Friday, October 31, 2008

MRA Glenn Sacks Applies Pressure To Domestic Violence Shelter Advertising

Well it should come as no surprise to anyone that Mr.Sacks (I won't link to him) is  continuing on with his misogynistic attacks against women.  In his teeny little world, it is all about the penis, and if you don't have one your story does not deserve to be told.  We certainly cannot have a world where women speak out against the violence and the oppression that they face at the hands of men, that would be far to threatening to patriarchy.

The Family Place domestic shelter paid $25,000 for 45 bus-side ads and 300 bus interior ads to appear on DART, the Dallas transit system.  Sacks and his minions have declared these ads offensive to men and fathers.  They have started a campaign to get the ads taken down.

image

image

image

Sacks is quoted as saying, "I think they should take the ads down," Sacks said. "Domestic violence is still a problem that affects women more than men, but it affects them both. I can guarantee you if the genders were reversed, there is no way DART would have accepted those ads."

Despite the complaints that Sacks has managed to rile up DART  has so far refused to capitulate and the ads will run until Nov 30.   Yes we should all feel pity for the fathers that beat their wives and children, who will daily be reminded that there is a cost to their actions.  Why should they have to face up to the fact that their acts of violence cause real and lasting damage?  If these ads seem ugly it is because it reveals the true darkness that is violence.

Society needs to be shocked out of its complacency when it comes to domestic violence.  We have normalized images in the mainstream media of women being beaten and brutalized.  We have justified male aggression by asserting that in some way that women are asking to be treated this way.  Enough is enough. If even one person is shocked into realizing that they need help, or a woman is empowered to leave an abusive relationship then these ads will have served their purpose.


195 comments:

Ilyka said...

Glenn Sacks is one of those guys where I can scarcely stand even to read his name. And his MRA bullshit would fly really well with some of the whiny punks I knew back in Dallas.

He's just so full of it. If you look at those ads, the message is clear: Domestic violence can happen to anyone. It's not something that happens only in this neighborhood or that one and you know something, Glenn? If it's heartbreaking to see children's faces in an ad campaign like that, with the suggestion that domestic violence is in their futures, that's because domestic violence is heartbreaking.

I'm honestly shocked and impressed by DART for letting those go up and for holding firm. And I think I'll write and tell 'em just that.

Society needs to be shocked out of its complacency when it comes to domestic violence. We have normalized images in the mainstream media of women being beaten and brutalized. We have justified male aggression by asserting that in some way that women are asking to be treated this way. Enough is enough.

Thank you. Exactly.

Danny said...

I've been reading about this set of ads over the last few days and I have to say that I agree with Glenn on this.

If you look at those ads, the message is clear: Domestic violence can happen to anyone.
I would be more willing to believe that if all that ads didn't mention only male abusers.

Renee said...

@Danny the ads are targeting those that are committing the majority of the abuse and that would be men. Skewing it the other way is ridiculous. Men like Sacks are nothing other than woman hating trolls. The stats are so one sided as to make it more than obvious who is really at risk in this society. Crying what about the mehnz is not going to convince anyone that women are not by enlarged the victims.

Ilyka said...

I would be more willing to believe that if all that ads didn't mention only male abusers.

I agree with you that that's exclusionary and hurtful to male victims of intimate partner violence, Danny. What I'm saying is that a guy for whom that was the real issue would mount a campaign to get ads depicting male victims up there, too--not to have the existing ads removed.

And he wouldn't claim the ads were offensive to "men and fathers," when they only target men who abuse. That is, thankfully, not all men and fathers. I'm fortunate to have a wonderful father myself, and I don't have to spend the money on long distance to know that he'd think Sacks was out of his mind with that "offensive to fathers" crap. The only people who find this offensive to fathers have a vastly lower opinion of most fathers than I do.

Taran said...

Sorry Ladies, but totally on the side of Glenn on this one. Using children as pawns in this game is inappropriate. I can't accept that raising awareness like this will be successful, and I think it does send the message, by using the word WILL, tells girls to fear all men, and boys to fear themselves. The failure to depict female perpetrators is also an egregious bias. But all in all, using children like this and is not cool. In my small circle it seems to me the moms are more inclined to talk to their sons about hate speech directed at them then they are to use it as a vehicle to combat Intimate Partner Violence.

Ilyka said...

Using children as pawns in this game is inappropriate.

It's not a game.

And, damn, you must have freaked when Home Alone came out. Or anything featuring any child actor ever. And the Sears catalog! Using children to sell clothes!

I can't accept that raising awareness like this will be successful.

It's not a question of faith, is it? As a rationally-minded man you will, of course, let the campaign run its course and see what results before rushing to condemn it, yes?

send the message, by using the word WILL, tells girls to fear all men, and boys to fear themselves

Oh please. I cannot possibly be the only person here whose parents taught her not to take advertising literally.

In my small circle

Ever wonder why it's so small?

Danny said...

Oh please. I cannot possibly be the only person here whose parents taught her not to take advertising literally.
You are not the only but I'll bet you're the minority. But if that is the case then all those ads that tell girls that they are only as valuable as they look can just run their course right?

arimom said...

"We have normalized images in the mainstream media of women being beaten and brutalized. We have justified male aggression by asserting that in some way that women are asking to be treated this way."

Yes, and when it is a woman it is usually in the context of being criminal. Unfortunately when it is men who are beaten, brutalized and dehumanized it is in the name of humor. Saw a good dose of it on Disney today. As for rewarding male aggression, you must live in an interesting place, but then I would be curious how you define male aggression that is rewarded. In my place, boys are treated as a pathology at school that need to be corrected by a host of female teachers who are blinded by the same absurd women's study 101 mantra. I understand and appreciate your concern about domestic violence, but the position and ire seem to be blinded by ideology and hatred, which is usually a reflection of insecurity. I for one applaud these fathers for standing up and looking out for the best interests of the child. A novel and refreshing approach in this day and age.

Anonymous said...

"Using children as pawns in this game is inappropriate."

Yeah! Like when a man tells a woman he'll kill her children if she leaves. Or he'll gain custody and she'll never see them again. Or children deserve a father. Or if she was better mother he wouldn't have to discipline her in front of the children.

Disgusting to use children as pawns.


I honestly wonder, when people bring up abused men, how many men they know and have personally spoken to about what they endured. My father was physically and emotionally abused my his ex-wife. He has scars from her attacking him, multiple times. She was a horrible woman and he was afraid to seek help. He was abused.

But so was my mother, all five of my aunts (on my mother's and father's side) four family friends, two friends from growing up, and ten workers from three different jobs.

In my personal experience, 5% of all abused people are male. That's a very small segment of the population. No one should be abused... but to treat the abuse of women and men as though they're 100% equal is foolish.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I think you are saying it is about stopping the cycle of violence. Mothers commit the vast majority of child abuse in numbers that far exceed domestic violence, perhaps it should be included in those stats, but by your reasoning we should be targeting all girls and women because they are abusers who begin the cycle of abuse. The problem is not so cut and dry, and as presented in these ads about as inaccurate as your 5% stat.

Dana

Anonymous said...

Hmmm...The heteronormativity in this campaign is... offensive to say the least.

And yes, I am writing this as a survivor. The logic here is the same as used by White feminists who sought to exclude Latina/o and Black voices from the movement by privileging Anglo concerns. Only here, they are privileging hetero cisgender female victims of domestic violence.

Domestic violence is NOT a women's issue. It is everybody's issue. And that this campaign reinforces that misconception, and effectively silences non cisgender female victims is troubling, to say the least.
And none of this makes that fool MA right, but still...

Delilah said...

Clearly there is division of opinion on this topic, but also clearly, the statistics lean much further towards women victims of domestic violence and it needs to be stopped.

So many recent cases of "murder instead of divorce" which all start with domestic violence against the female,seems to be epidemic. Why don't the MRAs address that issue in a rational commentary? Because she asked for it?

I firmly believe that if we curtail domestic violence we will see less cases of missing mothers, missing females, and murdered spouses. Not to say that men are not abused, they are, but not in the disproportionate numbers of females.

Keep those signs up! We need every chance we can get to bring awareness to this ugly side of our culture so that the cycle will one day be broken.

Arum said...

I hate all this 'women abuse children' crap. Lies, damn lies and official statistics. Yes, they do, and in my country at least there are huge state resources targetted at preventing it. However, most abuse by women is neglect, not violence or sexual crimes - they are still overwhelmingly committed by men. Neglect has serious consequences, but the reasons behind it are complex. Most women who neglect their children are single parents. No-one is prosecuting the men who dumped the kids in the first place, are they? These issues are addressed, at huge expense to the taxpayer, by the full might of the state. Domestic violence is still overwhelmingly tackled by the voluntary sector, relying on donations and goodwill to help victims (at least, this is the situation in the UK).

And yes, DV IS a women's issue, and saying anything else is a denial of reality in the guise of 'inclusiveness'. I have never worked with a man who had his spleen stamped on so hard it had to be removed, or subjected to an evening of sadistic rape which landed him in ITU, or was raped in front of his sons to show them "how we treat dirty whores", or who spent his days locked in the house, or was forced to watch his daughter beaten as punishment for his behaviour, etc etc etc. I have worked with all these women, and worse. I spent 3 years receiving every DV report for our area of the city. Believe me, men will call the police because "she threw her car keys at me". Women, on average, will wait until the 36th attack before calling the police. So these attacks on women are just the tip of the iceberg. Sorry, but it just really pisses me off when people start doing the whole 'OOOO, but nasty ladies hurt poor men, too!' stuff.

SarahMC said...

Renee, thanks for bringing attention to these ads. I think they're very effective and yes, startling.
A Family Place KNOWS who it serves, so they are going to use that information to create ads that are relevant to that population. Asking them to make things more "balanced" because you're uncomfortable with the fact that male-on-female violence is the most common is like asking them to address global warming in their campaigns too. THEY SERVE FEMALE VICTIMS, so of course that's what they're going to focus on in their ads. If shelters serving male victims (yes, they do exist) want to run their own campaigns, they are welcome to do so.

p.s. Renee I love this blog; I've been reading for a while but this is my first comment.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how using children is effective, and it does not compute that any means necessary, regardless if it can negatively effect children is okay. I do not believe that domestic violence is a women's issue, it is a human issue. To discount the violence in all of its forms and rationalize it as excusable for one segment of the population is not going to help the problem. I have read some posts eleswhere that intimate that this ad campaign encourages parents to talk to their children about hate speech- that completely undermines the purpose of these ads. If they build resentment and anger towards a women's shelter, I cannot see how that will productively assist the topic of domestic violence. If a father and a son see these ads as offensive because they feel that they mischaracterize the issue and are sexist in their presentation it cannot follow that they will act more proactively towards the resolution of the issue, it does follow however, that they may have the opposite reaction to dismiss the issue as being biased, exclusionary and ideologically flawed. We don't like our voices silenced, and it seems to me to silence their voices is just duplicitous and unproductive. And I have yet to see a rational defense of using children, who will see these ads- this campaign encourages what it purports to end.

Renee said...

Wow some of you are seriously surreal. Do you honestly believe that there isn't a little boy somewhere that is going to grow up and beat his wife? Do you honestly believe that there isn't a little girl that is destined to meet her end at the hands of her husband? Honestly this ad portrays the truth of the situation as we know it to be today.

Anonymous said...

[written by the Other Caribou Barbie]

And that is the problem. "The truth as we know it today."

@ Renee

First, thanks for highlighting this campaign. Violence against nontrans heterosexual women is a serious issue. But, I have problems with the fact that it serves the most privileged group of women, and renders all other women invisible.

Because, this campaign, for all its obvious merits, leaves all too many behind. Myself, for example.

So, who qualifies as female? Trans women? Not likely. What about female abusers in lesbian relationships?

Domestic violence agencies have traditionally spurned lesbian and trans women victims, and these groups have significant mortality from DV, as well as far fewer resources than the hetero cisgender women the ad campaign spotlights.

And no, I do not agree with the MRA kooks. But domestic violence is not served well by silencing victims because their numbers are too small to matter.

Been there. done that. and quite frankly, it does not serve to privilege some victims of DV over others who have been traditionally marginalized.

Ashley said...

Arum, I was abused by my mother. She was violent, not neglectful and (thankfully) not sexual abuse. Most of it was verbal/mental/emotional, but a few rounds of choking me, gouging me with her nails, cigarette burns, etc.

And my mother was a single mom, because she decided to try to leave my father for a married man who wouldn't leave his wife. My father, while by no means a saint, was as involved in my life as he could be (saw him a minimum of twice a month, talked to him almost every night, went to my performances, etc.), and didn't abuse me.

Thanks for saying people like me don't exist. I'm not the only one I know that this happened to.

Arum said...

@Ashley

Oh rubbish, no-one is saying you don't exist. There are patterns of behaviour that are hidden by statistics - one of those being the oft quoted 'women are the ones who abuse children' crap. Of course women abuse children. However, the underlying pattern is one of neglect, not violence or sexual assault. This is not to say "no woman has ever hit a child", and I'm frankly irritated that you should choose to take it that way.

Pointing out behaviour patterns does not 'silence' anyone, nor does it deny anyone's individual personal experience. To say that domestic violence transcends race and class, but unfortunately not gender or sexual orientation, is to point out a pattern. The overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence are heterosexual women. Ergo, that is who DV organisations target when they are advertising - they want to reach the largest audience. This is what advertising does.

DV organisations are charities. Therefore, they have to comply with strict rules over their status and the use of their funds. They have very few funds, and many demands upon them. To have decided to run an advertising campaign is a real risk - it represents money that could be used elsewhere. Therefore, they want to reach as many people as possible. This does not mean being 'inclusive'. To target transgender or lesbian women, they would have to have allocated one precious poster to each group. If the three posters Renee showed are the only ones, then 2/3 of their advertising campaign would have been targetted at a minority of women. They cannot afford to do this. This is not an ideal world.

As for using children, this has been found to be very effective in the UK. As I think Renee pointed out, we are used to the often sexualised portrayal of beaten women in our society, so showing pictures of women with bruises isn't an effective advert. However, using kids forces people to think about the issue from another angle. "See your lovely little girl over there? She has a 1/7 chance of being beaten by some bastard she falls in love with. What do you think of those odds?" is actually very effective. Forcing people to see women who are victims of DV as ordinary, normal women who could be your daughter, your sister, your friend from school, as opposed to stupid bitches who must like it cos they stay, can only be a good thing.

Anonymous said...

[The Other Caribou Barbie wrote]

Ahhh...the good old "Battlefield Triage" argument. Some women must be sacrificed for the good of the privileged majority. Usually, the least sympathetic, least visible ones.

