The Manup campaign

poeticseraphim

rubadub wrote: »

I haven't seen these ads, can you link to any? I would have thought women certainly would have a similar reaction if they are anything like this campaign.

e.g. along the lines of

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/hiddenviolencenl_addict

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/hiddenviolencenl_addict


http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/most-powerful-anti-child-abuse-ads-from-the-last-five-years

Happy now?

There is nothing offensive in the facts you have quoted why would I as a woman be offended ..I don't hit kids...sadly many mothers do I would like them stopped please ..I was once a kid ...

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/sep/13/scathing-obit-about-abusive-mother-goes-viral/

A victim mounted this campaign which in an obituary to a mother

“On behalf of her children who she abrasively exposed to her evil and violent life, we celebrate her passing from this earth and hope she lives in the after-life reliving each gesture of violence, cruelty and shame that she delivered on her children,” the scathing obituary begins.

“Everyone she met, adult or child was tortured by her cruelty and exposure to violence, criminal activity, vulgarity, and hatred of the gentle or kind human spirit,” the obit said. “Our greatest wish now is to stimulate a national movement that mandates a purposeful and dedicated war against child abuse in the United States of America.”

It became a national anti child abuse campaign in the US.

There is a Bill in Wisconsin that legislates that single parents are a child abuse threat.


Incidently
This is a brilliant Spanish ad that only kids can read ...brilliant http://gizmodo.com/this-ad-has-a-secret-anti-abuse-message-that-only-kids-493108460

Although what a weird thing to want to see. Links to ads that highlight abusive mothers in particular?

Most violent child abusive is carried out by mothers most sexual child abuse is carried out by men. This is not lost on society, we know.

By the way the link to the serious of ads contains some disturbing ones so people need to be aware I found some of it chilling.

poeticseraphim

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Not any more it isn't. Though, I don’t know how many cases have actually gone before the courts but the following supports such an application. (These are notes copied and pasted from my Family Law lecturer’s class.)

That's great news :-)

The Gaylick site needs updating!

beakerjoe

Czarcasm wrote: »

No Pushtrak, to be honest. I don't think Safe Ireland incorporating same sex abuse into their agenda would be of any benefit to LGBT people for some of the reasons outlined by poeticseraphim in their post. The idea of the different campaign groups is to provide a safe space for victims of abuse with people who can identify with their particular circumstances.





If Safe Ireland were to adopt a broader mandate, then a resource and prioritization war would ensue, causing dissent among the ranks, and then groups would split off and form their own groups anyway to target their specific issues that they see as differentiating them from one another. Back to square one.

On the bolded bit, well, not to be a smart arse about it but you really haven't thought very hard about it apart from your own experience if you think that lumping everybody into shelters regardless of their gender or sexual orientation would be a "non-issue". The question I posed already has some posters saying as much as "Ah well discrimination is ok in some cases", so at least there is SOME recognition of the fact that the complexities of the issues under the umbrella term "domestic abuse" need to be tackled separately using different approaches.

That might piss off some of the equality, anti-discrimination, cries of sexism posters, but I'd rather take my chances with the people who are actually experiencing domestic abuse and go by what they say.

I have to say I admire your honesty and I can see your point of view in hindsight of my view. I guess I just don't like how the Manup campaign looks. It could be better represented IMO. There ad campaign comes across to me as most men in Ireland act like this.

NuckingFacker

rubadub wrote: »

Are there any other sexist rules you think are good?

Boys shouldn't run with scissors.
Girls shouldn't stare at the sun.
Men should wash their hands before eating with their hands.

You hit women then? Is that what you're saying?


All the great, p.c waffle is super, really dead on, equality man, that's the thing, get with the times. Yeah whatever.

If you're a woman whose husband beats you, I doubt any of these nicey-nicey, sugar and spicey arguements mean jack-sh1t. I'd say they'd just prefer a man who didn't hit a woman.

rubadub

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Happy now?

No, not really.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Although what a weird thing to want to see. Links to ads that highlight abusive mothers in particular?

I wanted to see if truly comparable ads/campaigns actually existed. I think it's really weird that this campaign got off the ground, I would have thought someone along the line would have copped on to the offence it would cause. I don't find any of the ads you linked anywhere near as objectionable or comparable.

