radio ad for DV

[ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo]

not sure if it is broadcast on uk station sbut i am in NI and the ad is either a man or a woman making excuses for the bruises and injuries they have (there are two ads by the same campaign.) things like "i walked into a door, she didn't mean it etc)

but the voiceover goes on to say that "domestic violence only stops when you report it"

now i know these ads are aiming to encourage anyone who is victim of or suspects DV to pick up the phone, but i can't help thinking that it makes out the victim or suspector (sp?) are responsible for letting it continue.

shouldn't these ads be directed at the abusers? surely they can script the voiceover to be directed at the abuser? something to get into their heads that makes them feel guilty and encourages them to stop and seek help for anger management and support for their victims.

I can totally see where you're coming from but it's a tough one because a lot of abusers would never admit to anyone, even themselves, that they are abusive. Usually the onus is on the victim or someone close to them to make it stop. The assumption with these ads and the ones relating to rape is that the aggressor is irrational and can't be trusted (which seems fair TBH) and that there's no point in appealing to him or her as an ad is not going to change their behaviour. The idea is that the victim needs encouragement to get themselves out of the situation as the aggressor can't be relied upon to stop.

i agree. I'm not saying there shouldn't be ads aimed at victims and people who suspect DV, i just think that it could be worded differently to them and that tehre also should be ads aimed at the abuser. i know it is a case of them not wanting to admit it but i think the more they hear it (i.e; this is abuse-over and over again) then the better chance of it actually getting to some of them. surely those few that it would get to would be worth it and i do think it is high time abusers were held to account in public rather than as usual the onus being on the victim. people need to challenge the abusers and label their behvaiour aswell as be there for the victims whenever they are ready for the help.

I agree, there should be a message to shame abusers, definitely. I suppose the issue is that there is very limited money for this type of campaign so they opt for the thing which seems more urgent, which is definitely getting victims out of the situation rather than improving the abusers.

yes i guess that's true. such a shame, i really hate to hear those ads. i know they are doing good but i think it does nothing to improve society's view of DV and women, in that teh abuser is let off the hook...yet again.

Yup. The only consolation is to think that the attitude among most people would be that any abuser is just too stupid and irresponsible to be reached by an ad. So in a positive way it's sidelining the abuser and telling the victim they have control over the situation. I would worry also that abuser-directed ads might send the message to victims that the abuser can and might change which is untrue in most cases. It's better I think to send the message that what the person is experiencing is abuse and that they need to get out rather than hoping the situation might get better.

yes very true, i hadn't considered that it might send false hope to the victim.

although, stubborn mule that i am, i still refuse to believe this is the only way

I'm off to wrack my brains and think of some wording that might get the onus onto the abuser without giving false hope.

The problem is, abusers often feel they are justified in abusing their families. They see it as a legitimate reaction to provocation and that's what's so hard to tackle. It's easier to appeal to victims who have more incentive to listen and respond to an ad. I think it would be really hard to make an ad aimed at abusers that didn't come across as judgey and trite. Also they obviously don't care about the feelings of the people they abuse so the only other way to make them sit up and take notice is to threaten public shame, which DV perpetrators usually escape by being cunning and clever in how they abuse. Often, in an abusive relationship, the one and only solution is for the abused person to leave.

There also seems to be a poster campaign - example here

thanks sleeping lion. i note they have the poster with the man as the victim on that article. i know men are victims but it still angers me yet again, it is only noteworthy when a man is being abused.

I noticed that! Obviously they feel women being abused - just par for the course, but a man with a black eye will make people sit up and take notice

exactly. and i suppose if it makes more people take notice then good!! BUT, i doubt it would have required much extra effort to make an eyecatching ad with a woman as the victim to accurately represent the majority of the people who are victims of DV. i mean, if a woman victim sees that ad, is she going to feel it is directed at her or at a man who is being abused? will she think "oh this help isn't for me." the whole point of the campaign is to reach the victim. by showing the victim as a man it is completely by passing the cast majority of the people it is intended to reach.

i think i might write a comment along these lines in teh comment box below the article. i am interested in any feedback they would have. does anyone know where i could get some facts and stats on the ratio of female: male victims of DV?

Or maybe they just feel that the many anti-DV messages and advertising campaigns in the past have exclusively concentrated on female victims and they thought that for once it might just be worth remembering that men make up a sizeable minority of DV victims.

very true snorbs.

Facts and stats on from the Home Office here. Page 57. "Overall, three in ten (30%) women and two in ten (20%) men had experienced any domestic abuse since the age of 16"

PSNI publication on DV and hate crime in the financial year 2009/2010

looks like female to male victims is about 3:1.

Actually they do make a sizeable minority Dittany the way Snorbs said it was absolutely correct.

No one said 50/50 or pretending it is 50/50 all I have seen is that most DV occurs to women but DV towards men is no small number at all they make for around 30% of victims. Most ad campaigns/shelters/support systems are towards helping female victims I don't see anyone pretending men are the majority of victims but just because they are not the majority does not mean people should not be made aware that it does happen to males as well.

To the OP people who are abusers are less likely to listen to advice they see themselves as justified i.e "look what you made me do". Those ads target people who will actually listen and take action. A bit like those ads saying people should keep valuables in their cars out of sight or those adverts about keeping your home safe, they don't target the thief they target the owner who is the one who will listen.

i agree with you saltatrix in theory that it is better to taget the victim. however WRT DV i don't think it is comparable to car theft or house burglary in that DV, although much of the time sustained and repetative, isn't something that is pre meditated for a physical gain. if someone is short of money and they are inclined to steal they will do it, they need the money. whereas DV is likely to arise from, a short temper being provoked (not blaming victim here, i am using perp's rationalisation). if an ad can be repetative enough to get into their heads that they don't need to hit (like drumming a mantra into a child) then i think it could become the case where some abusers recognise that they are about to lash out and think again. i know there are abusers who do set out to abuse, they do think "she's getting a beating when she gets in tonight" but i also know there are some who do it in frustration at not being able to cope with confrontation/family noise/their partner finding a voice etc. alot of abusers grew up with abuse and for them, that is how you deal with a row or your partner answering back etc, they don't know how to communicate using words.

you're all going to tell me I'm living in a dream world and wrong but i do think there should be something aimed at abusers.

I would agree that not all abusers will be systematic in their approach a lot will act out in irrational anger without making an attempt to control themselves some are also genuinely sorry for their actions afterwards although the cycle can continue.

You are right that there should be a combination of adverts some aimed to the victim and bystanders, others aimed at the perpetrator.It might not affect many abusers but if one sees such an ad and thinks "what the hell am I doing I need to sort myself out" will make a major difference in someone's life.

yes that is my point, i doubt ads aimed at abusers will have as much an effect for the victims as the ones aimed at victims but they will reach an audience that the other ads mightn't get to. if an abuser is the irrational anger sort, it is likely that they are making promises to change, meaning the victim will be less likely to make the call for help. even if it only reaches a few. i think it's worth it. it also helps set the idea in the general public's minds that the perpetrator is the one who needs to stop abusing rather than the victim needing to stop it happening.

Dittany, I'm impressed that your knowledge of comparative male/female DV victim statistics is so much more accurate than those "stick a finger in the air and guess" numbers collated by biased and uninformed chancers like the Home Office and the Police and so on. After all, what would they know?

(Although would it be churlish to point out that the only person who has used a figure of 50:50 is, er, you?)

Where, and how, are the advertisers giving that message?