Misleading campaign trying to con the UK about the horrific level of domestic violence committed by men against women

In this instance, no. The campaign isn't aimed at men per se, it's aimed at men who behave in a particular way. If those men have a problem with that they should look at why. I refuse to pander to the ego of someone who inflicts violence on women and children. As far as I am concerned that has been happening for far too long. It's time we named the problem (toxic masculinity) and dealt with it.

The alternative is actually really insulting to men. It suggests that somehow they are programmed to behave like this, when clearly they aren't because most don't.

Unfortunately the trouble with 'shocking campaigns is that it can further desensitise people.

Saskia can you not see being sensitive to other people's feelings and emotions in terms of damage limitation? Until the underlying problems are tackled. De-escalation / conflict management is widely used across professions.

I see campaigns against animal cruelty, drink driving, racism, homophobia, anti-drug campaigns aimed at teenagers, and various other issues. No one criticises those campaigns for hurting the feelings of the people they are targeted at.

The 'Just Say No' campaign in the '80s was aimed at my generation. I don't remember loads of teenagers going around whining that they were hurt because someone warned them about the dangers of heroin.

I can't think of any other group of people who are protected from having their feelings hurt in that way. And as stated upthread - it's not about all men, it's about men who hurt women and children. If their feelings are hurt, then meh. Maybe they should be. Their hurt feelings don't matter to me as much the damage they do to others.

I can sympathise, even with groups, whose views, I do not entirely agree, without being offended by other groups of people, with conflicting views, I do not entirely agree with.

But all this disregard for men's 'feelings' just seems ill advised to me. Because it is feelings and emotions affecting behaviour which often causes violent outbursts. People need to have coping strategies in order to prevent their emotion and feelings detrimentally affecting their behaviour otherwise disregarding feelings and emotions will only escalate conflict.

Ha, x-post with BigChoc there

Isn't there something to be said for male peers normalising non-abusive behaviour here? In the same way rapists rape because they think that's what all men do IYSWIM. As QI says, if there's this vast mass of such pure and untainted men, then they can (and should) make a significant contribution to preventing this kind of behaviour being seen as normal. Unless, of course, they don't want to

If I saw a poster saying something like 'Mums - stop hitting your children', I wouldn't be offended. I don't hit mine, it doesn't apply to me. If any man is alienated or feels a twinge of guilt at seeing that poster, that person probably has a reason - they know their behaviour is not normal. The truth hurts. But if you can't name the problem, you can't solve it. Some mens' feelings of guilt do not trump the rights of partners, wives and children not to be abused.

From my own experience, abusive men will blame anyone but themselves, especially their victim(s). As a society, we need to put the blame squarely on the perpetrators and de-normalise DV. You can't NAMALT your way out of that.

I was hit as a child. Everyone I know was. The perpetrators were men and women. There was corporal punishment in schools. Those considered normal and decent carried this out. I also got into physical fights, as a child, occasionally.

We all have the potential be violent. There are wars happening as we speak. In that sense violence is not unusual - so in this way could be considered 'normal'. This is the reality.

Violence is certainly not considered desirable or widely accepted, though, IME or maybe I live in a bubble? I don't condone violence but because it exists within the whole of society I think we need to tackle it within the whole of society not just within a proportion of it.

I think it's probably true that men who are already violent won't be swayed by a campaign. But the men around them who aren't violent are likely to start seeing DV as not just unacceptable, but as something they should openly condemn.

The analogy with anti-racism campaigns is very apt. They did lead to people not just disagreeing privately, but speaking out against it when they encountered it in day to day life. And at the time, some people did do the whole 'but black people do it too', and/or claim to be offended that anyone would suggest they were racist.

Not from me Jeanne, or anyone actually involved in the field. It's all about education, prevention and improved channels of reporting.

You know - and I'm going out so want to get this out of my system - this does irritate me, 'I would hate the 'blame game' to start being focussed upon younger and younger children.'

Like, the rest of us just adore lining up our primary-aged male relatives, poking them with sticks and yelling at them for All the Violence In the World, don't we? And this is really all about 'blame' and not at all about prevention, isn't it?

What triggers violent outbursts?

Choice. Choosing to be violent. That's what causes them, in 100% of cases.

And of course violence against men is unacceptable too, maybe you could work on getting men to stop being violent towards men then, yes?

The type of man who is offended by this is the type of man who probably needs to be having a long hard think about his reactions to pressured situations. No one who isn't a violent person should think that violence is acceptable, and men need to acknowledge that the vast majority of perpetrators of violence are men, and work to stop that. If I belonged to a group where there was a significant number of us who were using violence as a means to control others, I'd be doing something about it, not whining that some posters were mean about people like me.

