. In my view they waste the potential of the platform they have gained by promoting only a specific aspect of gender abuse. Not only that but the absence of the acknowledgment of other domestic abuse paints a skewed picture of the broader picture. The main point though is that I find it hard to get to grips with an organisation that could easily be inclusive but chooses to be exclusive on grounds that I would deem superfluous at best (what genitals you have, really?).

I understand subsets are needed because no person or organisation can tackle all the worlds problems with respect to all the different peoples affected. But a gender specific subset is divisive and will marginilise genders, cause rifts over funding imbalances and wastes time and resources in supporting two organisations that in essence have the same goal. An example of healthy subsets in this case would be a subset focused on emotional abuse and another on physical abuse. Other subsets could be the focus on combating environments that are conducive to creating domestic abuse or promoting non judgmental environments for potential abusers to get help (i.e. nipping the problem in the bud).

Domestic abuse survivors can develop trust issues with regards to the abusers gender. I think in a gender inclusive organisation it would help deter these trust issues if each survivor saw that the harm visited upon them was done by an individual and not by an individual of a specific gender.

sophia25

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think(hope) Amen receive government funding, they reach out to men with campaigns against abuse toward men. Maybe these things need to be gender specific to get through to the vulnerable.

Actually I was in the Legal Aid Board yesterday and there on their walls was a poster with a man on it clearly a victim of female domestic abuse. The poster was supported by cosc and gave the Amen number as a contact. I certainly wasn't offended by it, I hoped that it did help someone in a vulnerable position to seek help. I think Cosc do provide finance for ads specifically aimed at various sections of the population. For instance there is a ad in the Health Centre re elder abuse. Again, as a younger (somewhat!) person I certainly did not take offence that I was portrayed as the abuser and the older person as a victim. These ads are designed to get a victim to relate to their own situation, I don't think it's helpful to be offended that in one particular ad a specific segment is targetted.

sophia25

Aswerty wrote: »

I'd only consider that analogy to be sound though if daffodil day collected for cancer patients of a specific gender. The complaint isn't that only domestic violence is being focused on but that domestic violence against women in heterosexual relationships is the only aspect being looked at.

Well breast cancer is specifically targetted at women with their pink ribbons. It's a specific focus. Do you have an issue with that?

sophia25

If you look at Cosc any organisation can apply for funding to highlight gender abuse, as AMEN did. I honestly am shocked that people would find it offensive to appeal to a subset of victim. I look at the Amen ad and I feel upset for these victims but as I don't identify myself as the abuser, I certainly take no offence to acknowledging that some women are abusive!

Kevin Duffy

sophia25 wrote: »

Well breast cancer is specifically targetted at women with their pink ribbons. It's a specific focus. Do you have an issue with that?

Again this analogy to medical causes and funding and again, it's far from a perfect analogy 'cos they are not the same thing - cancer doesn't have abusers, only victims. A collection for prostate or testicular cancer wouldn't blame women, where the campaign under discussion specifically blames men and ignores other facts of the behaviours.
The current campaign to raise awareness of esophageal cancer is not gender-specific (that I'm aware of) despite it being more common in men. Makes sense to me, because the campaign can address anybody that needs to be more aware. The poster that saves a man's life will save a woman's just the same. Job done. It would make as much sense to me to address the campaign on abusive behaviours to everybody, not make it blaming or gender specific.

If you want to analogise medical campaigns to the campaign under discussion and the problems inherent in its approach, think about this; on two notable occasions I noticed potential medical problems in partners before they did. I can't say I made them get tested, but I encouraged it and made the difference between early detection and not. Had the specific campaigns been addressed only to women, I may not have had a clue what to look for.

We can't talk about our problems, medical or behavioural, along the lines of gender division and expect to be successful in solving them, the whole conversation/campaign has to be inclusive.

clouds

Aswerty wrote: »

Tricky D though provided some stats that indicated that when taking severe and minor abuse into account that the stats are pretty even. Although I accept the ratio of severe abuse was 15:6 in favour of woman suffering abuse but the fact is it is a significant figure for both genders. I would also point out that in gay couples the abuser and victim are of the same sex and an organisation that differentiates between genders in a heterosexual context (as in this case) completely misses this entire demograph.