I do think women would complain about a similar campaign, and men too, just like many women are opposed to this campaign.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

There is nothing offensive in the facts you have quoted why would I as a woman be offended .

I never understood the purpose of phrases like that, "as a woman", some other posters also seem genuinely confused why a woman would be opposed to the manup campaign, yet seem to have no problem understanding why men would. Its like some people presume nobody gives a damn about anybody else, only their own "group".

rubadub

NuckingFacker wrote: »

You hit women then? Is that what you're saying?

Spot on genius, that's exactly what I said. You have a fantastic understanding of the English language.

NuckingFacker

rubadub wrote: »

Spot on genius, that's exactly what I said. You have a fantastic understanding of the English language.

Makes sense. You do seem fairly highly strung. Have you tried counting to ten?.

Mod

Relax with the personal snipes please.

Femme_Fatale

NuckingFacker wrote: »

All the great, p.c waffle is super, really dead on, equality man, that's the thing, get with the times. Yeah whatever.

I thought being in favour of the way this campaign is carried out, would be the PC position?

I'm a woman with some views that some would consider feminist (I don't think they are, as one wouldn't have to be a feminist to subscribe to them) and I can see the problem with this campaign - it targets men only as perpetrators of violence against women and children. I know not all men are being targeted, but it's bound to feel that way. There are often things said about feminists or only certain women, yet they still feel like an attack on women in general.

It doesn't say anything in the campaign about violence against men either - lots of men are on the receiving end of horrendous violence from men and women, and not all men are big and strong and able to fight back.

Of course there are men who are violent bastards towards women and children, but this is one part of the full picture, which IMO should be focused on.

It's not just a "feminazi" outlook though - it's an outlook held by plenty of people who are not one bit feminist, or who are not even women. Even if stats reflect that incidence of domestic violence are higher by men against women (and stats should be questioned - bear in mind what is not reported) I still don't agree this approach is fair.

NuckingFacker

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I thought being in favour of the way this campaign is carried out, would be the PC position?

I'm a woman with some views that some would consider feminist (I don't think they are, as one wouldn't have to be a feminist to subscribe to them) and I can see the problem with this campaign - it targets men only as perpetrators of violence against women and children. I know not all men are being targeted, but it's bound to feel that way. There are often things said about feminists or only certain women, yet they still feel like an attack on women in general.

It doesn't say anything in the campaign about violence against men either - lots of men are on the receiving end of horrendous violence from men and women, and not all men are big and strong and able to fight back.

Of course there are men who are violent bastards towards women and children, but this is one part of the full picture, which IMO should be focused on.

It's not just a "feminazi" outlook though - it's an outlook held by plenty of people who are not one bit feminist, or who are not even women.

I know, it's mad. Last week I saw a "Slow down, speed kills" advert aimed at motorists. They should have aimed it at tennis players as well.

Femme_Fatale

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I know, it's mad. Last week I saw a "Slow down, speed kills" advert aimed at motorists. They should have aimed it at tennis players as well.

But... men aren't the only ones who commit violence, however motorists are the only ones who need to be told to slow down.

Czarcasm

rubadub wrote: »

I never understood the purpose of phrases like that, "as a woman", some other posters also seem genuinely confused why a woman would be opposed to the manup campaign, yet seem to have no problem understanding why men would. Its like some people presume nobody gives a damn about anybody else, only their own "group".

rubadub you say you never understood the purposes of phrases like "as a woman" (I don't like the use of phrases like that myself, but at least I understand why the other person might use them as a qualifier), but then you object to a campaign like this that is trying to raise awareness of an issue "outside it's own group".

Different women's groups have been paddling their own canoe for decades, and they're still not able to stem the tide of violence against women perpetrated by men, so instead of trying to target women and show them there are organisations where they can get help, the idea was to target men to get them to support women who are victims of domestic violence.

The idea was good, but the execution was poor (that's being generous!), but we shouldn't be ripping Safe Ireland a new one on the grounds of sexism and discrimination when the issue of domestic violence perpetrated by men against women is the far more important one.

There's a time and a place to fight sexism and discrimination, but using those arguments against a campaign making a desperate attempt to put an end to domestic violence against women perpetrated by men?