Developmental differences have been observed between boys and girls, I would hate the 'blame game' to start being focussed upon younger and younger children.

Developmental differences such as what? And how have they been 'observed'? I'd be very wary here.

Boys are no more innately violent than girls. They are socialised to be violent. We need to step in to stop that.

Younger and younger children aren't dads, generally - they're not being 'blamed' for anything their fathers do, and in fact, they're seeing the message that if their dads are violent, that's not a strong, manly thing at all.

But the ones who truly behave like 'monsters' probably won't be upset. How could they be, if they perpetrate similar scenes everyday and continue to do so?

Because that is how abuse works, capsium.

No one wants to believe they are an abuser. People who hit their partners and children say thinks like 'well, I was angry and I snapped just once' or 'you have to discipline them' or 'she made me do it'.

I've been hit (though perhaps you think that doesn't count because it wasn't 'everyday'?). It wasn't 'behaving like a monster', though, it was because I made them angry. Maybe a little bit too angry, but really, everyone gets angry, don't they? No one judges you for getting angry and hitting out, so clearly it is socially sanctioned.

That's the reasoning people go through. I've heard it.

That's what needs challenging, that idea that you can be a normal, decent person who also happens to hit out.

I'm not sure there's such an expanse of clear blue water between 'those men who behave like monsters' and 'the men who are offended by this because they would never do any such thing'. In fact, that's what I think many men find troubling about this sort of campaign - it suggests that the masculinity and power they pride themselves on has a lot in common with the characteristics of abusers. Not everything, but too much for comfort.

I don't think we're dealing with a few incomprehensibly twisted and warped indivduals, and a vast mass of absolutely pure and innocent men. Toxic masculinity grows out of the way men are imagined and treated by our society.

Who is offended?

Well firstly the people who complained. Secondly messages like this make me worry concerning how the next generation of boys are perceived. Developmental differences have been observed between boys and girls, I would hate the 'blame game' to start being focussed upon younger and younger children.

But the ones who truly behave like 'monsters' probably won't be upset. How could they be, if they perpetrate similar scenes everyday and continue to do so? Their reality and perception of events already has to be warped.

So now the target audience is men who do not commit such acts, who do not think such acts are acceptable. It is telling them they are presumed significantly 'at risk' of doing something they already view as abhorrent. This is what is alienating.

The ones who are violent and know they are wrong but feel unable to control their violent outbursts are shamed, which could encourage denial. A 'help is available before something even worse happens' message might be better.

Cross post.

YY to QI. Especially this: I worry that a message which is easy for men to swallow and won't shake their view of the world is not going to have any effect. This is not an argument for thoughtlessly offensive slogans, or shock tactics. But we have to accept that there's no way of discussing men's violence to women and children which doesn't make men uncomfortable. How on earth could thee be? It they weren't uncomfortable and upset by it they'd be total monsters.

It seems that the posters are alienating a significant proportion of men, which the poster identifies as the perpetrators of violence in practice - which is not conducive to help being sought.

You say this, but I think the same is often true of awareness-raising campaigns. People go through a period of anger and denial, but that doesn't mean the message doesn't sink in, in the end.

We don't really know how many men are genuinely 'alienated' by these posters (nor how to measure the significance of that number if we could find it!).

I really think that 'not alienating men' has been the default position of discussions around male violence for decades, and has very serious limits. Most men will find being told that their gender perpetrates massive levels of violence and misery on others is upsetting and makes them feel defensive. It's absolutely reasonable to worry about that.

I used to get really defensive reading feminist critics on my undergraduate literature course, because I hated the idea that people like me, who shared the masculine qualities I prided myself on, did this. I felt picked on when feminists mentioned men as the most violent and oppressive group in society. It wasn't a pleasant feeling, and I found all sorts of ways to dismiss it. (Not men like me, that was all years ago in the 50s, they have some good points but they're too extreme, they have warped perspectives because they work with victims of violence so they only see the bad side of men.)

It's understandable that we don't want to put men off, and I can attest to how off-putting the truth can be. But it is the truth. And I'm not sure there's any way of phrasing it which many men don't find offensive and upsetting. Because they should find it terribly offensive. Violent men who terrorise women do it in the name of men. They degrade women with slurs which assume that women are inferior physically and intellectually to men. They pride themselves on their proper manly attitude and self. This is something most men have probably never thought about in that way, and it should be terribly upsetting and offensive to them.

I worry that a message which is easy for men to swallow and won't shake their view of the world is not going to have any effect. This is not an argument for thoughtlessly offensive slogans, or shock tactics. But we have to accept that there's no way of discussing men's violence to women and children which doesn't make men uncomfortable. How on earth could thee be? It they weren't uncomfortable and upset by it they'd be total monsters.