I think our main difference arises when an organisations has a platform to promote awareness of domestic abuse but focuses on only one gender. In my view they waste the potential of the platform they have gained by promoting only a specific aspect of gender abuse. Not only that but the absence of the acknowledgment of other domestic abuse paints a skewed picture of the broader picture. The main point though is that I find it hard to get to grips with an organisation that could easily be inclusive but chooses to be exclusive on grounds that I would deem superfluous at best (what genitals you have, really?).

I understand subsets are needed because no person or organisation can tackle all the worlds problems with respect to all the different peoples affected. But a gender specific subset is divisive and will marginilise genders, cause rifts over funding imbalances and wastes time and resources in supporting two organisations that in essence have the same goal. An example of healthy subsets in this case would be a subset focused on emotional abuse and another on physical abuse. Other subsets could be the focus on combating environments that are conducive to creating domestic abuse or promoting non judgmental environments for potential abusers to get help (i.e. nipping the problem in the bud).

Domestic abuse survivors can develop trust issues with regards to the abusers gender. I think in a gender inclusive organisation it would help deter these trust issues if each survivor saw that the harm visited upon them was done by an individual and not by an individual of a specific gender.

I see your points Aswerty. But I do think there can be a specific dynamic in a male female dysfunctional relationship, so I think it's only fair that this dynamic, the most common one, should be addressed. There are other types of abuse, for example not too long ago there were ads highlighting Elder Abuse. A different dynamic again, this time often financial, but worthy of it's own 'slot' to highlight wht can happen and what are the early signs to watch out for. i'd imagine a campaign aimed t male victims would emphasise the fact that it can happen to men too and not be ashamed to come forward. Again, a different dynamic. I seem to remember a campaign on that one time but I couldn't swear to it.

Regarding trust issues, I of course agree that this can happen. I'd argue though that resolving them would be pretty fr down the victims' to do list. Identifying abusive situations and removing oneself should be number one.

Aswerty

sophia25 wrote: »

Well breast cancer is specifically targetted at women with their pink ribbons. It's a specific focus. Do you have an issue with that?

Looking at the figures over 99% of breast cancer is found in women. I will agree that having gender focus in some cases is the best option. This gender focus should not exclude the other gender entirely but reduce the focus according to the seriousness of the situation. To be fair though I was specifically speaking with regards to domestic abuse and issues that affect both genders to a somewhat significant degree. Though maybe I should have left in a clause that stated as such. Though I think it is somewhat facetious to compare breast cancer with domestic abuse. One being caused by the specific composition of the body (I'm not a biologist) and the other being a social phenomenon.

I think my argument is somewhat out of context if you introduce problems that are inherently gender specific. I'm hardly arguing for female testicular cancer services now am I? I would point out though that Breast Cancer Ireland do provide information on how breast cancer effects men. So the pink ribbons don't say PFO men. Due to such low levels of breast cancer in men there is not really any possibility of them getting exposure by starting a movement of their own. The only reason I've ever heard of male breast cancer is through the pink ribbon.

So to sum it up my answer is no I don't have a problem with that. If you increase the scope of the discussion I'm going to have to increase the scope of my argument to match it. We have moved beyond social problems to gender inherent problems. I will acknowledge my argument wasn't robust enough to include this difference in gender focus nor will it be robust enough to include a lot of other things. I can't fix the world with two posts .

ApeXaviour

sophia25 wrote: »

Well breast cancer is specifically targetted at women with their pink ribbons. It's a specific focus. Do you have an issue with that?

Not in and of itself. However I do have an issue with how prostate cancer has significantly lower representation, though it is almost an equivalent killer.

sophia25 wrote: »

I honestly am shocked that people would find it offensive to appeal to a subset of victim.