I dunno, just seems a bit crass and petty to me tbh.

Femme_Fatale

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Once again: It's not about supporting separate causes - there's nothing wrong with that - it's about supporting a cause but only supporting it when one particular demographic is involved. That's inherently wrong. All human beings deserve equal treatment.

So if you focus on famine in one country rather than famine in all famine-ravaged countries, you're a hypocrite?

I don't buy it. It's just a stock line that's only ever thrown at feminists and Palestine supporters.

poeticseraphim

rubadub wrote: »

No, not really.


I wanted to see if truly comparable ads/campaigns actually existed. I think it's really weird that this campaign got off the ground, I would have thought someone along the line would have copped on to the offence it would cause. I don't find any of the ads you linked anywhere near as objectionable or comparable.

I do think women would complain about a similar campaign, and men too, just like many women are opposed to this campaign.

I never understood the purpose of phrases like that, "as a woman", some other posters also seem genuinely confused why a woman would be opposed to the manup campaign, yet seem to have no problem understanding why men would. Its like some people presume nobody gives a damn about anybody else, only their own "group".

No women are opposed to this campaign that I have heard of.

Yellow121

Safe Ireland have obviously taken the Man Up global campaign and done a slightly different version. Instead of working with young people, male and female, they have made it a call to everybody to man up but failed to mention everybody. A mistake on their part.
The real message of the campaign shouldn't be overlooked however.

hatrickpatrick

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's a time and a place to fight sexism and discrimination, but using those arguments against a campaign making a desperate attempt to put an end to domestic violence against women perpetrated by men?

Why gender the issue? Domestic violence should be put an end to full stop. The genders of the perpetrators and victims are totally irrelevant and serve no purpose other than to irritate people on both sides and completely derail any discussion of it.

NuckingFacker

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But... men aren't the only ones who commit violence, however motorists are the only ones who need to be told to slow down.

Nonsense. Many Tennis players rush their serves, with dreadful consequences.

Legs.Eleven

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I thought being in favour of the way this campaign is carried out, would be the PC position?

I'm a woman with some views that some would consider feminist (I don't think they are, as one wouldn't have to be a feminist to subscribe to them) and I can see the problem with this campaign - it targets men only as perpetrators of violence against women and children. I know not all men are being targeted, but it's bound to feel that way. There are often things said about feminists or only certain women, yet they still feel like an attack on women in general.

It doesn't say anything in the campaign about violence against men either - lots of men are on the receiving end of horrendous violence from men and women, and not all men are big and strong and able to fight back.

Of course there are men who are violent bastards towards women and children, but this is one part of the full picture, which IMO should be focused on.

It's not just a "feminazi" outlook though - it's an outlook held by plenty of people who are not one bit feminist, or who are not even women.

The feminist view is, according to some posters here, that w couldn't care less about the rights of men, which offends me it really is so far from how I feel. I'm in support of equality in areas where women are discriminated against specifically. That doesn't mean that I only care about women. In fact, what I campaign and go on marches for is the rights of all people, both men and women.

You'll find that a lot of women who call themselves feminists here and in other countries I've lived in tend to also campaign in other areas; they'd be activists generally and would be out marching in support of various causes that aren't gender specific. When I go out marching for the rights of a woman to choose to have an abortion if she so wishes, for example, I put on my feminist hat for that afternoon (although you don't need to label yourself anything to support this cause) but I don't wear it constantly and it's not who I am exclusively. I don't wear t-shirts with "Feminist" on it and beyond discussions in here, I don't tell anyone I am if they don't ask. You'll find that's the case with the majority of feminists: it's simply a label to add to their collection.

I dislike and have no time for feminist misandrist extremists (and their male counterparts) and I find any form of physical or emotional abuse against anyone deplorable - calling myself Feminist doesn't preclude me from those feelings and beliefs as I'm also a humanist, a believer in Social Democracy, an egalitarian etc (a fully paid up member of the PC brigade, basically ).

Being one "ism" doesn't preclude you from the rest.

NuckingFacker

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Nonsense. Many Tennis players rush their serves, with dreadful consequences.

Mod

You're treading a very fine line here, keep up this rubbish and I will assume you're trolling.