Arum, you have effectively defined lesbians and trans women as expendable. I suspect you are nontrans, and hetero to so quickly declare an entire subgroup of women as not being worthy of representation.

That said, your argument is a strawman. Claiming that this would result in two thirds of a limited budget being allocated for a minority which you clearly state does not rate consideration is patently false. It also reflects a basic misunderstanding of how to effectively reach minorities within minorities. Never mind that it pits marginalized women's interest against a privileged majority women's interest in a false contention for limited resources.
A quick trip to the NCAVP website to garner a page of links for their website would have gone far. But they CHOSE to ignore that. They not only CHOSE not to represent and to marginalize some women, they even refused to acknowledge it by referring them elsewhere publicly. And for an agency that has helped more MEN than WOMEN survivors last year, that is unforgiveable.

Their website makes LBT women completely invisible, and it did not have to. Yes yes, make all those precious posters for the clearly more valuable (and highly photogenic) nontrans hetero majority. After all, showing a lesbian or trans woman isn't likely to garner the same amount of sympathy as the Girl Next Door, right?

So, how much of that budget would have gone to picking up the phone and enlisting an LBT woman ally to do the legwork. Or maybe even garnering additional funding and support. And more importantly, why did they fail to do this?

I think we know the answer, we are just unwilling to admit it.

Arum said...

Oh good grief. This is not about rendering anyone expendable. I have no idea how the organisations you're mentioning opperate, as I'm not an American. In the UK, lesbian women, in particular, have played a pivotal role in DV advocacy. And I most certainly do not "clearly state" that lesbian and trans women are either "expendable" or "[do not] rate consideration" - that is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. Advertising is a specific thing, and if it is effective it does what it is meant to do - reach the largest possible group of it's target audience.

In the UK, lesbian women do a hell of a lot of the legwork. However, the number of lesbians and trans women murdered by their partners every week is vanishingly small. The same is not true of heterosexual women. Maybe the figures are different in America? As for not trying to get additional funding and support...... sorry, but in the UK, that's what "office work" in DV organisations consists of. It's not like no-one is trying. They'd take money from the Donkey Sanctury (which, incidentally, gets more money in donations per year than Women's Aid - about 3 million more)if it was offered.

I don't know. Maybe things are really different in the States - like I say, most of WA's money comes from charity, and they have to jump through burning hoops for every penny of state funds. It really is still battlefield triage here.

Incidentally, you're wrong about the 'hetero' part. But then, on the side of a bus, how are you going to tell which woman is trans, lesbian, straight or non-trans?

LorMarie said...

I post regularly on Sacks' blog. I've also had the opportunity to speak with him off the board. He isn't nearly as bad as he seems. Still, I disagree with him re the DART campaign. I'm glad the group isn't bowing to the pressure. I do believe that they should present the whole truth, even men are victims of DV.

Anonymous said...

[The Other Caribou Barbie]

>Oh good grief.
Nice silencing tactic. Do you usually mock people when you have no argument? Since I am not the only one you have done this to here, I suppose the answer is yes.

>This is not about rendering anyone expendable.
Actually, deciding who gets services and who doesn't is exactly that.

>I have no idea how the organisations you're mentioning opperate, as I'm not an American.
But you are using a bully pulpit to spout off anyway. I might add, I have been turned away from DV services before, and I have also lived in Dallas.

> In the UK, lesbian women, in particular, have played a pivotal role in DV advocacy.
Like Shelia Jefferies, and Julie Bindel, who publish hate screeds demeaning trans women even today. But, I guess since they help out non trans women, that makes it all A-OK.

>And I most certainly do not "clearly state" that lesbian and trans women are either "expendable" or "[do not] rate consideration" - that is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.

No, it is not. Justifying it with the "world isn't fair" and then refusing to measure the effects of your words does not a counterargument make.

>Advertising is a specific thing, and if it is effective it does what it is meant to do - reach the largest possible group of it's target audience.

So, collateral damage is irrelevant. And sending a targeted message that OKs violence against trans women, lesbians, and others as long as its not committed by a man is alright in your book, amirite?
You would not have any problem with excluding Latina women, who are also a minority. Just as long as you get the most "important" ones, you are above critique.

>In the UK, lesbian women do a hell of a lot of the legwork.

Why, yes they do. See above for who they choose to leave behind, and tell me that that is acceptable.

> However, the number of lesbians and trans women murdered by their partners every week is vanishingly small.

So, these women arre expendable because they do not meet YOUR threshold for "women that matter." How many women have to die in order to matter? Does a Latina trans woman's 1 in 8 chance of being murdered count? I guess not, as long as nontrans women get theirs.

> The same is not true of heterosexual women.

Right. Because only they matter.
A non trans woman's chance of getting murdered: 1 in 18,000
A trans woman's chance of being killed: 1 in 12, or 1 in 8 if she is Latina or Black.

What's worse, is that this organization actually helped more men than women in their sexual abuse survivor program last year. So, the menz are getting theirs, why not all women? And why do you continue to defend this?

> Maybe the figures are different in America?
Maybe you should inform yourself so your facts back up your rather creative conclusions. Then, you might find yourself agreeing with me rather than merely pontificating and muttering insults.

> As for not trying to get additional funding and support...... sorry, but in the UK, that's what "office work" in DV organisations consists of.

A chioce was made. One that you fully support. One that results in dead trans women.
There is a huge difference in acknowledging an organizational limit, and blindly defending an unwillingness to help marginalized women.

> It's not like no-one is trying.

Really? Where? If they are at this organization, they carefully hide any evidence of it. Of course, you seem to be heavily invested in defending their lack of effort.

> They'd take money from the Donkey Sanctury (which, incidentally, gets more money in donations per year than Women's Aid - about 3 million more)if it was offered.

And this is relevant how? Patriarchy Hurts Asses Too?

> I don't know.
I concede your point here. You are right.

> Maybe things are really different in the States - like I say, most of WA's money comes from charity, and they have to jump through burning hoops for every penny of state funds. It really is still battlefield triage here.

A little research goes a long way. And here in the US, DV services for anybody and everybody are so grossly underfunded that it is beyond the pale. But defending the exclusion of marginalized women as acceptable compromise is not exactly my idea of helping women.

> Incidentally, you're wrong about the 'hetero' part. But then, on the side of a bus, how are you going to tell which woman is trans, lesbian, straight or non-trans?

No, I am not. Unless a woman is "marked" somehow, she is assumed to be straight and non trans. Its called invisibility. and it silences just as effectively as any closet.

Between the men's rights clowns, and the people who think dumping vulnerable women overboard to save more privileged ones is acceptable and defensible, I am sorry I ever came to this site.

You have a nice life. Ya me voy!

Anonymous said...

I'd like to start by saying that I really appreciate the comments that thoughtfully point out the negatives in this ad campaign.

I, however, do think that the ads should stay up because they do represent a very hard truth for many people.

BUT, I think that other ads should be included that reflect the truths of others that have been highlighted in these comments.

Clearly, domestic violence is an issue that affects everyone; it is also something that crosses different intersections when targeted at different groups of people.

I believe someone pointed this out previously, but just as the sexism that I face as a WOC is very different from the sexism faced by a white woman, the domestic violence faced by hetero, non-cis woman is different than that faced by transwomen, men, etc...

Domestic violence crosses issues of sexuality, gender, race, class, etc... that render it (unfortunately) more damaging to the certain groups it targets. IMHO, the clearest way of absolving this issue regarding the advertisement is to launch more ad campaigns that reflect the issue of domestic violence for different groups of people. Perhaps the women's shelter should partner up with other non-profits that cater to the protection of oppressed and targeted people that face large percentages of domestic violence. But I don't think removing the ads would solve this problem, or take away from the fact that domestic violence doesn't only affect women.

*Excuse me if this sounds garbled. I'm a bit tired at the moment.

--yet another anonymous...

Anonymous said...

I agree with an earlier poster who pointed out the inability of anyone to defend the ad which uses children who will naturally take an interest in it. The message they will get in not healthy. I also agree with those who feel the ads should represent a more balanced approach, and appreciate the sentiment that lesbians voices should be heard. The silencing of that forum is avoided because it undermines the paradigm of man perp woman victim. My concern when I see these ads and the paltry defenses of them, for a crime the comprises .02 of 1% of all crime is that we come off demanding a chivalristic state that funds our pedestals from which to preach and demand further protection. We are so concerned with protecting the agenda that we appear totalitarian by dismissing other viewpoints in the discussion, and that ultimately will fail all of us. I do have a son, and it has changed many of my perceptions and to deny that these ads can have a damaging effect on children, or say that they are collateral damage is devoid of humanism and decency. I wish the ads would come down, and a new chapter in partner violence could take shape that really has the best interests of all at heart. We dismiss them as kooks and a host of other slurs, but that already posits the argument in vain when it can't be argued rationally. The arguments have failed to justify with fairness and equity why the signs should remain, and essentially concedes that the MRA's have valid points. The verbal denigration of them only fortifies their position as valid and moreover casts the appearance of those defending the ads like entitled elitists whose fragile egos are threatened by discourse about a paradigm we assert is the only true paradigm. Enough posters here have even raised meritous arguments of inclusion, and to dismiss those as relevant comes off as simple minded arrogance.

hexy: hexpletive said...

Like Shelia Jefferies, and Julie Bindel, who publish hate screeds demeaning trans women even today.

Unfortunately enough, Sheila Jeffreys is an Australian transphobe and bigot, not a British one.

Dori said...

Glenn Sacks is a privileged ass. Those who are agreeing with him are at the wrong blog. "Fucknecks United" is two blogs over and on your right. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

I'm gonna stay out of the rest of this except to point out that intimate partner violence in the GLBTQ community is largely ignored by domestic abuse services in the US, and I am seeing some disturbing tendencies by a commenter or two to disregard these experiences and assume inclusiveness that simply does not exist.

There is privilege washing up all over this thread.

cchiovitti said...

Frankly, I think they're offensive to everybody but sometimes, being offended is the only way to truly process a message. These ads definately make people stop and think and that's a good thing.

Anonymous said...

Yes let's offend. Next we can have a bus with a picture of a little girl that says "When I grow up I will rape my middle school students", or a little girl that sasy "When I grow up I will kill my same sex partner" Great now we are inclusive and addressing everybody- isn't it great to offend-

Maha said...

Yes let's offend. Next we can have a bus with a picture of a little girl that says "When I grow up I will rape my middle school students", or a little girl that sasy "When I grow up I will kill my same sex partner" Great now we are inclusive and addressing everybody- isn't it great to offend-

Don't you have something better to do? Like learn how to breathe through your nose?

saraht43 said...

Another well done article by womanist musings.

shivers said...

Another excellent article!

What is it with guys? No, honestly, why such vehement denial by so many of them? The stats are there for all to see. Men kill women MOSTLY. And Men kill Men - honestly, they do! Some of the latest figures from the Canadian Coroners Office depicting the real true life story behind domestic homicides goes like this. In 2002 - 2005 inclusive in Ontario there were 148 domestic deaths, 99 were women, 9 where children and 48 were men, of which 41 were perpetrators! That means that out of 48 men who killed their spouses or families 41 then killed themselves, 2 were killed by police for taking a woman hostage. That left 5 men possibly murdered by their spouse, and I bet that 1 or 2 were gay couples. So the DART ads are correct. That little girl is FAR MORE LIKELY to be killed by her husband than if she was a little boy! Facts are facts, and you know, the denial by the male populace is just another tool of abuse.

So to all the guys out there, STAND UP AND GET REAL, FACE THE TRUTH AND BE REAL MEN, and put your enthusiasm not into denial but into assisting in making men less violent.

But I know you won't do - takes away too many of your privileges, huh?

Tokidoki said...

I don't have much to say other than Glenn Sacks can shove it and stop trying to take away from the message that DV exists-it doesn't say it only happens to women or that men are always the perps, or anything close. They used kids to show how ANYONE can be a victim or an abuser. That's so "duh" I can't believe he doesn't get it. Why is it sexist to say men commit sexual violence more, but not to say women are more often victims? It hurts my brain to understand that thinking-especially since those people are usually the type who would blame the victims. DART is being seriously awesome by keeping up the ads-not enough companies would have the guts to do that.

Yes, men are victims of DV. My boyfriend is still stuck living with his emotionally abusive, alcoholic family. (We're in high school.) But that doesn't change the fact that men are the most enabled by our society and can justify their behavior the easiest. I agree that violence against men should be talked about, but if I were running an ad campaign I'd just go with the majority. Hence, I'm not outraged at this, but I am annoyed with ads that imply stranger rape.

Plus, the main reason men as victims are disregarded is becasue that's seen as "ummanly" or "womanly." I know that's why my boyfriend has so much trouble talking about it, and it hurts like hell to see him try and pretend he's ok because of his gender. If we get across the message that being a victim of abuse isn't shameful or blameworthy, then I think that problem will be largely erased. It's not about raising women to the levels of men, it's about getting read of gender roles altogether.

As I side note, I find Glenn's protest hilarious in a sick way. My ex-boyfriend/rapist/abuser who I escaped from this March was named Glenn and we both still live in the Dallas area. And yup, he would completely agree with Mr. Sacks that this is sexist, even though he's an FTM, which ya'd think would make him more aware of gender role stupidity. That's such a creepy coincidence. Eep, sorry for babbling so much.

Shelley said...

Amen! Domestic abuse is too prevalent and too silenced. If a man doesn't want to be called an abuser, then he shouldn't abuse!

judgesnineteen said...

I only read the first few comments, but I saw enough bizarreness there. Let's try to avoid assuming what everyone will think when they see these ads and stick to what we know.

The ads feature kids. LOTS of ads do. I'm against getting your kid to spread propaganda if they can't really check it out for themselves yet, but since DV is a FACT, I don't think using kids is wrong here.

The ads appear to only depict abusers as male and victims as female. This is close to factual, but not. They should add some the other way around, and some about same sex relationships. However, I hate arguments that if the genders were switched, blah blah blah. If the genders were switched, the power relationship would be switched too, and it would be a very different message. Which is a possible reason for not showing all these different relationships, because male against female violence can and often does build on sexism, while other kinds of violence usually don't. That makes them different.

Nic said...

Hmmm, seems to be a lot of MRA asshats on this comment thread. I wonder why there are so many people here agreeing with this MRA radiohost troll (I don't even want to give him his name)...hmmm maybe because they are MRA asshat trolls themselves!

First of all, many of the commenter here are using standard silencing techniques.