I think the fact that it was deliberately and needlessly exclusive... highlighting the very real asymmetry and double-standard in gender advocacy.

clouds

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Not in and of itself. However I do have an issue with how prostate cancer has significantly lower representation, though it is almost an equivalent killer.

I think the fact that it was deliberately and needlessly exclusive... highlighting the very real asymmetry and double-standard in gender advocacy.

I disagree that it was needlessly exclusive. Not all relationships are the same, not all abuse is the same. This is a very common dynamic and it does no good to pretend it doesn't happen this way. Absolutely no need to take it as a blanket statement against all men. Just abusers.

ApeXaviour

clouds wrote: »

I disagree that it was needlessly exclusive. Not all relationships are the same, not all abuse is the same. This is a very common dynamic and it does no good to pretend it doesn't happen this way. Absolutely no need to take it as a blanket statement against all men. Just abusers.

It's strange that you can say 2in2u is not needlessly exclusive. All that needs to be done is change boyfriend to partner and he to they and the message is no less effective... applying to all manner of couples.

clouds

As I've said above.

There can be a different dynamic in these sort of relationships.
Women are conditioned to be nice even when they feel uncomfortable themselves.
The same 'gesture' by a woman is seen as desperate, needy, bunny boilerish but romantic by a man.
This ad concerns itself with the very very early warning signs. Often an emotional abuser will turn physical. Now I'm NOT downplaying physical violence on men BUT they are generally bigger and stronger than women and women can't defend themselves if it comes to that. So that is serious.

Now all that is neccessarily only generalities. You can't have a blanket for all. Not all women react the same to the same situations, obviously. But it will strike a chord with many many women. Don't their own experiences matter? There's hundreds and thousands of them.

Aswerty

clouds wrote: »

I see your points Aswerty. But I do think there can be a specific dynamic in a male female dysfunctional relationship, so I think it's only fair that this dynamic, the most common one, should be addressed. There are other types of abuse, for example not too long ago there were ads highlighting Elder Abuse. A different dynamic again, this time often financial, but worthy of it's own 'slot' to highlight wht can happen and what are the early signs to watch out for. i'd imagine a campaign aimed t male victims would emphasise the fact that it can happen to men too and not be ashamed to come forward. Again, a different dynamic. I seem to remember a campaign on that one time but I couldn't swear to it.

And I can see your points as well. The thing is though if you look at domestic abuse there are three dynamics within the home: partner, parent and child and only one of these dynamics is split up in terms of gender. My point is within society I don't think that that gender division is healthy. You make a very good point in that male victims of domestic abuse have to be let known that it does happen, its not their fault and to speak out. I would look at this and think that the only reason this is largely looked on by the public as a female problem (though it is changing) is because for years now it has been highlighted as a female problem. The fact that men might be less likely to admit to being a victim is a very real argument but I don't think it comes close to giving a reason for separating domestic abuse organisations.

I'm not saying parent-child or child-parent domestic abuse should be rolled up with partner domestic abuse because they are different dynamics. I would say a broad base should exist that all domestic abuse is covered under but specific focus on partner, parent and child abuse could then be made within this broad base. This would allow resources and time to be better utilised and the overall picture of domestic abuse and it's multi-facets could be better related to the public.

clouds wrote: »

Regarding trust issues, I of course agree that this can happen. I'd argue though that resolving them would be pretty fr down the victims' to do list. Identifying abusive situations and removing oneself should be number one.

I agree. This is just a particular aspect that I thought might be worth highlighting.

Kevin Duffy wrote:

If you want to analogise medical campaigns to the campaign under discussion and the problems inherent in its approach, think about this; on two notable occasions I noticed potential medical problems in partners before they did. I can't say I made them get tested, but I encouraged it and made the difference between early detection and not. Had the specific campaigns been addressed only to women, I may not have had a clue what to look for.

A very good point. Broadening the scope of campaigns allows more people to be aware of the problem. This will lead to better management of the problem. Though this is probably more relevant to health issues but not exclusively.