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

So if you focus on famine in one country rather than famine in all famine-ravaged countries, you're a hypocrite?

Define "focus"? Also, an issue like famine isn't a great analogy (my fault in fairness for using it in the first place) as it doesn't imply a perpetrator.

I don't buy it. It's just a stock line that's only ever thrown at feminists and Palestine supporters.

I'm a massive Palestine supporter myself It's not the same issue at all - I won't get into a sidetrack about the Israel / Palestine conflict but I would have thought it was obvious that you can't compare that conflict to the issue of gender equality, gender stereotyping, and the absolutely horrendous prevalence of negative stereotypes against males which are allowed into the media unchecked, where an equivalent stereotype with the genders reversed would be killed by ASA.

poeticseraphim

I want to ask people opposed to this campaign this.

How does this campaign actually hurt men?

Did it ever occur to you it is actually empowering to men? It is giving men the moral high ground.

It is a campaign designed to help people who are being beaten up who happen to be women. It only divides people because you are using it to divide people perhaps on purpose to stir up resentment.

Women who have been the victims of domestic violence want the issue of domestic violence to be dealt with in a way that recognizes the unique aspects of male on female violence. They want a separate campaign for it and they want men to be apart of that campaign that deals solely with male on female violence.

If men want only to deal with male abuse victims solely in tangent with female abuse victims I would advise against it on the grounds that it will highlight their issue less effectively. And it might not help with the unique shame aspect men face.

Men and women who have been victims of violence have a right to voice their needs as they see them men have a right to advocate for female rights.

A more appropriate campaign for men would be a fundraising campaign for men's refuges because there are almost none you know.

The campaign will have heard from experts on the best way to prevent it and be designed accordingly as usual eccentric webbies feel they know best about an issue they know nothing about.

Male victims of abuse don't want to be 'lumped in' they need their own needs considered differently because they have different needs.

Femme_Fatale

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I want to ask people opposed to this campaign this.

How does this campaign actually hurt men.

Well as I said:

I'm a woman with some views that some would consider feminist (I don't think they are, as one wouldn't have to be a feminist to subscribe to them) and I can see the problem with this campaign - it targets men only as perpetrators of violence against women and children. I know not all men are being targeted, but it's bound to feel that way. There are often things said about feminists or only certain women, yet they still feel like an attack on women in general.

It doesn't say anything in the campaign about violence against men either - lots of men are on the receiving end of horrendous violence from men and women, and not all men are big and strong and able to fight back.

Of course there are men who are violent bastards towards women and children, but this is one part of the full picture, which IMO should be focused on.

I agree some causes need to be dealt with separately, but this is one area for which I don't agree the above should apply; it's only causing further division IMO.

Yellow121

This page here explains what men can do: http://www.manup.ie/man-talk/
Here's one quote:
"We know that men can exert influence over their friends in a way that women alone can’t do. If men who are violent hear men speak out against that violence it has a hugely powerful impact. Taking steps to stop talk that may belittle women, or to stop harassment or violence sends a powerful message to the abusing man and society as a whole about what type of behaviour is acceptable and what is not."
I don't see anything wrong with that, maybe the masculinazis can set up a campaign of their own also.

poeticseraphim

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why gender the issue? Domestic violence should be put an end to full stop. The genders of the perpetrators and victims are totally irrelevant and serve no purpose other than to irritate people on both sides and completely derail any discussion of it.

The way to put an end to it full stop is different according to the dynamic.

I keep reiterating this because it is what the experts say.

THE ADVICE GIVEN TO MEN AND WOMEN IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEIR NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT.

This is about gender based violence.

Women will use their gender against their male victims and visa versa and they each do it it in different ways. A different type of campaign is needed for men.

A campaign saying real women do not hit men is not going to resonate.

A campaign saying perhaps 'SUSPEND YOUR DISBELIEF , WOMEN ABUSE MEN TOO' with the picture of a battered man's face might resonate as one of the main problems men face is not being believed. And female abusers night use their gender to hide it.

Separate campaigns would help more. A separate campaign for men would highlight the issue more. Which is what we want right to help them more?

They have had separate campaigns for male victims of violence by the way there is the one in three campaign.