So I'll address the complaint that has come up most often here. First with the "you're denying the voices of men who are abused" / "you're denying the voices of LGBTQ who are abused"

Okay people, this is feminism 101/Logic 101. Just because you talk about one issue, does not mean you are excluding or denying the voices of others. If an environmental organization decides to "save the whales" this does not mean that this organization is denying or silencing or hating on the polar bears, pandas, rhinoceros, rainforests, or any other environmental issue.

I shouldn't even have to explain this. I'm queer, and I do not in any way feel that this ad is "silencing" me or denying our experiences. The ads are addressing an important issue. And the fact is, most of the DV is male on female. 95% of batterers are men. That is a fact and the ad is pointing out this trend. Hence the male child and the quote "I will beat my wife" and the female child "I will be beaten by my husband"...Pointing out the Fact that most of the DV is male on female does not deny LGBT voices. And in fact, if you are familiar with any LGBT circles/communities there DO EXIST domestic violence awareness campaigns and organizations, targeted as lesbians, gays, trans, and queers in general.

Maybe the men on here complaining about not having their voices "heard" should actually DO something for themselves, i.e. take out their own ads, or start their own organization. But most MRA trolls would rather come onto feminist sites blame women and silence the voices of women, rather than do any activism of their own.

zz said...

hey. Came here via the link in the weekly feministing reader. Hadn't heard about the story before. I'm neither a feminist nor an MRA, but as a guy I feel abused by these ads. They're not saying "Domestic violence is mostly committed by men, it's an important issue and awareness is key", they seem to be saying "every little boy is bound to grow up to become an abuser and beat his wife", at least that's what I'm reading, and it makes me angry and sad at the same time. I don't think ads such as these are helping to raise awareness about domestic violence, they just give opponents of feminism an opportunity to expose allegedly hidden misandry in many brands of feminism.

Anonymous said...

Forget 'cherry picked' feminist statistics -- most men don't abuse their wives. This ad. is brutal and disgusting. Why don't they create an ad that reads: 'When I grow up, I'll shoot my husband and walk free' [e: Mary Winkler]

Oh, by the way. How come Feminists have prioritized domestic abuse over child abuse? The reason is simple, not even feminists are able to manipulate the statistical truth, women are just as likely as men to beat their kids. I

Anonymous said...

I grew up with an emotionally and physically violent father and an abused mother, and I LOVE these ads; they do so much to remind us all of the chain of violence and where it begins: when we're young.

As I was growing up, I learned to despise the weak and to identify only with the "winner", who, in my case, was my dad.

I am female. I grew up tough. I grew up to be a winner only; anything less was a terrible failure not to be addressed as anything but. It wasn't until I was in my 20s -- when I took control over my own life and addressed the abuse I grew up with -- that I was able to transform it into something positive for both myself and for those who are around me.

Glenn Sacks can eat a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned, and from the tone of his whiny, namby-pamby bullshit, he seems to have very little experience in the world of those of us who have grown up in houses filled with abuse.

I agree with the posters who mentioned that Glenn should take a positive step to put female abusers and what makes a female abuser into the light, rather than silencing everyone, but the guy hardly sounds like the kind of person capable of nuance, understanding, or anything resembling compassion.

SMB said...

I grew up with an emotionally and physically violent father and an abused mother, and I LOVE these ads; they do so much to remind us all of the chain of violence and where it begins: when we're young.

As I was growing up, I learned to despise the weak and to identify only with the "winner", who, in my case, was my dad.

I am female. I grew up tough. I grew up to be a winner only; anything less was a terrible failure not to be addressed as anything but. It wasn't until I was in my 20s -- when I took control over my own life and addressed the abuse I grew up with -- that I was able to transform it into something positive for both myself and for those who are around me.

Glenn Sacks can eat a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned, and from the tone of his whiny, namby-pamby bullshit, he seems to have very little experience in the world of those of us who have grown up in houses filled with abuse.

I agree with the posters who mentioned that Glenn should take a positive step to put female abusers and what makes a female abuser into the light, rather than silencing everyone, but the guy hardly sounds like the kind of person capable of nuance, understanding, or anything resembling compassion.

Anonymous said...

I think DART should run the following ad:

Show an image of a 6 year old girl, and next to the image have her quoted saying "Women murder more children in US homes than any other perpetrator. I sure hope my mother doesn't murder me".

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure4_2.htm

Nic said...

One more comment for two MRA trolls who don't even have the guts to post their names.

zz you are an MRA, you advocate on the side of domestic violence silence in saying these ads are offensive. Appaprently you just can't handle the REALITY of what is really going on. Try educating yourself on violence against women. It's a lot more common than you apparently believe. Although I do give you extra MRA points for putting your fingers in your ears, covering your eyes and going NA NA NA NA NA NA NA, I don't see DV therefore it don't exist. OH and ALL those mothers out there spaking their kids. Gee I seem to remember it was my FATHER who kicked me with his boot and whipped me with his belt. Let's see some statistics from a reputable source (FBI DOJ) that supports your "claim" about "abusive mothers". (generally people who pull statistics like that out of their ass don't give references to begin with) I got my numbers from a police survey, where did you get yours? Glenn Beck? Your local MRA group? HA HA HA HA. Nice try.

Nic said...

To the other Anon coward. Misandry? Please, are you one of those people who goes around claiming white christian men are oppressed because you perceive that groups like blacks, immigrants, non-christians, women, are fighting for their rights. You see whenever an MRA perceives that any of these groups make a little bit of progress against the centuries of violence and prejudice that they have faced, like clockwork MRA's come out of the woodword screaming about "Misandry" and "reverse racism"...Fact is you know nothing about oppression because you are NOT OPPRESSED nor do you try and educate yourself about it. In order for a group to be oppressed you need another group that holds institutional and economic power over the rest (historically and currently, can you guess which group the OPPRESSORS might be?) If you said women you are WRONG, if you said black people you are WRONG, if you said gay people you are WRONG....the answer is WHITE MEN...and yes I'm patronizing because you seem to not understand the most basic concepts here. Along with all the lies and smears in your post, you don't even bother to have a shred of intellectual dignity by even acknowledging a problem, which by all accounts from reputable sources like the DOJ and FBI, is a HUGE problem. You may of heard of it, it's called violence against women. And FACT IS 95% of batterers are MEN, and 99% of rapists are MEN. (Oh but that's only the department of justice's facts, and we all know that they are all just a bunch of whiny feminists intent at oppressing kind hearted men everywhere.) So to respond to your MRA BS whining:

"This ad. is brutal and disgusting." That's because domestic batterers, who may I remind you are 95% MALE, are brutal and disgusting. But don't strain your brain concerning yourself with FACTS.

"Why don't they create an ad that reads: 'When I grow up, I'll shoot my husband and walk free"
Because more men grow up to be batters and many times kill their wifes, than women grow up to "shoot their husbands". Reminder 95% of batterers are men. 2/3 of all marriages will experience domestic violence at least once, that's 95% of 75% which is an awful lot of abusive men. And BTW, 34% of the female homicide victims over age 15 are killed by their husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends. Hmmm...that to me looks an like an awful lot of MEN battering their wives with a full 1/3 of female homicides caused by their husbands/boyfriend/spouse. Doesn't look like your "women are doing all the battering/killing" BS has any basis in REALITY.

"women are just as likely as men to beat their kids."
70% of men who batter their partners either sexually or physically abuse their children. Again considering the 75% of all couples will experience DV with 95% of those batterers being men, that's an awful lot of men sexually or physically abusing their children. Would you like to offer some stats from a reputable source like the DOJ or the FBI to refute these? (Actually to be fair, that's a wild goose chase, I actually already looked and the type of statistics that you are pulling out of yer bum don't exist in REALITY)

"How come Feminists have prioritized domestic abuse over child abuse? "
They prioritize both, by placing ads warning about domestic violence and batterers, since 70% of these male batterers also abuse their children.

Another coward who won't post his name said:
"I think DART should run the following ad:
Show an image of a 6 year old girl, and next to the image have her quoted saying "Women murder more children in US homes than any other perpetrator. I sure hope my mother doesn't murder me"...
Well that would be inaccurate because according to the statistics men take our their violence on the children as well as the mother. Again 70% of male batterers abused their children sexually or physically. Care to give any DOJ or FBI stats that support your claim that mothers are "beating and killing their kids in epidemic proportions" as you suggest...Actually fact is, it's male batterers that are causing the most harm to the children. But you know MRA's were never one's to believe in FACTS. MRA's use whatever they can make up/pull out of their ass to support their claim...MRA's don't concern themselves with things like the TRUTH and REALITY.

How 'bout giving us all the link to the DOJ page that supports those "female batterer/child killer" lies that you site?!

Nic said...

By the way, I didn't make it clear where I got the 75% of relationships experience DV.

FACTS: Physical violence in dating relationships ranges from 20-35%.

2/3 of all marriages will experience domestic violence at least once.

So that's a conservative average of about 20% for the first statistic and 66% for the second statistic. 20%+66%= 85% (round down)

It's possible that there is some overlap here so I again rounded down to 75% and figured that was a very CONSERVATIVE estimate.

Anonymous said...

The MRA's do make a good point. The double standard is clearly present. When women are in the minority on a particular subject, it's okay to talk about what happens to them, but when men are the minroity, ahhh well, let's just stick to statistics since more women are battered by men than are men by women. What's up with that?
-Ben

Anonymous said...

Abusers as other criminals do not take responsibility for their actions why anyone thinks these ads will change a character flaw as fundamental as that is absolutely beyond me. Its a nice idea but I think the money could have been used better.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I can't even scroll through these posts without feeling total disgust at the 'ladies' on this board.
Sacks was incorrect, but only in stating that domestic violence affects women more than men. The CDC, among countless other scholarly articles has verified that time and time again. Men are more frequently the victims. That's just the way it is.

There is nothing small or misogynistic about standing up against an injustice. Sacks is on the right track.

Ladies, its time to man up and face your own bad behaviour. If you don't, well, expect more of this type of action.

Anonymous said...

Wow. So much denial from the women here.
Grow up, gals. Do your homework. You aren't the victims, you are the aggressors.

Womanistsuckworse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I was especially impressed with the one but side that had a picture of the little girl and said "One day my Mother will Kill me" and referenced the fact that almost 70% of child abuse and the majority of child murders are perpetrated by the mother.

Oh wait... they "forgot" that one.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Galelf said...

It's interesting that the final result in most arguments about violence or hatred is what group of people is associated with the status of biggest victim. There is a positive side, that it seems as if everyone agrees that domestic violence does occur and it is wrong. That is a starting point, one of the possible fallacies with citing personal experience is that it seems to be extreme sides of a point of view that are attracted to particular headlines. In this case it's gender and violence, someone who has been or knows someone who has been abused will be drawn to it and most likely have a slither of the whole picture to use for reference.

For example from my point of view, I don't know any of my male friends who have physically abused their partner, but do know of a male friend who got scratched up pretty bad all over his neck a few times from his girlfriend and he thought he deserved it and repeated emotional abuse experienced by another male friend. But, I know these are just a small piece of a bigger picture, and would never try to state DV doesn't occur the other way simply because I haven't seen it.

Statistics are interesting and tend to be more useful than negative comments for negative comment's sake, but can be manipulated as far as what is inclusive, sample population, definition of terms, and money trails. So try to think about the source of what you read and verify whether or not the number are valid, the internet is a good research tool and often government sites can prove to be more all encompassing, less biased, not as affiliated with agendas than publicly distributed information, like Google/advanced search/U.S. government for example.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "The CDC, among countless other scholarly articles has verified that time and time again. Men are more frequently the victims. That's just the way it is."

You're a liar. That's just the way it is.

Mike Hunter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Michaelquerty said...

Interesting links with those statistics, although only one source is speculative. I'd be interested in seeing stats from both sides, but either way it seems as if DV is a human crime and not a gender one. So why do they portray a specific gender in a vilifying manner?

Dori said...

Why the hell do all these anonymous misogynists think that one gender is being vilified?

If you are not an abuser THEN THESE ADS ARE NOT ABOUT YOU. Anyone can be abusive, or abused. Just because one group tends to be more represented in the statistics as either perpetrator or victim does not mean that ALL members of that group are automatically either a perpetrator or a victim.

Basic logic here, trolls.

If you see it a vilifying you unjustly, then what are you feeling guilty for?

Also, what the fuck is up with this "but we wanna be oppressed toooooooooooo!" whining?
Yes, men are abused sometimes, and yes, sometimes women are the perpetrators. Most of the time, this is not the case.

All the rest of the shit you guys are spouting are blatant falsehoods.

You are not institutionally oppressed, and why you want to be is beyond me. It fucking sucks, so I really don't know what you are complaining about by not having to deal with it.

Get over it.

Anonymous said...

While most men may be the abusers, most men don't go around beating women and children. So, they're using a generalization that generally isn't true. No wonder why there's so much contempt.

Anonymous said...

Men are more likely to be victims in dating violence, according to several recent academic studies.

http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n

Anonymous said...

Recent Harvard study shows that women perpetrate violence more often.

http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d

Anonymous said...

-Men are more likely to be victims in dating violence, according to several recent academic studies.
http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n

=Is that the "privilege"? I suppose men should just "get over that" too.

figleaf said...

I'm... pretty sure I'm as aware that men are victims of DV as anybody. I'm also aware that standard gender stereotypes hinder even male victim's recognition of domestic violence as well as female perpetrator's.

That said, I think the ads are fine for at least two reasons: first because even though they don't serve every victim they absolutely serve the 80-85% of DV victims who *are* abused by men... and for *any* ad strategy that's pretty good coverage.

Second because the phenomenon of wife- and child abuse are well recognized these ads point at *changing* a known context. To the extent that violence against male partners in heterosexual relationships and violence against same-sex partners are less recognized an awareness-building ad campaign would need to have completely different objectives and thus falls outside the scope of... the agency (a women's- and children's-only shelter) that placed the ads in question.

Again, this isn't to say it's not appropriate to call attention to female-on-male, female-on-child, the very common female-on-frail-or-elderly, and same-sex domestic violence. In fact it's necessary and, I think, by raising awareness that it's not something *just* for "women and children" to watch out for it there could even be synergy with campaigns such as The Family Places.

But!

It's nonsense, even counterproductive to say their ads should be taken down.

Frankly I'm disappointed with Sacks who, as one of the other commenters mentioned, is evidently far more moderate than the average member of the constituency he's chosen to represent. I mean, it's not as though he's without resources of his own. And, considering the size of his audience *if* he or his constituency was serious... if they seriously considered violence against men an issue instead of a diversion... then he could certainly marshal considerable support for a separate campaign. Again, that he's not -- nor as far as I know has *any* serious MRA group -- suggests the MRA movement really *isn't* serious... really *does* see domestic violence against men as a dodge against responsibility. Which, again, is disappointing because, y'know, it really *does* happen.

