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.

thank you dittany.

i am not great with words so might want to run it past you all here anyway before i post it.

is there any evidence that men need special support and help beyond what is already provided by the criminal justice system? I am in Scotland which i can't imagine is that different to the rest of the UK and all the Scottish Government research has concluded that no special provision for men is needed at this time. Its about using resources appropriately and responsively. We know that the problem of male violence is massive and we know the nature of that violence and control makes it very difficult to leave and we know that is the result of gender inequality. So with that as the context then yes i am saying that it is not appropriate or responsible to have ads for male victims running as part of a wider campaign around domestic abuse.

and actually i wouldn't have them full stop. i don;t know what purpose it actually serves

I'm sorry but I do not agree with that way of thinking someone could say the majority of male violence is towards other males so why waste resources of such and such problem.

It is a problem which many are not even aware of many do not even think DV towards males exist same for those who think it is a joke. It is only 1 ad are you telling me that 1 ad for a group that make around 30% of a problem is to much and a waste of resources because they are male?

I am not saying they should divert all funding to that percentage nor do they. But I think saying 1 ad is not appropriate or responsible is callous beyond belief.

the ad isn't appropriate for all the reasons previously stated.

this is a campaign about DV not men brawling in the pub or street so your argumemt is irrelevant.

and WRT DV, violence of men against women is an entirely different issue than violence of women against men.

and sexing it up with stiletto heels is wrong full stop.

"A sizeable minority of men are DV victims"

sizeable minority WTF does this mean, sounds like an oxymoron because no matter how sizeable the minority , it ain't half as sizeable as the sizeable majority . And when you think that the sizeable majority who are being abused are women, it sounds to me as though language is being misused to make it sound as though men suffer just as much as women

Yes I am Dittany although I really don't see how that factors in what I am saying I am not making up stats or even getting them from places which will obviously be biased.

I know that generally men do more damage in DV cases and I am not disputing that or that the majority is towards women. I am just questing how saying 1 ad somehow detracts from the many ads for female victims. With a poster saying there should be none for males at all.

You may have issue with it's content fair enough although I really don't see how brandishing a shoe is sexy.

bah questioning

good point about propaganda, dittany

One of the major problems about DV (and rape) is the power imbalance between males and females in society. DV is merely a manifestaion of that power imbalance. You have to remember that until fairly recently a woman wasn't allowed a divorce, or she had nowhere to run to- no shelter; or no means of paying her rent; and even today she runs the risk of losing her children, or death (2 women are killed a week by their spouse, whereas two men are, emphatically, not killed by their spouse)

ANd yet, here we have those in power, the men, using their power to erase the harm that is done to one gender by another, in order to pretend that their own gender suffers just as much, when they don't. IT's disingenuous, and tbh, exposes the root of the problem, the seedy underbelly of prioritizing male lives over women's

saltatrix, don't belittle what we are saying by calling it a shoe. it is a black stiletto heel. you do not get much sexier than that when it comes to footwear. don't pretend i am plucking this out of thin air.

saltatrix do you think that ad would have the same eyecatching effect if the woman had been holding a trainer?

When you think that 2 women a week are murdered by their spouse (usually after acculmulated DV) and two men are not you realise it's faintly ridiculous that a disproportionate amount of campaigning resources are spent on catering to men.
's problems

sakura you are right.

a man's pain is equivalent to two women's lives.

I think it's also worth mentioning here that more men complain to the Equal rights commision than women. White men perceive that their rights are being infringed upon on a regular basis

DV against women is heavy beatings, rapes and death, and it would not surprise me if DV against men was slaps and punching... I also reckon MANY more men report DV than women

I am not belittling anything if anything saying shoe is a lot less dangerous then saying stiletto heel. I am not saying your making anything up at all you obviously find it offensive because you generally heals are associated with sexiness I understand that. However I just don't see that when someone is brandishing a stiletto that it is sexy.

No it would not have as much effect as a trainer heels can do a lot more damage.

ok. well why couldn't she have been brandishing a hammer? or an ashtray? or a kettle?

why did it have to be an item of female clothing that is specifically used to enhance the appearance of a woman's legs also causing her to be more unsteady on her feet for the pleasure of the male senses?

the sexy high heel is just such bullshit

I feel like they're taking the piss out of female DV victims who experience death, rape..

How many domestic violence incidents involve women hitting men with stiletto heels? My guess is it is practically nonexistent. So why are they making a poster portraying it? The end result of that poster will be that nobody will believe it is true and therefore the entire anti-DV message will be undermined.

My guess is that it is the usual political correctness creeping in. Somebody thought they would have to be "fair" (i.e. politically correct) and portray some female against male DV. The problem with these type of politically correct messages is that nobody believes them because they are not representative of the truth and they therefore undermine the entire DV message.

which is kind of effective in proving the feminist point

anyone looking at that poster knows it's bullshit
yes, men experience DV [and how could we forget it] but by no means as violent as the DV women experience and I feel I must repeat the death aspect of women's DV experiences here..

The people who make these posters must have access to teh real statistics and the real weapons involved. Why choose a stiletto heel? It is using sexy stiletto heels to try and be noticed, but it is so obviously untrue that the end result is to undermine the entire campaign. I would like to think that it is just incompetence due to politically correct thinking, but there may be more than that to it.