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/malevictims/

poeticseraphim

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Well as I said:



I agree some causes need to be dealt with separately, but this is one area for which I don't agree the above should apply; it's only causing further division IMO.

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/malevictims/

This is a separate campaign for male victims do you really think it will cause division???

I fail to see how.

Infact I think it is more approachable for male victims and more tailored for their needs.

It is not about what is more comforting for us as a society but what is best for the victims.

How is the 1 in 3 campaign divisive in your opinion then?

pharmaton

poeticseraphim wrote: »

The way to put an end to it full stop is different according to the dynamic.

I keep reiterating this because it is what the experts say.

THE ADVICE GIVEN TO MEN AND WOMEN IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEIR NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT.

This is about gender based violence.

Women will use their gender against their male victims and visa versa and they each do it it in different ways. A different type of campaign is needed for men.

A campaign saying real women do not hit men is not going to resonate.

A campaign saying perhaps 'SUSPEND YOUR DISBELIEF , WOMEN ABUSE MEN TOO' with the picture of a battered man's face might resonate as one of the main problems men face is not being believed. And female abusers night use their gender to hide it.

Separate campaigns would help more. A separate campaign for men would highlight the issue more. Which is what we want right to help them more?

They have had separate campaigns for male victims of violence by the way there is the one in three campaign.

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/malevictims/

that's actually quite powerful

Femme_Fatale

But the One In Three campaign isn't saying "Women, don't be violent to men and children."

Yes, the victims should have their different needs addressed, but the finger-pointing at the perpetrators should be gender-blind IMO.

Yellow121

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But the One In Three campaign isn't saying "Women, don't be violent to men and children."

Yes, the victims should have their different needs addressed, but the finger-pointing at the perpetrators should be gender-blind IMO.

That's not what the Man Up campaign is saying.

"Most men celebrate and respect women – they don’t control them. Good men protect and care for children. With MAN UP, men and women are proudly standing up and declaring zero tolerance on violence against women in Ireland.
To end violence against women we all need to be part of the solution."

poeticseraphim

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But the One In Three campaign isn't saying "Women, don't be violent to men and children."

Yes, the victims should have their different needs addressed, but the finger-pointing at the perpetrators should be gender-blind IMO.

Neither is the manup campaign saying that...it says most men celebrate and respect women. It says real men object to domestic violence against women. Analyze the words carefully it is obvious that they are carefully chosen.

but the finger-pointing at the perpetrators should be gender-blind IMO.

No it should not because many female perpetrators do not see themselves as perpetrators if you say ' Do not hit your spouse'. Women do NOT hit your husbands needs to be said.

Women need to know that as WOMEN it is not ok to hit your husband. And men need to know as MEN it is not ok to hit your wife.

The reason women need to know this as women is because some think that it is ok to hit their husbands because they are women. And sadly some men think it is ok to hit their wives because they are the man.

Gender based violence is a gender based issue. Regardless of whether it is male on female or visa verse.

A man being beaten by his wife will suffer different emotional effects than if he were being beaten by another man.

rubadub

Czarcasm wrote: »

rubadub you say you never understood the purposes of phrases like "as a woman" (I don't like the use of phrases like that myself, but at least I understand why the other person might use them as a qualifier)

I suppose I do understand why they might use it, and my comment was to get the poster and others to think why they would use such phrases and perhaps spell it out. I believe most use it as they presume others would not care about the offence caused, i.e. they have an unusually low opinion of others sympathy/empathy. I find it offensive (as a person ), that someone would presume I don't give a damn about anyone else.

To me its like sayng "well I know you wouldn't give a shit, but I do."

poeticseraphim wrote: »

No women are opposed to this campaign that I have heard of.

Well many posters have not stated their sex, a few females have though who were against it.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I want to ask people opposed to this campaign this.

How does this campaign actually hurt men?

poeticseraphim wrote: »

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/malevictims/

From your own link

To add insult to injury, male victims of family violence often find it distressing to see social marketing campaigns such as Violence Against Women Australia Says No (federal) and Don’t Cross the Line (SA), which suggest that men are the only perpetrators of family violence and women and children the only victims.