The good news? There's strong evidence that a great deal of DV against men happens under two circumstances: defensively, as when an abused partner cracks and performs the boiling water trick; and later in life when the formerly abusive partner becomes infirm before his erstwhile victim. Consequently campaigns to end the more common domestic violence against women and children will reap collateral benefits to male victims in those two categories.

So again, no matter how you look at it it's at best counterproductive and at worst selfish and blame-avoiding for MRAs to object to traditional DV-reduction campaigns. My vote would be "counterproductive" though -- by fretting about feminism instead of making common cause, we men stay vulnerable to the much greater problems anti-feminism imposes on us... including greater vulnerability to our (proportionately small) share of the receiving end of domestic violence.

figleaf

Anonymous said...

>>>Actually fact is, it's male batterers that are causing the most harm to the children. But you know MRA's were never one's to believe in FACTS. MRA's use whatever they can make up/pull out of their ass to support their claim...MRA's don't concern themselves with things like the TRUTH and REALITY.

How 'bout giving us all the link to the DOJ page that supports those "female batterer/child killer" lies that you site?! <<<

OK. These links are from The US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families -

This bar graph shows that 40.4% of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone...

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/figure3_5.htm

This pie chart indicates that 27.4 percent of child fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone - this rate is over 2 TIMES the rate of the father acting alone.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure4_2.htm

Now. Call me a liar. This is the US government providing this data.

Anonymous said...

Nothing wrong with the actual ads, it the campaign and it's lack of balance.

They should leave the ads up - all that is needed is one more ad with a girl.

It should read - "One day I will murder my husband, avoid jail for the crime AND get custody of the kids too!"

john said...

Arum -

From my personal experience it's MEN who will not call out for help. Women have had years of being told it's ok to get help and so on. Men are still far too ashamed to get help.

On top of that you have popular cultural media bombarding everyone with scenes of violence and calling it comedy. You need only rent a few movies to see this. The last one that raised my eye brows was Fools Gold - She took a cane from an old lady and beat the male actor in the head until he was out cold (funny stuff). Then she left him in the bushes.

My personal experience, my mother was incredibly aggressive. I have seen her hurl knives and other objects at men and strike and land hits several times. At least one of those cases sent the man to the emergency room.

I'm a grown man now, but my mother could still put me babbling in the fetal position with a raised hand. I know plenty of people who have had violent women in their lives too.

I think DV is a people issue and these ADS wouldn't be such a big deal IF there wasn't already soooooo much out there that makes light of violence against men.

Anonymous said...

Imagine if they depicted a white child that said "some day I will grow up to be mugged by a black person.." and similarly, they had an ad with a black child that said "some day I will grow up and mug a white person..."

Such obviously racist ads would have never seen the light to day. What I see on this site is even though they call themselves egalitarians, feminists seem to be all about using sexism to their advantage. Glenn is right on and I support him all the way: sexism should be wrong regardless the gender of the beneficiary.

Anonymous said...

Actually figleaf, your belief that DV against men is primarily due to self defense has been shown to be completely and utterly false and has been discredited. Take a look at the references herein:

http://www.mediaradar.org/research.php#waj

Unfortunately, too many people still believe that that women are simple and weak and incapable of being powerful and violent. The feminist movement has worked hard to reinforce this fallacy... Instead of considering the issue of DV through the gender-blind eyes, feminists seem hellbent on laying the blame of DV squarely at the feet of men...even though the research shows that women are just as violent.

Anonymous said...

I am ashamed of people who use children to further their own agenda.

Think of the children this hurt, how can you defend this.

Renee said...

I am ashamed of people who use children to further their own agenda.

Think of the children this hurt, how can you defend this.


Do you think that children don't witness the abuse? Do you think they suddenly become blind when daddy is beating the crap out of mommy?

Secondly with all of the violence that children regularly view in our society what these ads do is tell them that this is not a morally correct way of behaving.

Anonymous said...

@Danny the ads are targeting those that are committing the majority of the abuse and that would be men. Skewing it the other way is ridiculous. Men like Sacks are nothing other than woman hating trolls. The stats are so one sided as to make it more than obvious who is really at risk in this society. Crying what about the mehnz is not going to convince anyone that women are not by enlarged the victims.

and

In my personal experience, 5% of all abused people are male. That's a very small segment of the population.

This is similar to the thoughts Paige Flink of the Family Place who said that she needs to place her resources to the majority of the victims.

It's also very similar to store owners that said that very few of their customers were disabled, and it would cost them too much to make accomodations for the disabled.

And it's similar to what happened in California BEFORE the California Appellate Court ruled unconstitutional a law that said that domestic violence shelters only needed to treat women.

Whenever minorities or the oppressed have tried to point out their oppression and injuries, maintainers of the status quo dismissed the oppression and injuries as being inconsequential, trivial, as well as too expensive to fix.

Glenn is right, if the genders were reversed, the ads would be as accurate, and you would be very upset with them.

(Amusing to see an acknowledged hate monger like Ilyka here. Oh what a journey you've had Ilyka, and still spewing hate and words of oppression. You should be proud.)

Anonymous said...

Renee: "We have normalized images in the mainstream media of women being beaten and brutalized."

Huh? where? Watch any movie - especially any comedy - today and you will generally see women pummeling the hell out of men, but you will rarely ever see a man pummeling a women. And guaranteed that the woman doing the pummeling is the heroine and the man doing the pummeling is a villain. Finally, how many movies have you ever seen the good guy crotch a woman? This disparity demonstrates that not only is violence against men more acceptable then violence against women, but sexual violence is even more so. All you seem to want is institutionalized chivalry - not equality.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and by the way, we are keeping track....

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

This bibliography examines 246 scholarly investigations: 187 empirical studies and 59 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 237,750.

So don't tell us what we are saying here is not backed up by data and the truth.

Steve Scott said...

The views of Glenn Sacks are 100% correct on this issue. The ads are blatantly anti-male. It's discouraging to see Domestic Violence Awareness Campaigns stoop so low in their marketing campaigns. The message comes across loud and clear; "All men are abusers, all women are victims, no woman should trust any man." What public service does that serve? None. It's male bashing pure and simple.

Almost 50% of all domestic violence victims are men. Women use weapons and the element of surprise to beat men. It is not a joke. It is very serious. Many men are embarrassed to say that their girlfriend/wife beat them up.

Domestic violence is a problem that needs to be addressed. It does not need to be used as a tool for the "all women good, all men bad" crowd. Show respect for both genders and treat both genders fairly when dealing with domestic violence awareness.

Anonymous said...

i feel pretty sad because it seems that there's a complete lack of empathy for abusive victims as a whole class- rather than those who happen to be one gender or another.

the discussion has no place for remarks about genitalia, statistics regarding which gender suffers more or less abuse or unrelated social stereotypes.

People who get beat-up by people with whom they'd set-up a loving relationship face an extraordinarily difficult transition overcoming the betrayal and loss. It's high time to truly support ALL the survivors with a campaign of empathy rather than one of exclusion.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tragicfame said...

Intriguing... A woman stands up for domestic violence and is heralded as a savior. A man stands up and cries fowl because the ads do not address the issue and he's demonized. I for one an certainly glad he stepped up. I am a man who was involved in a violent relationship. Never once did I ever physically attack my ex-wife, but she physically assaulted me on multiple occasions. The concept that Domestic Violence is strictly a male perpetrated act is false.

As for the poster of the girl who wants her future husband to kill her. I've seen that statistic before. It's common fodder used by femimist organizations. It's derived from the 2003 FBI Crime Statistics. Out of the 2000 or so murders between spouses, 87% were committed by the husband. However, in that exact same set of statistics is the number of murders between unmarried couples. ... 83% were committed by the Girlfriend and there were over 4000 of those. So you're really twice as likely to be killed by your Girlfriend than you are your husband. In any rate, out of the 25 million marriages that year, the percentage of women murdered by their husbands that year was less than 1/1000th of a percent.

tragicfame said...

Oh yeah, and now my ex-wife assaults my children.

Visitor said...

"Dedicated to critiquing current events and pop culture from a womanist perspective. Its sole purpose is to give voice to those that have historically been marginalized and silenced".

Yes Renee, and you do that by marginalizing and silencing (deleting postings) any opposing opinions and facts that others may present. Absolutely brilliant! You are nothing but a radical feminist sham and a hypocrite.

Renee said...

@vistor men are not historically marginalized. This is my blog and I will police it as I see fit. If you don't like it, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I have already allowed far too much of the MRA, anti woman spew to pollute my space. You have no entitlement to speech here other than what I allow. I know it hurts to have a woman in charge but that is the way that it is.

Anonymous said...

Real mature Renee. What's wrong, the facts bother you?

randombabble.com said...

You are far more patient that I am Renee. That's for sure.

figleaf said...

@Anonymous: "Actually figleaf, your belief that DV against men is primarily due to self defense has been shown to be completely and utterly false and has been discredited."

Who said "primarily?" I said there were *two* types of domestic violence against men that a DV-awareness program could incidentally benefit, not that either one of them was a "primary" source. And if I was to prioritize the two instances I mentioned I'd say the latter -- abuse in custodial care -- was much larger. Just to be clear about that.

Also, if you actually visit The Family Place's page for their awareness program it's quite clear they recognize that women are capable of domestic violence. One of their sources of revenue is providing court-ordered counseling for perpetrators of violence. So far this year they say they've treated 449 male and 106 female offenders. Which, not to put too fine a point on complaints leveled here, suggests *they* have a better idea of who is and isn't prosecuted for DV than some of the commenters doing the complaining.

Another point from their website: "To date we have counseled 9 male and 1,335 female victims in our outreach programs." This only supports my contention that a) women are targeted more frequently *and* b) male victims are underserved.

And finally, I still question what's with all this dumping on feminism? My very first long-term partner was both verbally and physically quite abusive. Because of both indoctrination and ignorance it took me decades to figure it out. And who helped me finally understand what had happened to me? Or that it wasn't my fault? Or that men can be victims of domestic violence? Some feminist roommates who... volunteered at a woman's shelter! Those same feminists are the ones who persuaded me that I wasn't the only one. So... again, who's supposed to be the villain in that scenario? I'd say *nobody.*

Final thought from reading, you know, the actual Family Place web pages: the intention of the ads is to communicate that children who grow up in homes featuring domestic violence, period, are far more likely to commit domestic violence themselves. Nowhere do they imply that a) only men commit it, b) that women never do, c) that boys who become violent witness only men committing violence, d) that girls who grow up to become victims witness only men committing violence, and so on. They just say "domestic violence." That anyone, Glenn Sacks or Renee or anyone else sees them as unilateral accusations of men may say more about *their* assumptions about men than about the content of the actual ads or the intentions of their authors.

figleaf

Rev. Richard said...

Stats, forget them. These ads, inappropriate. Abuse doesn't discriminate between genders or age groups. DV laws and policies are understudied, and not at all accurate. The outcome being ineffective.
As a C.B.A.(certified behavior analyst), with expertise in "domestic violence" and "abnormal personality disorders" I work with men, women, and children who are or have been victims of domestic violence. I generally work with those who have received a high level of traumatic affect from the abuse.
Prior to entering the mental health community, I was a victim of DV. My partner had an extremely violent disorder, yet one of the most intriguing I've worked with. Border-line personality. Someone who loves you to death one moment, then wants to cause your death the next. I spent six months in a severe depressed state (bed ridden). I've changed since then. I leave the house to meet clients or run errands. I refuse to date. The only people I let close to me are my children, and my family. I have business acquaintances, but avoid friendships.

On the upside, if it wasn't for that experience, I would have never decided to help others. I've had clients who make my incident look like a walk in the park. As a mental health professional, these ads are offensive. Knowing the truth behind domestic violence and perceiving to know the truth are different avenues. Until the truth is acknowledged by the system, solutions can't be implemented to produce a positive result. Spend day after day with the victims and your perceptions will change. You'd find too, that current policy is far from being the truth. That's what happens when a plan is developed without a real view on properly executing it.

Patrick Brown said...

"Yes we should all feel pity for the fathers that beat their wives and children, who will daily be reminded that there is a cost to their actions. Why should they have to face up to the fact that their acts of violence cause real and lasting damage?"

If that's what you're claiming is the basis of Glenn Sacks' objection to this ad campaign, then you're a liar. The basis of the Sacks campaign is that studies show women are just as likely to be violent and abusive to their intimate partners as men are. Visit Sacks' site for the links.

I used to be far more sympathetic to feminism before I discovered how much of it is based on lies like this.

Anonymous said...

Only recently have honest people started to fight against feminist lies. So it is natural that they should become hysterical and increase the vileness of their rhetoric.

Slowly the counter attack is gathering strength against feminist which is just facism passed down along the female line.

Mike Hunter said...

Wow you simply delete postings containing valid arguments and credible facts from reliable sources. I can only assume because you are unable to debate the issue on a level playing field. How brave of you.

By the way no one care that "a woman is in charge". People are getting pissed off because you are abusing your position, thus further proving our point.


"You have no entitlement to speech here other than what I allow."

Since when did Liberal feminists believe in property rights? I guess you believe in what ever is convenient for you to believe in at the moment.

shatteredmen said...

" In his teeny little world, it is all about the penis, and if you don't have one your story does not deserve to be told"

I have noticed often that feminist blogs have a need to focus on genitalia so often. This makes me wonder if "penis envy" does not really exist with them. This is after they accuse men of focusing on genitals so I ask Renee, why you do not focus on what we think rather then what we have.

Now as far as these ads go, they do not say I MAY but I WILL! What hope does this give to children who would want to grow up and have a happy family? Will it not make girls afraid of boys? Will it not make boys feel like they will grow up to be monsters? I have always been taught that if we tell a child they are stupid, they will tend to prove us right but if we hold high but reasonable expectations for them, they will tend to rise to that level too. These ads give very low expectations. It IS...child abuse!

Renee, before you start cussing me out, I am NOT an MRA. I believe in FAMILY rights but if I were to be for a specific groups rights, it would be children's. I find most of the women's rights group really leave the children out completely. This ad shows it...they use children to demonize men. It is not about children, it is all about women and their right to absolve themselves of all accountability and responsibility.

I have seldom seen a conflict between two adults where both do not add to the conflict but you say it is all the man's fault. If we do not look at both sides, we make the problem worse. That is what most women shelters do not do. According to the VAWA, if they say they are abused, it has to be accepted without question. Then all sorts of perks set in to give free legal help, and all sorts of other things to being abused can be very profitable.....It sure is to those in power.

There is evidence that there is more abuse going on IN some of these shelters then in the homes these women fled from but we sure do not hear that do we? That is unless women step up to the plate and let us know what happened to them inside these shelters and I have had many women tell me that they would never go to another shelter. Shattered Men, although we focus on abused men, works with women on an equal basis

http://shatterdmen.com/DART.htm

Anonymous said...

My wife was violent to me throughout our 9 years of marriage, she broke down the door trying to get to me, she hit me in the face with a baton a half inch from my eye, threatened me with a knife, clawed my neck and blood started to spurt and i had to go to hospital. I NEVER TOUCHED HER! Women are by far the most common perpetrators in one sided violence, when a woman hits you, you freeze, you do not know what to do.
One day when i refused to buy an overpriced skateboard for my son, i was driving the car with my kids in the back of the car, and she punched me hard in the head, she said she would kill me and cut off my fingers in the night. So i went to the police, there was no blood, and she told them that i had to tried to strangle her last night. When you tell the police 1. hey do not really believe you 2. You have a high chance of being arrested yourself

Anonymous said...

It is a fact that men are victims of abuse. Society has been trained to believe only men are capable of committing abuse. Here in Nashville women not only commit violence against men, they use the police to commit violence against men. Falsely accusing a man of violence and letting the police put him in jail or prison based on those false accusations is the same as committing violence against him.

Dick Gozinya said...

Oh my. The wackjobs certainly came out of the woodwork on this one. The adverts are clearly one sided and at odds with reality. Just change them and move on. Sheesh...

Arum said...

Okay, let's paraphrase AA Gill.
"Some people start with a vision of Nirvana. They then set about creating rules, regulations and dogmas about how to get there, which serves only to discipline and paralyse those who fail to provide them with their vision. Other people start with the problem, and set about changing the world, one chip buttie at a time."

If you currently do not have a chip buttie, it is not because anyone is denying your existance. It is not because anyone is denying your need for a chip buttie. It is not because anyone is trying to silence your demands for a chip buttie. It is certainly not because anyone hates you and wishes you to starve to death. It is simply that we currently have very few chip butties, and other people, in this case women with children in tow, are nearer the front of the queue than you are. However, if you acknowledge the problem - the world needs more chip butties - perhaps you will be energised to start making them too?

Anonymous said...

Truth is that these ads, and the majority of DV ads , are designed to create fear and to promote the DV industry's agenda that more funding is needed. If they were to mention the fact that men are victims of DV too, it would not have the affect that this does. Women and children are being exploited as victims here to make money. If I was a feminist, I would be offended by that.

robin said...

lot of cowardly chickenshit MRAs here using illogical arguments to support their "right to get away with beating women if they wanted too." Hey Anon trolls, why don't you, to change the vernacular on a disgusting phrase, "grow a pair of ovaries" and leave your name and a way to contact you via email(and there are ways to do that anonymously, since your male privacy is so important to you) before you come trolling with your asshattery? In fact I bet you all dollars to doughnuts if I as a woman dared come on one of your sacred MRA blogs and commented anonymously I would be accused of not having "balls"(whatever the hell that means) of leaving my name, but I also be accused of accusing you all by being anonymous that I was perpetuating the stereotype that all males are violent trolls.

Great Gaia, I am so fucking sick of hearing "what about the poor oppressed menz" from men and colluders. I think I am moving to Rwanda, which is turning to a gate to women's country indeed.

Renee, thank you for this post. I am sorry you have to endure the illogical asshattery of MRAs but I hope your site views went up and you will receive some compensation based on your ads. At least something good can come of it.

Anonymous said...

Did the person who wrote this article actually read anything glenn sacks had to say?

Glenn sacks said nothing of feeling pity for abusers. This article is completely misrepresenting him with complete lies.

All that Glenn sacks wants is a fair representation of men and women in these ads.

Because women are abusers too. And women are abusers far more often than you'd think.

But you'd never THINK that, because Ads like this completely misrepresent the truth.

Yes, domestic violence does need to raised as an issue, and we DO need to be shocked out of our complacency. Glenn sacks is not disagreeing with this.

He's disagreeing with the blatant misrepresentation of who is the abuser.

Next time, perhaps you should read what the person is saying, because writing a sexist, hate filled article, devoid of logic and fact.

Patrick Brown said...

Hey Robin. I didn't post anonymously. But hey, any excuse to avoid the argument.

jenandrhi said...

Glenn's major complaint is that these ads wrongly target men as primarily domestic partner abusers. I have seen numerous of his posters say things in line with if there were ads that "targetted" women as abusers then the playing filed would be the same. Well I just heard last night an ad spot on the radio (here in the US, Florida to be exact) an ad concerning child abuse. The abuser was clearly female. This ad simply had the listener hearing a woman abusing a child (screaming at child, slapping child) and then the announcer said - could you stop here (something similar to that). As the commercial progressed the abuse and screams got worse. The final spot in this ad was of sirens (presumably carrying the child abuse victim to either hospital or morgue) and mother/abuser to jail. Now I was mortified by that commercial - not because the abuser was female, but because there is any abuse in our world. But I am not screaming like a banshee, calling up this radio station, demanding all future spots be pulled, nor am I demanding that men be targetted as well. Child abuse happens. And due to the fact that women are with their children more, it stands to reason that women will be abusive more (simply by the numbers). Men are primarily domestic abusers (of women) and when reality sets in it will be very difficult for Sacks to handle. Because partner abuse is child abuse and if this is considered into the numbers, the percentage of women who abuse will go down and that of men will go up. I do not believe this type of abuse is counted into the statistics that Glenn and his ilk are so fond of quoting. I have posted on occassion at his site and I still read it every day. I only do this to ensure that I am kept abreast of the MRA/FR work and so I can know when it will affect me with my abuser.

The Unmarried Daughter said...

Well, Patrick Brown, do you like 2% or skim with your cookies, should I kiss your forehead too, in eternal gratitude for doing what you should have done anyway?

Patrick Brown said...

If that's what turns you on. But I'd prefer if you'd address the argument rather than the man. That's called "ad hominem", and is one of the more common logical fallacies.

The Unmarried Daughter said...

sorry Renee for my snappishness, (Please note, I am apologizing to Renee for my cookies comment, not to Patrick because such a comment, however well deserved, could quite possibly derail INTELLIGENT dialogue, Mr. Brown you deserve the above comment and yes, I would say it to your face IRL)

It's just so godsddamn frustrating to have to point out the obvious.if you are going to speak your opinion on place that has been designated as a place for women to come and be open and talk about women's issues*, and your opinion is of the MRA asshattery troll version, at least be courageous enough to leave your name and contact information.

*that I even have to CLARIFY this is sad, just because this blog and I focus on women's issues, does not mean that I don't acknowledge, or care that menz have rights too.

The Unmarried Daughter said...

Ah, yes, the ad homienium defense.

When a man deserves a cutting response he gets it, funny that, how when a man is called on the carpet expecting a hero's parade for doing what is right, suddenly he is being attacked. But hey if IT TURNS YOU ON, to think that way go ahead.

Patrick Brown said...

You were doing so well until that "menz".

If Renee doesn't want other people to come and comment on your blog, then she shouldn't tell lies about them on it.

As far as apologies are concerned, I'll take your refusal to do so as an acknowledgement that you feel you ought to.

And I'd take your comment's about posting anonymously more serieously if you had the courage to give your own name, "The Unmarried Daughter". But I'm well aware that never having to be held responsible for anything you say or do is an extremely entrenched female privilege.

Martin Swash ex-husband of violent wife Claire Rudasingwa said...

Further to my story #89 concerning my violent wife, she got a protection order out on me. This is only an extension of her violence to me really, although i had made an effort never to retaliate or ague in front of my sons, she made false allegations of "Domestic Violence". Due to this legal paper, i had to leave the house, my sons only in the clothes that i was wearing with nowhere to go. She got social security, free legal fees, i got nothing and had to pay child support leaving me in severe poverty due to this woman's lies. Can you imagine the emotional trauma such injustice ?
Some of the women on this site very very violent too.

womanistsuckworse said...

"And due to the fact that women are with their children more, it stands to reason that women will be abusive more "

Women are with their children more because they have the advantage of a Biased Family Court which sees fit to give sole custody to mothers the vast majority of the times and refuses to enforce Visitation preferring instead the ease & benefits of constantly villifying men in the manner of The Family Place for profit. Many children's lives have been damaged due to the actions of a selfish mother using her children as a bargaining chip as opposed to a Life.

Martin Swash ex-husband of violent wife Claire Rudasingwa said...

Replying to post #94 from Robin, coincidentally, my violent Tutsi wife was from Rwanda, yes the Rwandan parliament is the first one in the world with over 50% female MPs. But in reality it is still very much a dictatorship, ruled by the tribal president, Paul Kagame.
If a violent man goes to the police station, the 2 classic police things to say are "What did you do to deserve that" and (in my case), "It is men who do the Domestic Violence not women". When you have a violent wife, you get no support from anyone, you are on your own, frightened to return home some nights

Han090 said...

Coul someone please address the issue of why the person who wrote this article chose to completly ignore sacks' arguement that these ads give a skewed representation of reality, and instead creating a completely false arguement, which he never put forward that we should feel sorry for male abusers?

Doesn't anyone think that, considering the fact that women commit a large amount of domestic abuse, and commit far more child abuse than men, and this ad is centered around children, that at least ONE of the three ads should mention that women actually abuse people too?

I mean, have people compeltely lost touch with reality?

And the reason i posted as anonymous untill now, is because i don't have AIM, livechat, or any of the option, or a URL. If the comment function would allow you to leave JUST a name, or to leave a name an an address, i'd be fine.

As it is, i posted the link to a message board where i post.

But frankly, i fail to see how giving the name "the unmarried daughter" is proudly proclaiming anything, it's just a name you hide behind.

han090 said...

http://www.mediaradar.org/

Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting.

Check it out.

Anonymous said...

How about we create some poster of a boy that says "When I grow up I will commit suicide because I have been falsely accused of rape". Or a girl saying "When I grow up I will fleece a man of his home, money, and never let him see his own children".

Anonymous said...

Why is any post that disagrees with the blogger, who obviously has huge issues with men, being deleted? Is it now wrong to disagree with feminisms distortions and lies.

Respecting accuracy in domestic abuse reporting is obviously something this misandrist woman has no intention of doing.

Whats wrong with stopping all violence against everyone.

Its obviously wrong to this woman.

Anonymous said...

All males would agree that the men who REALLY attack women deserve to be punished, it is these good men who intervene during attacks on women. We agree with much of what you saying, but the "Domestic Violence" laws are being abused by women to make false allegations and by womens' groups to raise funds. The end result is that families are destroyed and millions of kids never see their fathers again. Feminists have achieved equality but are now trying to destroy the family.

Anonymous said...

Violence does happen, everybody knows that, and everyone knows it is bad. Even the bad people!

But these ads, and the other attacks on men as a class, do nothing to help the cause. All your doing is alienating the good men from helping.

What! Did you actually think that shaming the good men of this world will make them run to your aide?!

Women clearly do not understand men as well as they boast....

Anonymous said...

Renee:

From data sources you trust, can you estimate:

1) what fraction of domestic violence incidents are initiated by each sex

and

2) what fraction of serious injuries are sustained by each sex?

Chris Marshall

Ian Martin from England said...

From the many INDEPENDENT studies, it seems to be that violent incidents are about 50/50, but men ARE stronger and that the most likely outcome is that the woman will be more injured.

Women use stealth and weapons in incidents more than men to make up for this however.

In unreciprocated violence , women initiate this 70-80% of the time. I never fought back when my wife attacked me

Anonymous said...

As a women who lives in Dallas I am appalled by the ads and your comments re Glenn Sacks. He is stating the facts and it is you who cannot see through your hatred to the truth. Abuse is not gender specific- it happens both ways- and these ads are incredibly gender biased and they serve no positive purpose to those The Family Place claims to be helping- the children. They instill fear and question in the young minds of our littlest citizens. Abuse is a serious issue and needs to be discussed in a non gender biased manner. Finally for you to try to push the notion that men and children are not abused as often by women as vice versa- is simply sticking your head in the sand and being sexist in its own right- very sad.

Anonymous said...

So-called arguments like:

"I can't stand hearing about the oppression of teh menz"

is of course, really not an argument at all. It's a logical fallacy, "appeal to moral authority", and it's a sexist one at that.

It would be nice to see a feminist forum disclaim these sorts of attacks. They are purely divisive and do nothing to help advance either an argument or communication.

Similarly, I see almost all polite discussion here, and yet, it starts of on a gendered, ugly, sexist attack, a smear on Glenn Sacks, and some sort of weird claim about penises.

In such a discussion it is bizarre and again, not an argument, to claim that there is some need to provide the women a safe place to speak, and that men should be appreciative of that, and temper their remarks.

If you were sincerely interested in conversation and dialog you would keep to the issues and make the smears and sexist attacks you do.

And once more, it's very very odd to see a feminist activist, who started as a pro-war, pro-bush activist, whose online name is "Ilyka Damen" to show how she originally opposed feminism writing as any sort of authority to anything (other than hate mongering.)

Anonymous said...

It's also a red herring to complain about anonymous posters.

Anonymity has been at the heart of political speech in this country since its founding.

If the owner of this blog didn't want anonymous posters, it is within her power to not allow that as an option.

Attacking people because they choose anonymity when that anonymity is within the control of the blog owner is an illogical, ad hominem, attack.

Anonymous said...

Who cares if the people are posting in anonymity? What are the odds that you would know the person anyway? You just want an excuse to ignore the validity in their argument. I like how feminists will use a statistic to the high heavens EXCEPT when it goes against them. In that case, it MUST be a conspiracy. And considering how many insults are being given out to those against this even though all they're trying to do is prove their point- NOT insulting people- why WOULD they want to give out their email address?

Rj said...

I have more than a few concerns/questions/comments

If women are equal perps of violence, why do men fill our prisons and juvenile detention centers, and newspaper articles about violence?

Wouldn't it be simple to just pull the stats from your local police office or FBI files to see who the main perps and murderers are?

Violence IS a human crime, and we do need to do something about that. However domestic violence is something that affects mostly women and children. Hasn't this been stated repeatedly?

As someone just finally said, women abuse children more because women have been the primary caretakers since, like, forever, so by mere association and contact, as far as numbers are concerned, then they would abuse more. (Also, men and women who abuse children may be coping with the fact that they were sexually abused as children--by their fathers or other MEN, although it is not a justification).

Which leads to the "biased family court" argument. Traditionally, family courts seemed biased because women were already the caretakers of the children. Why should the court disrupt that?