Guys get told to "man up", its not surprising few come forward. I still can't get over the fact they actually named the campaign with that phrase.

That 1 in 3 site is an excellent contrast to the manup one. If the manup one was anything like it I doubt there would have been much issue, i.e. it continually talks of abuse against women, pre-empting any upset it may have caused.

Czarcasm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why gender the issue? Domestic violence should be put an end to full stop. The genders of the perpetrators and victims are totally irrelevant and serve no purpose other than to irritate people on both sides and completely derail any discussion of it.

Patrick I won't repeat what's already been covered time and again in this thread, but suffice to say that while the gender of the person is irrelevant to you, it's not irrelevant to the victims of domestic violence. In fact it's one of THE most important perceptions to victims of domestic violence and abuse because it can color their judgement of a whole gender.

That's something they just can't help, and it can take weeks, months, hell I've seen instances where even years later women and men who have been victims of domestic violence will see their abuser in the face of every person of the opposite gender they meet, and in some cases will become abusers themselves in new relationships!

It serves a purpose alright, but if it irritates you because you see it as sexist, try seeing it from the point of view of a woman or a man who has been a victim of domestic violence rather than viewing it with your own egalitarian philosophy clouding your vision.

The fact of the matter normal decent men don't need to be told not to beat or control women and the sort of man who needs to beat or control woman are not going to stop because some Ad told them to.

I simple don't believe male friends can influence their male friends to not commit domestic violence let alone the fact that it is often a hidden crime and that violent/controlling men are unlikely to have normal moral decent men as friends anyway.

It is also a very shallow and simplistic answer to a complex problem.

Daveysil15

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I know, it's mad. Last week I saw a "Slow down, speed kills" advert aimed at motorists.

There was nothing wrong with that until they introduced the "He drives, she dies" advert. As a responsible and competent motorist, I was a lot more annoyed by that than the Man Up campaign.

NuckingFacker

Daveysil15 wrote: »

There was nothing wrong with that until they introduced the "He drives, she dies" advert. As a responsible and competent motorist, I was a lot more annoyed by that than the Man Up campaign.

Probably because, like domestic abuse, the majority, not all, but the majority of perpetrators are male.. they have to aim at the majority. As a former teenage driver, I pretty much got what they were talking about. But then it seems, I'm waay out of touch altogether. So you're probably right.

Femme_Fatale

Whatever the ad was saying, "He drives, she dies" is one of the most inflammatory slogans I've ever heard. Yeh, most wreckless drivers are probably young males, but it really was unnecessary to resort to such provocation. And the ad was a dialogue between a number of young women, going on as if getting into a car with any fella was signing your death warrant.

NuckingFacker

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Whatever the ad was saying, "He drives, she dies" is one of the most inflammatory slogans I've ever heard. Yeh, most wreckless drivers are probably young males, but it really was unnecessary to resort to such provocation. And the ad was a dialogue between a number of young women, going on as if getting into a car with any fella was signing your death warrant.

I'm probably just not inflammatory-inclined enough. Most of my mates, and me included, drove like nutters for the first few years. Most (not all) of the young lads i know, still do. Pretty much like most of the battered spouses(not all - I know one man whose wife assaults him regularly) I've known were women.

clairefontaine

poeticseraphim wrote: »

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/hiddenviolencenl_addict

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/hiddenviolencenl_addict


http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/most-powerful-anti-child-abuse-ads-from-the-last-five-years

Happy now?

There is nothing offensive in the facts you have quoted why would I as a woman be offended ..I don't hit kids...sadly many mothers do I would like them stopped please ..I was once a kid ...

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/sep/13/scathing-obit-about-abusive-mother-goes-viral/

A victim mounted this campaign which in an obituary to a mother



It became a national anti child abuse campaign in the US.

There is a Bill in Wisconsin that legislates that single parents are a child abuse threat.


Incidently
This is a brilliant Spanish ad that only kids can read ...brilliant http://gizmodo.com/this-ad-has-a-secret-anti-abuse-message-that-only-kids-493108460

Although what a weird thing to want to see. Links to ads that highlight abusive mothers in particular?

Most violent child abusive is carried out by mothers most sexual child abuse is carried out by men. This is not lost on society, we know.