However that pendulum has swung and abusers now end up with custody nearly 70% of the time.

But wait, wait, the role of the father still hasn't changed in a century--so who's really taking care of theses kids?

If Glen Sacks sees inequality in the ads, as other have stated, he is free to come up with his own. But if we're going to address violence, we're going to have to talk about war, the prison system...

Imagine a white kid saying that when she grew up, she would be mugged by a black person...who the fuck said that? I can't believe someone wrote that. I am sorry, do blacks disproportionately mug white people? So, now we're being racist?

The person who said he was for children's rights...a lot of MRA's say that, too. But strangely enough, the word father keeps coming up, not child.

A lot of comments are talking about studies that say women use equal or more violence against men, not realizing that these "studies" use different scales of measurement. I suggest picking up a good book about statistics. And men can be victims of d.v., duh, however, again, if you read the stats on how it is really calculated, you'll see how they come up with the numbers which does include self-defense. Read about the Conflict Tactics Scale.

And I find it amusing that men can use the "but we're not talking about you" excuse when they call us bitches and hos in the music industry, but when d.v. ads are put out we and say "but we're not talking about you [the good men]" they want to cry about it.

And lastly, if men are afraid to report d.v. or violence initiated by women, it is because of the pressure and patriarchy--that involves MEN...now how about that?

Nic and figleaf provide some excellent and solid arguments.

Thank you, Renee for opening yourself up to this.

Patrick Brown said...

Rj said:

> If women are equal perps of violence, why do
> men fill our prisons and juvenile detention
> centers, and newspaper articles about
> violence?
>
> Wouldn't it be simple to just pull the stats
> from your local police office or FBI files to > see who the main perps and murderers are?"

One, we're talking about domestic violence, not violence in general. According to the American Journal of Public Health in a study of 18761 heterosexual relationships:

"Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases."

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

Men are far less likely to report being domestically abused to the authorities, and when they do they're often not believed or taken seriously.

> Violence IS a human crime, and we do need to
> do something about that. However domestic
> violence is something that affects mostly
> women and children. Hasn't this been stated
> repeatedly?

It has been, and is, stated repeatedly. Doesn't make it true.

> However that pendulum has swung and abusers
> now end up with custody nearly 70% of the
> time.

That is a lie. It derives from a 1986 book by Phylis Chesler called "Mothers on Trial", and is based on her interviews with 60 non-randomly-selected women. It's been repeated endlessly as fact ever since, but it's no more a fact than the Super Bowl domestic violence lie or the "rule of thumb" lie.

http://www.dadsrights.org/articles/young101296.html

> Imagine a white kid saying that when she grew
> up, she would be mugged by a black
> person...who the fuck said that?

You're the one quoting it. You've no excuse for not knowing. Why not reveal it?

> I can't believe someone wrote that. I am
> sorry, do blacks disproportionately mug white > people? So, now we're being racist?

Yes they do. Mugging is a crime overwhelmingly committed by the poor, and black people are disproportionately poor. Many other categories of crime, for example burglary or fraud, are disproportionately committed by white people. Is it racist to say that?

What would be racist, however, would be to run a campaign against mugging that implied that only black people committed mugging, and that only white people were ever mugged.

Rev. Richard said...

To the last poster. The FBI and police files are part of the problem. They show reports to them, and don't include the number not reported. Men don't report domestic violence as often as women.

In movies, a man gets slapped, or gets the drink thrown in their face, what comes to mind "he should have bit his tongue."

Think of it in the real world. A man gets hit or talked down too, what to do? Call the police "a girl hit me." It doesn't happen because it's viewed as being "wimpy."

What we have is a world "emotionally" out of control. Low self esteems, lack of happiness, lack of personal responsibility, and people who really have no idea on controlling their emotions. People, get into romantic relationships and see sex as compatibility, then are confused when it just doesn't work out. We're taught in school how to read and write, but not how to manage our sense of self. Going out into the adult world with tools to make a living, but without tools in child raising, sustaining a marriage and (in the dv context) noticing behavior patterns in other which would allow an effective choice on if that person is someone to develop a friendship with or not.

The creating elements of issues which may lead up to domestic violence begin far before relationships begin. For example, girls mature faster than men. With kids being sexually active earlier, boys are experimenting and playing, girls are developing adult emotions which being sexually active and "being used" have a tremendous impact on their view of relationships as they enter into adulthood. It can be a crippling affect to some, but damage is damage.

The main point with the removal of the advertisements is not weather abuse happens, it's weather or not these ads are an appropriate or inappropriate method of relaying the message. I believe it's inappropriate. I showed them to my 14 year old daughter. Her initial impression was that only men abuse women. She also stated she could see how children viewing the ads could influence their view on what men do vs what women do. That alone produces an inappropriate outcome, no matter what the intent of the creators wanted.

If an ad is placed for all to see, the impact as a whole must be weighed. I see the word "shocking" from many of the posts, if it is shocking to an adult, its more so to a child's view. So, they may be viewed as being more appropriate if the possibility of children viewing them was minimized.

Womanistsuckworse said...

"If women are equal perps of violence, why do men fill our prisons and juvenile detention centers, and newspaper articles about violence?

Wouldn't it be simple to just pull the stats from your local police office or FBI files to see who the main perps and murderers are?"

Woman routinely receive special treatment in criminal cases and usually end up with reduced sentences or probation/community service as opposed to men for the same crimes. The increase in prison rates for women, particularly black women, proves that women are on the decline in morals and maybe never deserved moral highground in the first place. The courts were more lenient in the past but women are pushing their hand, as w/ most things. many women murderers never get caught because they're not suspected. Damn evil Patriarchy!

"As someone just finally said, women abuse children more because women have been the primary caretakers since, like, forever, so by mere association and contact, as far as numbers are concerned, then they would abuse more. (Also, men and women who abuse children may be coping with the fact that they were sexually abused as children--by their fathers or other MEN, although it is not a justification)."

Circular argument. And misses the fact that The FAMILY Place has no ad campaign re: that. Dont they care about the children OR do they care about the gender of the culprit? You know the answer to that.

"However that pendulum has swung and abusers now end up with custody nearly 70% of the time."

Along w/ your circular argument above, why has the N.O.W been blocking Shared Parenting Bills for yrs. eventhough they are aware that women commit more child abuse than men and that single parent households are damaging to children? Because feminist like yourself are selfish and man-hating. Now that women are OUT of the households and spending less time w/ children than ever, why are they still monopolizing what role/time the FATHER has in that childs' life, BY LAW? Man-Hating Feminist lobbied Selfishness. The point is is IF Glenn Sacks had an alternative ad, would The FAMILY place even use it?!

" But strangely enough, the word father keeps coming up, not child."

May be because they dont have the children, Thats what FATHERS rights is about. Otherwise why would the issue of FATHERS even be brought up and your right you'll content regarding fathers and their KIDS all of the time. Stop w/ the falsehoods. Your DV stats have been called out MULTIPLE times.

"And I find it amusing that men can use the "but we're not talking about you" excuse when they call us bitches and hos in the music industry, but when d.v. ads are put out we and say "but we're not talking about you [the good men]" they want to cry about it."

I dont see any men Getting their Groove On to the issue of demonizing all men with false DV stats, do you?!. See alot of Black Women lining up to be the latest Eye Candy for every vid though. lol. Your Funny in a dangerously sad way. Don't let us rile through your CD collection. FUN-NY.

"and lastly, if men are afraid to report d.v. or violence initiated by women, it is because of the pressure and patriarchy--that involves MEN...now how about that?"

Uh no, it would be due to the pressure of a mate who can still attack you w/impunity and the fact that, due to FEMINIST LOBBIED and tutored police forces and attorneys, authorities generally wont believe him and through HIM in jail.

Anonymous said...

Women get lighter jail sentences. A woman can even murder her own kids and get off with some therapy.

Martin Swash ex-husband of violent wife Claire Rudasingwa said...

Yes, in England women can use "Domestic Violence" as an excuse to plead manslaughter instead of murder, a licence to kill ? They are becoming above the law really.

Most men here know how women have made false accusations of "Domestic Violence" and the law allows them to do that without any proof. The hysteric DV media campaigns benefit lawyers, womens' groups and the government, it is an example of the male power being used AGAINST men.

Rj said...

Two the last two comments: What are you attacking me, personally when the first thing I did was ask questions?

I didn't MAKE the stats. I only know that there are different kinds of stats and methods for collection.

Yes, we were talking about domestic violence in general, obviously, however, I was pointing to violence, in general, because I wanted the bigger picture to be shown.

And yes, the female prison pop. is increasing, but could it not be because women are retaliating and emulating what they have been accustomed to?

And I've said once that violence stats use different scales for measuring violence...and I don't know what that study that you referred to used.

How do you know that the custody/abuser stat is a lie? You referenced a book from the 80s, however I was thinking of a study done in the 2000s. There is a whole conference done on it every year now, are all of those women who lost custody after reporting sexual abuse liars?

And I'm the one quoting about White kids/black muggings, I should know it??? I don't know anything, I didn't originally write that comment. You are so angry at me and I did nothing to you.

You completely took my statement out of context...I asked if Black people mug WHITES, not mug, period.

How can FBI show reports of people who don't report? If men don't report it and therefore their stats are lower, there are women, too, that don't report, which would make the stats higher, wouldn't it?

Women are on the decline in morals? Does this then mean that men never had morals? Why would you say things like this?

The anger and sheer hatred displayed toward me, and on this thread, is unnecessary. Again, I didn't make the d.v. stats.

If girls are lined up for the videos is it because they don't see any other way out when they make less than men on the dollar and have been oppressed for so long to where they accept the role that men have given to them, instead of claiming their own.

Cola said...

Although men make up about %5 of abuse victims, we always seem to conveniently forget that the majority of those victims are abused by their same sex partners, which means that much fewer than %5 of abusers are women, making the idea of treating the issue like it cuts both ways, practically, ridiculous. Men are abusers in these cases so often that pointing out the tiny minority of men who are abused by women is absurd and insulting, and I take it personally, because my mother is one of those victims erased by this empty rhetoric about the poor men.

Additionally, since the MRAs are bleeding so damn much over our forgetting to soft peddle the issue for the sake of the men, I think they should seriously consider the tiny minority of women who are abused by their women partners. No? Huh. Guess they don't really give a shit.

Cola said...

Actually, I don't know if the minority of women abused by same sex partners is tiny. I apologise for not researching that one.

I stand behind everything else I said.

Cola said...

I'm not sure why the trolls are out in such supreme force. Where's the regulation? Don't the victims of abuse deserve to come here and not be called liars who make false accusations? Come on Renee... there's being lenient and then there's doing too little. Some of these are absent of any meaningful merit and almost none of them are in good faith.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

-Men are abusers in these cases so often that pointing out the tiny minority of men who are abused by women is absurd and insulting
-I think they should seriously consider the tiny minority of women who are abused by their women partners

That makes sense Cola. You think it's absurd if the minority of men are pointed out, but not women. You sure you don't have a bias?

BillyBlog said...

One way to get rid of these terrible anti-male laws in Western countries, would be to have MORE female policitians who are genuinely INTERESTED in the family.

Renee said...

@Chola

I am doing the best that I can to strike a balance of allowing free speech and deleting hate speech. I am so sorry if you have found this a triggering experience, and you are right we all deserve better than the bullshit that is attempting to pass for rational thought on this thread.

Martin Swash ex-husband of violent wife Claire Rudasingwa said...

As i said before, real attacks on women are terrible and the perps deserve to be severely punished, but as i described before, my wife was violent and she took out a Restraining Order saying that "She was frightened of me" simply to get the kids, house and furniture, THIS IS HE TYPICAL CASE, it has a DEVASTATING AFFECT on men, who are left with no support, kids, they are alone. This is also the reality of what happened to me and what happens to majority of men in "DV" incidents.
It is merely the old Turkish police trick of torturing 100 people to find the right culprit is what is happening here. Kids lives are being destroyed by these DV laws that are being abused and in the VAST MAJORITY of cases, the women are advised by the local refuge what to say in the P.O application in order to get rid of her husband, usually because she is "bored with him" or trivial reasons. I repeat , REAL DV against women needs to be stamped down on severely,

womanistsuckworse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Womanistsuckworse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rj said...

I cannot spend much time educating you about oppression. Your comment was plain ignorant. Just because it doesn't make sense means nothing.

And the U.S. may be very 3rd world in many aspects.

Iphones? Really mature of you...

What is a classified as a single father? Does this include fathers with girlfriends or wives that are raising their kids--because that could be a reason why the stats are low on "single fathers" and child abuse--because, in essence, they aren't even raising them.

I've said nothing angry, bitter, or hating and yet you call me out of my name. You will not succeed because that is not who I am and you cannot divert attention from the issues by attacking me in such a way.

Attack the stats.

Also, you can continue to entertain yourself because I must move forward. I cannot argue with ignorance because it is etched into your being.

Children from "real" single father homes don't have so great stats on them either...but you can do the research on that yourself, if you have time.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Who cares if the people are posting in anonymity? What are the odds that you would know the person anyway? You just want an excuse to ignore the validity in their argument.

I have been a poster on Sack's website and because I do not leave my name I am called on the carpet when I do post. Now why is it that what we should do MRA's cannot do? And why is it nobody addresses my questions regarding the commercial I heard on the radio last night on my way home? The child abuse commercial with the female perp that was quite vivid (woman screaming at child, woman slapping child, violence of said woman escalating to dangerous level)? This is because men only care about men, period. The women posting on Glenn's site are either abuse victims posting there for whatever reason or seconds. And by seconds I mean the woman who for whatever reaosn decides to believe a man who says hiw ex-wife is crazy, has accused him of abuse, blah blah blah and does not investigate on her own to determine the truth. You see I was one of those seconds who believed everything my wonderful husband said. The first wife was nuts, he was a saint (well maybe not a saint but definitely not the monster she said he was). Fast forward a few years and lo and behold I was the abuse victim and I was wondering why in the world I did not look into his past deeper.

Womanistsuckworse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

for those posting ACF stats about women more often being the perpetrators of child abuse or child fatalities, is there any thing about those stats that controls for the fact that women are overwhelmingly more likely to be the caretakers of children and therefore have vastly more opportunity than men to cause child harm or death?

If men had the same likelihood of being solely responsible for--and alone with--children, I am guessing the stats would look VERY different.

people need to think a little harder about how they interpret the statistics they see and post, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"This is because men only care about men, period."