By the way the link to the serious of ads contains some disturbing ones so people need to be aware I found some of it chilling.

If you see my previous links, its step parents who are the main provocatuers of child abuse [sexual and physical] and fatalities.

I'm a single parent, and yes I would agree that single parenting makes your child more vulnerable. In my case anyone could walk up to my little guy and say "im your dad, lets get in the car and buy some toys" and he'd probably believe them. Given the situation on single moms boyfriends, etc, I would say yes, those kids are more likely to be abused.

Absoluvely

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Probably because, like domestic abuse, the majority, not all, but the majority of perpetrators are male.. they have to aim at the majority. As a former teenage driver, I pretty much got what they were talking about. But then it seems, I'm waay out of touch altogether. So you're probably right.

Why the flying fudge would they only aim at a majority (other than because it rhymes)? x) Aiming at a majority is aiming awfully low to be honest, when it is so much easier and more efficient to aim at the entirety of the offenders.

Surely it makes a lot more sense to aim at the offenders rather than to aim at some sexual or racial or other group that has some correlative overlap with the offenders.

clairefontaine

I would like to see a campaign that invites abusers to seek help for their issues without the risk of prosecution or stigma.

They need a helpine. They need someone to help them.

Outside of the rare sociopaths, they know it's not ok. They are lost and need guidance on how to stop.

hatrickpatrick

Czarcasm wrote: »

Patrick I won't repeat what's already been covered time and again in this thread, but suffice to say that while the gender of the person is irrelevant to you, it's not irrelevant to the victims of domestic violence. In fact it's one of THE most important perceptions to victims of domestic violence and abuse because it can color their judgement of a whole gender.

That's something they just can't help, and it can take weeks, months, hell I've seen instances where even years later women and men who have been victims of domestic violence will see their abuser in the face of every person of the opposite gender they meet, and in some cases will become abusers themselves in new relationships!

It serves a purpose alright, but if it irritates you because you see it as sexist, try seeing it from the point of view of a woman or a man who has been a victim of domestic violence rather than viewing it with your own egalitarian philosophy clouding your vision.

I was in a relationship when I was 18 which, had the genders been reversed, would absolutely have been classed as abusive. I'd rather not relive it here on AH, but it was one of the most depressing periods of my life and is probably one of the reasons I get so f*cking furious when every single ad campaign of this kind says "lads, don't abuse women" but there has never been one telling women it's wrong too.

Maye that's the reason so many women think manipulation, blackmail and isolation tactics are acceptable while they are regarded legally as domestic a use when perpetrated by men?

Don't give me the "think of it from the perspective of the victim" crap. Been there, done that, and have been outraged ever since that there is so much media out there telling boys and men that they are all potentially bad people, while women get off Scott free in every such campaign.

It's sexist, it's offensive, it's discriminatory, and it shouldn't be allowed. These thugs do serious damage to guys' self esteem, when all they see is portrayals f men as monsters and women as innocent victims. :mad:

Yellow121

"Most men celebrate and respect women – they don’t control them. Good men protect and care for children. With MAN UP, men and women are proudly standing up and declaring zero tolerance on violence against women in Ireland.
To end violence against women we all need to be part of the solution."


"To end violence against women, we all need to be part of the solution. Men are powerful and essential allies in the campaign to make Ireland the safest place for women and children. You can speak out about violence and abuse, help a family member or a friend who may be at risk of abuse, or intervene safely, as an engaged bystander, when you see or hear behaviour that you think is abusive or controlling."

Czarcasm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I was in a relationship when I was 18 which, had the genders been reversed, would absolutely have been classed as abusive. I'd rather not relive it here on AH, but it was one of the most depressing periods of my life and is probably one of the reasons I get so f*cking furious when every single ad campaign of this kind says "lads, don't abuse women" but there has never been one telling women it's wrong too.

Maye that's the reason so many women think manipulation, blackmail and isolation tactics are acceptable while they are regarded legally as domestic a use when perpetrated by men?

Don't give me the "think of it from the perspective of the victim" crap. Been there, done that, and have been outraged ever since that there is so much media out there telling boys and men that they are all potentially bad people, while women get off Scott free in every such campaign.