I wish I could say this was not true - But you nailed it! Whenever women are depicted as violent or badly represented, it is always left up to women to notice the unfairness and blantant woman-hatred that is usually behind it. Men only seem to notice when the issue is about them.
This is most likely because in our society they are Privileged (even if they don't know it) and when they see something that goes against this Privilege or threatens the Patriachy which they live cushily in, it stands out above all other inequalities and unfairness and they will moan.
To be fair it is only a select few women who see the trash in the media and advertising (namely feminists to give them a collective title) most women will simply walk on by the film poster which shows a naked woman covered in blood because Woman hatred is ABSOLUTELY EVERYWHERE and has been absored into popular culture. We are so saturated by it we are blind to it ... just like Domestic violence. It happens so frequently its just not newsworthy.

lormarie said...

Patrick Brown,

I should remind you that you made a posted claiming that women possess signs of potential abusers. How can you then charge anyone with being sexist?

whatsername said...

I will never understand why men think their own life experience somehow trumps decades of stats.

Anonymous said...

Flip on the TV and look at most any sitcom. Men are treated as idiots and wives are often physically and emotionally abusive. Do men complain about that? Some do, but not many. Of course, feminists never bring it up. I guess one of those "privileges" is situational comedy about men being degraded.

Sarcastic Truth Bringer said...

!!!SARCASM ALERT!!!

Gosh, these MRA's... all they want to do is whine and moan about divorce and domestic issues here in the states... they don't care at all about the oppressed men in the middle east. Where are the calls of outrage? Don't these so-called MRAs want equality and rights for ALL men? Or are they just RACISTS? I mean, can you imagine having to go through the trouble of accompanying all your vassal women on all travel, keep track of their papers, base your entire self-worth on their ill-defined "honor" and keep them in line? Where is the MRA outrage for the suffering these men go through every day? Or maybe the MRAs aren't ACTUALLY interested in equality at all, hmm???

Renee said...

@42 Because I simply cannot stand the whole look at the way men are portrayed by the media bullshit anymore, I will point out the obvious... The media is owned and operated largely by men Why are you on a woman's site complaining about the media when we have nothing to do with it? The CEO's of media conglomerates are MALE So if you feel that patriarchy is misrepresenting you, take it up in your annual circle jerk. Yet another example of the ways in which MRA's are fucking clueless...so busy whining what about me, ooooh poor long suffering mehnz.
You bunch are an affront to all of the decent men out there who daily try to negotiate their privileges in such a way as to have a more equal society. I wish that we could give you another name, because you don't belong in the same category with them.

Anonymous said...

the media is owned a operated mostly by men....

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/cosmo-vip-gallery

go look at who is doing cosmo - a great source of educational reading, mostly focusing on women's sex, fashion, and other shallow subjects that have been shown to lower the self esteem of girls and women, which drives them to purchase more magazines of this sort.

Anonymous said...

Ya know, I'd like to integrate our schools, I really would. But it's too expensive and inefficient to do that.

Instead, my suggestion, taken from Ilyka Damen is that people interested in improving the schools of blacks, pay a bit extra to go to resources for those schools.

You know, separate but equal.

See, renee, your policy, and that of Ilyka's is not so different from the claims of segregationists.

It's too expensive. It's inefficient. The people that claim they are being oppressed aren't and are just troublemakers making it all about themselves. We have a nice separate but equal system.

Congrats for being a sexist as well as a racist, Renee.

It's quite an achievement for you to be proud of, and taken the night before our country elects Barack Obama.

Ayla said...

Not that the staff of a single magazine publication proves anything anyway, but if you want to see who is really in power over at Cosmo, you need look no further than the parent company, Hearst Corporation. Those less familiar with the history of journalism in the US may need to do some homework to understand just how truly despicable this particular media corporation is, but a quick look at their wiki page reveals the controlling body in the form of a 13 person trustee board is comprised of just two women. Like almost ALL media, men are at the helm and have a controlling share of the power.

Matthew said...

Many of us have already been informed that men commit domestic violence against women at higher rates than women do against men, so what is the purpose of these ads? If it's to alert everyone that it is happening, then that's redundant, isn't it? If the purpose of these ads is to stop domestic violence, then shouldn't the message in this ad be directed at men who, as many of you have stated, "commit the majority" of domestic violence? Do people honestly think that an ad that "attacks" or "vilifies" men -- the ones who are most responsible for this heinous act -- is really going to do the trick? It doesn't appear so; hence, plenty of indignant men out there protesting these ads. It seems these ads have offended men, the "main perpetrators," rather than enlightened them and persuaded them to consider refraining from perpetrating the act.

So, what good have these ads done? The ads may be accepted by women, but they also must be accepted by men in order for it to truly have a significant impact on stopping domestic violence. From the comments I'm reading here, many men are likely to spurn this ad and it's message rather than support it because of the bias it brandishes -- that only boys, and that every boy, is either capable of or has the potential to become a perpetrator of domestic violence as an adult and that girls can only be victims as adults. Sure, I'm certain this IS NOT want was intended, but that's the message these ads send, and many have perceived it that way. Even if men are the main perpetrators of domestic violence, that does not justify these ads because the truth is that men ARE NOT sole perpetrators of domestic violence; women commit domestic violence, too. Also the vast majority of men ARE NOT perpetrators of domestic violence, so to create ads that might give that impression is grossly irresponsible. Most crime is committed by African-American and Latino males on average, but cursed will be the day that anyone posted an ad depicting that. Society would be thrown into chaos. And still because there ARE a significant number of men who ARE ABUSED BY FEMALE PARTNERS, this ad DOES appear to be a misrepresentation of the truth and a shocking exaggeration; so, I can understand why some men are offended.

So, let's see what this ad has accomplished ...

Men who are perpetrators of domestic violence will continue beating there female partners regardless of this message. They simply do not care.

Men who intially might have been in support of helping to end domestic violence are now too offended by the ads to discuss solutions to the problem because they feel that all men are being marginalized and viewed as the enemy. Instead of them formulating ways to eradicate the problem, they are now too busy protesting against the male-defamatory message these ads send out. Consequently, progress against domestic violence has been halted. Have anyone truly benefited? Hardly. From what I'm seeing this has caused more animosity than anything else, and at the end of the day, violent men AND WOMEN will continue perpetrating acts of domestic violence against their partners, and there will continue to be women AND MEN who are victims of domestic violence.

Now, a question to the women ...

If you feel that men are such a threat and a danger to you, then why are you bothering them? Why are you still going into relationships with them, marrying them, having children with them? What is wrong with you? Are you crazy? Why don't you just leave them alone? If you feel men are that much of a threat to your safety and well-being, stay away from them. Avoid them at all costs! I'm certain men will find some way to survive on their own.

Lance said...

Cola, do you have a reference for your 5% claim or is this an ideologically-driven number? Because according to my source, "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases." That's a bit more then 5%. Here's my source:

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

To suggest that all men are abusers or should be lumped together with abusers simply because they are male is like saying that women shouldn't be doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc.. both statements are equally sexist.

Lance said...

figleaf: "So again, no matter how you look at it it's at best counterproductive and at worst selfish and blame-avoiding for MRAs to object to traditional DV-reduction campaigns."

I disagree. If traditional DV-reduction campaigns are sexist, then they themselves are counterproductive to the creation of an egalitarian society - which should be your goal as a feminist and my goal as an egalitarian. As an egalitarian one should be against sexism regardless of the beneficiary (and certainly any feminist who considers her/him-self an egalitarian should agree). Otherwise, you are either a chivalrist or a female-supremacist...both are equally despicable and go against the stated goals of feminism...and certainly against the stated goals of egalitarianism.

Lance said...

Incidentally, I see the word "misogynist" thrown around here a lot to describe some of the folks that have wondered over here...no matter what some would like you to believe, disagreeing with the Word of Feminism does not mean that one is a misogynist...it means one is capable of independent thought and is therefore a true liberal. While so many feminists pontificate about being liberal, in reality the strict orthodoxy of mainstream feminism goes against what it really means to be liberal. Those of us who are true social and political liberals are tired of the orthodoxy...we became liberals because we looked upon the social rules of prior generations as flawed...ironic how now the strict man=villain/woman=victim rules of feminism are seen as just as flawed among true egalitarians. In many ways, feminism is a dinosaur and until it gets back to its roots and accepts that both men and women are oppressed by sexism, feminism will continue to be a dinosaur.

Renee said...

@Lance
In many ways, feminism is a dinosaur and until it gets back to its roots and accepts that both men and women are oppressed by sexism, feminism will continue to be a dinosaur.

Yeah spoken by a man that clearly knows nothing about feminism. Are you even aware of how many times feminists have pointed out the way in which sexism hurts men to? Thought not because you are only interested in pushing an agenda and not understanding what feminism is all about. Once again typical MRA swill. Take a wise class and call me when you get your head out of your ass.

Anonymous said...

Some stats from the American Bar Association:

In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).

Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, at iii (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

Conclusion: many more women than men are assaulted by an intimate partner. These particular numbers don't tell us about the gender of the perpetrator, but more women than men are victims of domestic violence.

In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims.

Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 197838, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief: Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, at 1 (2003), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf

Conclusion: if you're female, you are much more likely to be murdered by your spouse than if you are male.

# 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
# Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
# 50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.

So, not only are women more likely to be abused by their partners, they are much more likely to be murdered by them; women's violence against men is much less likely to result in serious injury or death.

Really, if Glenn Sacks is so concerned about violence against men, he should start organizing-- shelters, ad campaigns, lobbying, the works. These ads depict a statistical reality, (especially since black women are more likely to be murdered by their partners than white women), and MRA whining doesn't change that.

Re: child abuse. Probably one of the reasons this ad campaign doesn't target child abusers is that pretty much everybody agrees that child abuse is bad. When women are abused, however, somehow there's always a 'she-asked-for-it' kind of excuse.

Should male victims of DV have resources to help them out of their relationship and counseling to help them start over? Absolutely. But recognition and resources don't need to come at the expense of female victims-- there seem to be a lot of MRAs out there with nothing to do but comment on a blog they never read-- you guys have a giant donor/organizer base already. Good luck to you.

Kathryn

AtlanticPrawn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

This is only the start of a long fight for Dads.

One thing i have learnt about seeing this feminist blog is that these "funny" girls are violent themselves and quite crazy. One day they will be seen to be just that by the general public and that their campaign is part of female violence towards men

AtlanticPrawn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Renee,

You are by far one of the rudest individuals I have ever heard. You are completely incapable of forming rational arguments, and so you resort to name-calling, shaming language, ad hominiem attacks, etc. It's typical of permanent victim/pseudo-intellectual thugs like you to bait people and name-call, and then play the victim card and cry how you're being 'attacked' when people retaliate. How pathetic.

Many MRA's are willing to have calm, reasoned discussions with feminists who disagree with them. It is almost ALWAYS the feminists who retaliate with ad-hominem, emotional garbage disguised as thought, and outright attacks. It truly amazes me when a feminist can tell an MRA to pull their head out of their ass, and then call that same MRA a thug when he/she retaliates in kind.

You are no better than the thugs you've replaced. And I'm sure that since you are so interested in open debate, this post will last about a minute before being deleted.

Your vitriol will engender responses in kind. Grow up and get used to it, girlie.

Daisy said...

Wow! A real invasion of super-duper assholes! And I thought my immigration thread was bad.

As for rewarding male aggression, you must live in an interesting place, but then I would be curious how you define male aggression that is rewarded.

I live in the USA, where there are college benefits and the GI Bill available for men who sign up to kill strangers. (Women get these benefits now too, although that wasn't until rather recently in our country's history.)

You've heard of the military, yes? A privileged, mostly-male institution that has existed throughout history and in every country? Men who distinguish themselves through this violence have been amply rewarded--for example, the Union and Confederacy both rewarded returning veterans with acreage and homes confiscated from the losers.

Daisy said...

You are by far one of the rudest individuals I have ever heard.

Gollee, Renee has always been nice on my blog--wonder why she isn't nice to you?

Did you ever think YOU might be the problem?

You are completely incapable of forming rational arguments, and so you resort to name-calling, shaming language, ad hominiem attacks, etc.

Blah blah de blah, if you don't like her, why are you reading her blog and commenting, anyway?

Speaking of RATIONALITY, if I don't like something or someone, I don't voluntarily subject myself to them. Get a clue!

It's typical of permanent victim/pseudo-intellectual thugs like you

What was that you just said about NAME CALLING?

ROFL!

to bait people and name-call, and then play the victim card and cry how you're being 'attacked' when people retaliate. How pathetic.

Well, since this is her own blog, she can write whatever the fuck she wants. You ARE attacking if you make a special trip over here to argue and show your ass. (Or should I say your dick?)

Many MRA's are willing to have calm, reasoned discussions with feminists who disagree with them.

But a good rule of thumb is: the ones who call themselves ANONYMOUS never are. The guys at Feminist Critics, for example, use REAL NAMES, take responsibility for what they say, and are not COWARDS.

Big difference between them and you.

It is almost ALWAYS the feminists who retaliate with ad-hominem, emotional garbage disguised as thought, and outright attacks.

And it is always the cowardly MRAs who say this, predictably, like clockwork, then sign it ANONYMOUS, like scared wittle boys hiding behind mama's apron strings.

It truly amazes me when a feminist can tell an MRA to pull their head out of their ass, and then call that same MRA a thug when he/she retaliates in kind.

It amazes me that someone who doesn't even have the guts to sign their name, can preach to ANYONE about ANYTHING. Chickenshit THUG!

You are no better than the thugs you've replaced.

But she DOES sign her name to what she says, unlike scared wittle babeez like yourself.

And I'm sure that since you are so interested in open debate, this post will last about a minute before being deleted.

Nah, she knows I am just waiting to insult assholes like you. I have just waited in a long line of privileged Republicans to vote today and listening to them has put me in an ill mood. So, yes, I take it out on the first Republican I meet online, and that would be YOU, Mr. Chickenshit Anonymous Troll.

Your vitriol will engender responses in kind. Grow up and get used to it, girlie.

GIRLIE is sexist, but I figure that gives me permission to call you scared wittle boy, angry that mommy wouldn't do everything for him so you take it out on every feminist you meet.

Now, fuck off. If you want more, come over to my blog, and we'll talk there. But I won't talk to anonymous trolls, I only talk to REAL MEN (ha!) who have the BALLS to sign their names to their angry wittle tantrums. Got it?

Hope your little hissy-fit didn't make you late for sixth period, Mr Angry Middle Schooler!

Anonymous said...

The sickening, anti-male bigotry of many of the posters here is appalling.

Sexism against men and boys is just about legitimised in feminist circles, and this blog is proof positive of that.

Anonymous said...

Daisy:

If and when someone every invades our shores, you can defend yourself. Have fun.

MetalOver30 said...