It's sexist, it's offensive, it's discriminatory, and it shouldn't be allowed. These thugs do serious damage to guys' self esteem, when all they see is portrayals f men as monsters and women as innocent victims. :mad:

Patrick with no disrespect to your experience, but can you see how the above post is an example of exactly what I mentioned in the post you quoted -

Czarcasm wrote: »

Patrick I won't repeat what's already been covered time and again in this thread, but suffice to say that while the gender of the person is irrelevant to you, it's not irrelevant to the victims of domestic violence. In fact it's one of THE most important perceptions to victims of domestic violence and abuse because it can color their judgement of a whole gender.

constance tench

Czarcasm wrote: »

Patrick with no disrespect to your experience, but can you see how the above post is an example of exactly what I mentioned in the post you quoted -

Yes, but it is true though...there has never been an ad campaign telling women it's wrong.

The Dom

rubadub wrote: »

I still can't get over the fact they actually named the campaign with that phrase.

Exactly.

Can you imagine this poster campaign being allowed on the Luas or similar.

hatrickpatrick

Yellow121 wrote: »

"Most men celebrate and respect women – they don’t control them. Good men protect and care for children. With MAN UP, men and women are proudly standing up and declaring zero tolerance on violence against women in Ireland.
To end violence against women we all need to be part of the solution."


"To end violence against women

Why not end violence against people? Is my safety less important to society just because I happened to be born with a bollocks?

Waking-Dreams

Had they called it something like - ‘Wise Up’, portraying several stock photography images of men and women as perpetrators and made the message into some kind of “Think engaging in Domestic Violence is something to be proud of? Wise up. If you think abusing another human being is acceptable, then it is you who needs serious help too” - then I think everyone could all get behind it and ‘Safe Women and Children’ could justify their choice of name Safe Ireland.

hatrickpatrick

Czarcasm wrote: »

Patrick with no disrespect to your experience, but can you see how the above post is an example of exactly what I mentioned in the post you quoted -

It hasn't coloured my perception of a whole gender though so I don't see how it's relevant? I got into a horrible situation involving essentially being blackmailed with the threat of complete social destruction if I walked away, I didn't know how to handle it at the time, I have since moved on, and I have many great friendships with many great women. The point is, at the time there was an ad campaign targeting young lads being possessive and jealous and basically trying to control their girlfriends through the same kind of social threats I faced, but not a single ad aimed at telling young women that it's no ok to be possessive of lads either. And that stings because it's something I went through and the impression one gets from the media is "if a girl does it, it's not as bad. If it happens to a guy, well guys just don't matter as much or something."

Are you seriously saying you don't see why a one-sided campaign targeting only one gender is offensive to members of that gender who have previously been hurt by those who are always the victim when it comes to media coverage? It's wrong and discriminatory, simple as that. There's absolutely no justification whatsoever for any campaign which targets one specific gender over an issue in which both genders can be and are the perpetrators.

Let me ask you once again: If you saw a campaign targeting black people and saying "Most black people don't rob houses - don't be one of them" would you find it racist? I'd be astonished if there was anyone who wouldn't find it racist to at least some extent.

clairefontaine

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why not end violence against people? Is my safety less important to society just because I happened to be born with a bollocks?

Doesnt AMEN cover the ones born with bolloxes? Get onto them and offer them some tips. Volunteer. Reach out. Listen.

Galwayguy35

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Whatever the ad was saying, "He drives, she dies" is one of the most inflammatory slogans I've ever heard. Yeh, most wreckless drivers are probably young males, but it really was unnecessary to resort to such provocation. And the ad was a dialogue between a number of young women, going on as if getting into a car with any fella was signing your death warrant.

TBH I thought the "Don't be that Guy" one was as bad, it gave out the impression the every young male had no control over his actions and needed to be told that it wasn't ok to force a woman to do something she wan't comfortable with.

Again I never needed an ad to tell me that because i knew it anyway and so would most mean and the men who do these things won't pay a blind bit of notice to an ad anyway.

It's just the way some of these adverts directed at men are phrased, I just can't help but feel that if the sexes were reversed there is no way they would be worded in the same way.

beano345

Jesus I hate that phrase heard it off an ex or two...usually to deny accountability for their piss poor behaviour