Daisy:

You are a great example of the new crass feminist. You are no better than the the worst of the people you criticize.

I can think of far better names for you than 'Daisy.'

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

-Gollee, Renee has always been nice on my blog--wonder why she isn't nice to you?

Maybe because Renee likes sheep?

-Blah blah de blah, if you don't like her, why are you reading her blog and commenting, anyway?

So much for having a civil discussion with the opposing side!

-Now, fuck off. If you want more, come over to my blog, and we'll talk there.

I'm sure the talk will be worth it with an attitude like this!

Daisy said...

Anonymous, I didn't think you would. ;)

Daisy said...

If and when someone every invades our shores, you can defend yourself. Have fun.

Huh? Sorry, I speak English.

I have a gun and know how to use it, if that is what you are asking.

You are a great example of the new crass feminist.

New? Not hardly. CRASS? Now, tsk tsk, someone who likes metal and RESERVOIR DOGS has forfeited all right to call someone else "crass"--doncha think? (I include myself!)

At least you sign your own name to your remarks. What do you think of the cowards who won't?

MetalOver30 said...

Daisy,

Obviously, what I meant is that if our shores are every invaded, have fun defending YOURSELF. And since you hate men, next time you need a police officer, fireman, or EMT, make sure they send you a woman.

Really, to mock veterans and spit in the face of men who fought in legitimate wars (WWII come to mind?) is completely immoral. But I guess that's what I should expect from a tree hugging, nanny-state loving individual such as yourself. I mean, come on,

Why don't you go cash your welfare check.

MetalOver30 said...

And yes, the second 'every' was on purpose. It was a joke. Oh, I forgot, feminists have no sense of humor . . .

Daisy said...

Ah, so you have been commenting under ANONYMOUS, too? Sock puppetry: the last refuge of the idiot.

Anonymous said...

Vulgarity is the attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcibly.

Renee said...

@ANON 171...Since you are so seriously offended by women that speak their own minds why don't you just follow the yellow brick road the hell off my blog.

@Daisy can you spare some raid? This MRA infestation clearly is still in need of fumigation.

Daisy said...

Vulgarity is the attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcibly.

Stop plagiarizing. Try to be original.

Like this:

Anonymity is the last refuge of the idiot AND the coward.

And, as we see, it is also the refuge of someone who steals pithy quotes without attribution. (So, I guess we can add THIEVES and PLAGIARISTS to that.)

Doesn't your mother wonder where you've gone off to? Run along.

Daisy said...

Renee, a good form of RAID is printing their IP address and location. Sometimes, it will even pop up on GOOGLE STREET VIEW and you can see exactly where they live.

Since they are so brave, I'm sure they won't mind if you share that info with the rest of us. :)

PS: I've done it twice on my blog, and I threatened a third person with it but didn't actually have to follow through.

The scared wittle babeez just scatter like cockroaches, the light drives them off. They prefer to scuttle around in the dark.

MetalOver30 said...

Hmmm, if a man made a comment about locating a woman's street address, that would be called harrasment. But when a woman does it, it's 'empowerment.' I get it. Ooooohh, you girls are so tough!! I can barely handle it!!

Locate away. Better yet, you stay on your side of the fence, and I'll stay on mine. Don't worry, I won't be back here again. I have a life, unlike some of you.

I'm sure now you'll say that I'm a 'wimp' who runs away to mommy. That's right after you tell me to stop coming here. Feminist psychosis is funny, isn't it?

Call me when you want to ditch the entitlement/victim complex and talk about true equality. Until then . . .

. . . bye.

Anonymous said...

No, I said it. Bill Christen. By vulgarity, I am talking about the foul language. That is all. I don't mind posting my name. And no, this is not original. But cussing to make a point is not really necessary. This is your blog, so talk like you wish.
Bill Christen (Regular Glenn Sacks poster)

Nick said...

I admire what Matthew said earlier on which was this...

" Also the vast majority of men ARE NOT perpetrators of domestic violence, so to create ads that might give that impression is grossly irresponsible. Most crime is committed by African-American and Latino males on average, but cursed will be the day that anyone posted an ad depicting that. Society would be thrown into chaos."

In western societies, men are the only group that exist where it is allowed to be demonised in such a fashion. This is oppression within its self and who are the biggest culprits of this act of oppression? FEMINIST! which is a movement that is supposed to be against oppression. Doesn't this make them seem awfully foolish?

Like Mathew said in that quote, regardless if its the truth that any other group either for it to be WOMEN, or any race, if you claim they are the biggest culprits of an negative act, it would most likely be deemed as hatred.

As another thing to what Matthew said, these ad campaigns make out that its happening everywhere and that only boys, and that every boy, is either capable of or has the potential to become a perpetrator of domestic violence.

This level of biasness would never pass in the slightest if it was directed at any other group.

As a feminist said earlier in this thread, “men only think about men”. There is pure irony in this when you look at how all these campaigns that feminist make against DM is ONLY for women and ONLY helps women. If men claim equal support for male victims, we get shot down with such claims as for only thinking about men and being sexist. Anyone who is a flaming hypocrite in this fashion is completely stupid.

As to what Renne said earlier...

"Yeah spoken by a man that clearly knows nothing about feminism. Are you even aware of how many times feminists have pointed out the way in which sexism hurts men to?"

I have never seen this in my whole life, but please excuse my ignorance. Can you please provide proof and facts?

count ringworm said...

Feminists on this board are furious! Its about time men stand up to misandry and feminist bigotry towards fathers!! Gentlemen, you make us proud.

The feminists are angry because we are challenging their status as victims. The very foundation of feminism is based on victimization, a lack of accountability, misandry, and an uncanny knack to manipulate statistics to further their marxist ideology on gender issues.

The best analogy of male victims of domestic violence is the military. 97& of deaths in Iraq are men, but we must be politically correct and always state 'The Men and Women who have dies fighting for our country.' Ladies, the world doesn't just revolve around you!

Martin Swash ex-husband of violent wife Claire Rudasingwa said...

I would like to predict here that my ex-wife Claire Rudasingwa, will murder her next husband, if i had retaliated in any way against her during our marriage, she would have killed me. So google this in this future please

LittleEnglander said...

In reality, Domestic Violence affects both men AND women, but society does not recognise this, but it will in the future. Womens' groups receive lots of money from central government because of "Domestic Violence" and the leaders/management make BIG bucks from it. Men AND women must work TOGETHER to stop DV, alienating men is creating a severe backlash against feminism which is only starting. Originally feminists wanted equality which they achieved, but now they are trying to destroy the family unit. The feminists have NO real incentive to preserve the family because most are not hetrosexual, but they are the ones who are influencing the laws

BillyBlog said...

I agree with last comment, In New Zealand 2 weeks ago the leader of the "Family First" party that advocates strong families has his house and garden attacked by 3 feminists. They put over 2000 plastic knves and forks into his garden lawn, meant to intimidate him.

Men and Women have always worked together, it is only recently that feminism has become so reviled and perverse

Anonymous said...

Feminists never tire of saying that single mothers do a great job. They do not. They may do their best, but that does not constitute doing a good job. Most of them do a terrible job, leaving a trail of social wreckage for decades. Her sons today are the gang-members of tomorrow. Her daughters today are the teenage mothers of tomorrow. The taxpayer picks up the tab.

Nick said...

What Feminist Say

If a man sleeps with a woman and has second thoughts about it
later on, they call it "fear of commitment."
If a woman sleeps with a man and has second thoughts about it
later on, they call it "date rape."


If a man gets drunk and sleeps with a woman, they hold him
responsible for his actions.
If a woman gets drunk and sleeps with a man, they hold him
responsible for her actions.


When men judge women based on their looks, they call it "lookism,"
"sexism" and "oppression."
When women judge men based on their looks and their salaries, they
call it "dating."


When a man says "You have to sleep with me to be an employee,"
they call it sexual harassment.
When a lesbian says "You have to sleep with me to be a feminist,"
they call it "body de-colonization" and "political lesbianism."


When a man says "some feminists hate men," he is engaging in
stereotypes and bashing.
When a feminist says "all men are potential rapists," she is
raising issues.


When feminists lie about rape, sexual harassment, domestic
violence, anorexia and bulimia, they are nonetheless educating the
public about legitimate issues.
When you point out that feminists lie about rape, sexual
harassment, domestic violence, anorexia and bulimia, you are guilty
of backlash.


When you ask why physical standards should be lowered so women can
join the military, they say that it ensures equality.
When you ask why only men are forced to register with the selective
service and only men can be forced into combat against their will,
they'll say that you are the one who starts all the wars.


When you say that men should not be discriminated against, they
will tell you that you hold all the power and privileges.
When you say that you don't feel that way, they will point out
rich men you don't even know.
When you say that women in your work place have equal pay and
equal numbers and no longer deserve special breaks and special
promotions, they will cite some statistics from someplace else.


If you say you are afraid of a violent woman, they will laugh at
you and send you away without help.
If you protect yourself from a violent woman, they will say that
violence against women is always wrong, no matter what.


If a woman accuses a Republican nominee of sexual harassment, they
say "Why would she lie?"
If several women accuse a Democratic president of sexual
harassment, they say "She probably lied."


If they want access to a predominantly male organization, club, or
school, they say that "diversity" is good.
If they want to keep men out of a predominantly female
organization, club, or school, they say segregation is good.


When a woman accuses a man of child abuse during a divorce or
custody battle, they say "Believe the children."
When the children themselves say they weren't abused, they don't
believe the children.


When a woman cannot support her children, they say we should raise
taxes on everyone to set up more programs to help her.
When a man cannot support his children, they say "Revoke the
deadbeat's license and throw him in jail."


When a man denies his children support money, they say he should
be punished.
When a woman denies her children a relationship with a warm and
loving father, by thwarting his visitation rights, they say it's a
"non-traditional family."


When an unwed father wants custody of his child, they say "Think
of the best interests of the children."
When a mother wants custody of her child, they say "Don't punish a
woman just because she works."


If a man starts a statement with "All women are ..." he is
using a stereotype.
If a feminist starts a statement with "All men are ..." she is
using a metaphor.

Anonymous said...

As you can see, men are very bitter with the way that we have been treated, most men on here will have had false accusations of "Domestic Violence" used against them, their children taken away from them and become poverty stricken because of these unjust family laws.
We WANT to work with women to fight REAL DV, we are more and more every day, more men who have experienced EXTREME injustice with their dealings with woman and secret courts. This can be changed by ordinary family women realising that the system has gone terribly wrong, and that Kids NEED both parents.

Lance said...

me: "In many ways, feminism is a dinosaur..."

Renee: "Yeah spoken by a man that clearly knows nothing about feminism. "

Perhaps...and perhaps your defense of the mainstream feminist movement shows shows how little you know of the mainstream feminist movement or how little you understand of egalitarianism. I hope you take a better look and you come out a better person for it. Lord knows I did...Like you, I used to be one of those man-hating feminists. After doing some soul searching and after exploring female privilege and male disposability, I realized I was wrong as was the movement.

In essence, no movement can be considered egalitarian if it fights primarily for the rights of one gender while not giving the other gender an equal seat at the table in determining its course. The vast majority of the MRAs you hate so much are merely demanding that seat. Your sexism and your privilege is displayed when you refuse to recognize that perhaps yours is not the only POV to be considered in what should be a quest for a truly egalitarian society.

I think Wendy McElroy said it best at the link below. You may not like what she has to say...and perhaps you may stomp your foot and in your orthodox (ie: conservative) feminist bias you may even call her an anti-feminist, but she has hit the nail on the head. She understands what feminism is supposed to be about and how far it has strayed.

http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.333

Nick said...

Lance, good post. The word "chauvinist" gets thrown around as easy as "misogynist" when a man has pro male views on gender issues. But a woman having pro woman views is hardly or never deemed as a chauvinist.

Don't you think its chauvinism within its self when you believe your gender has the right to express or do some thing but the other gender is not valued enough to do the same? As simplified this may sound, 99 percent of feminist I have came across seem exactly like this when it comes to discussion on gender issues. Not agreeing with opposing views is one thing but being intolerant in the ways of thinking a man should be ostracized for it is another thing.

Todays feminism is not for equality, its for anti male bigotry.

MetalOver30 said...

Good points, Nick and Lance. Let's not also forget the radical subjectivity that gender feminism and liberal academia have foisted on us under the guise of 'education.' Reason and logic don't matter anymore; only our 'feelings' matter.

'One Nation Under Therapy,' as Christina Hoff Sommers said.

Anonymous said...

Gosh Renee, I think you really need to enlarge the sub-heading under your blog name Womanist Musings a bit. Obviously many of the troll commenters on this thread are missing the fine print.

MetalOver30 said...

Troll = Someone who has a different opinion than me.

Visitor = Someone who has the same opinion as me.

I get it. Glad to see the Internet age has ushered in a new, improved era of critical insight.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe this campaign did any good for the cause of abuse in reality it provoked more hatred towards fathers and at the same time this is giving more incentive for Glenn sacks to appear on talk shows and tell the listeners that women are also perpetrators of domestic violence (statistics shows this reality). What if there was an ad with the same girl that said
"Someday my mother will kill me" This would not be tolerated even if the posters had other good meanings if we perceive this to be against fathers how do you convince them otherwise?
what proof do we have this is not just some more
radical-feminist propaganda?
There are many ways to educate about abuse but not by hatred. big waste of money
MM

Martin Swash said...

Dads' equality in law is the human rights question of now and the future, COME ON all you black women , you know what it is like to be discriminated against when you have done nothing wrong, that is how we feel. The law and the government is just AGAINST US , just because we are male and have a penis ! We face terrible injustice, and most men are unaware of the fact until they experience it in court for themselves. So I just cannot understand why you black women cannot understand our position

Anonymous said...

It seems that one thing feminists can't understand is hateful stereotypes of the male gender. These ads are so submerged in the Duluth model, the model that believes all violence is male in origin, that I'm surprised DART even considered showing them. Now, make an ad with a girl that says "One day I will kill my husband" and see how well that goes over. You feminists are so self-absorbed, you can't even realize why us men have a right to be offended by the propagation of a false stereotype against our gender. I would have thought decades of fighting so-called "opression" would give you a little sympathy, but I guess you are the ones who are full of it!

Anonymous said...

Several studies have shown that most child abuse and child murders are perpetrated by mothers. Following this line of reasoning, shouldn't we have bus advertisements depicting girls saying, "When I grow up, I'm going to drown my children"?

Anonymous said...

You want [url=http://debtforget.org]Debts Management[/url].

Anonymous said...

Relying on your instanct is tough for most of us. It takes years to build confidence. It doesn’t really just happen if you know what I mean.