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.

the people who made the poster campaign simply cannot empathise with the suffering DV metes out to women, the sizable majority of DV sufferers

didn't know that about the police

dittany that is about the police and army rates of DV!!!

I personally know 2 army men who used their wives as punchbags (both divorced now)

I've still got my 'L' plates up in the feminism board Dittany so lots of info that si old news to you takes me by surprise.

I hate the way the army and police believe they protect women and children

He looks like he is the type of guy who can go 12 rounds with Mike Tyson and has a huge black eye, and she is holding a stiletto heel and the caption is "She's so sorry". It is so unrepresentative and so unbelievable that it does not seem serious. Spending money on that poster doesn't seem serious and people seeing it won't take it serious.

As dittany says, you have to wonder how serious the people who made the poster really are.

"It also shows how serious a problem they really think violence against men is (not serious at all)."

But the tragedy of it is that the entire anti-DV message is harmed by the lack of seriousness of this poster.

no, i know you didn't, just explaining my shock upon hearing it. i know myself that even since hanging about here i am surprised at how oblivious many women appear to be to blatant sexism for example. i forget that MN is not a news channel

Well you have issues with the content and I have said that is fair enough although people will tend to use weapons close at hand and I have seen people (inc women) throw their shoes at people.

It is just 1 advert and even if it may not be as severe 'in general' they are still victims. That would be like saying everyone should only focus on women who are physically attacked and not pay attention to those who are predominately verbally abused because it is not as 'severe'.

I am not sure why there has to be an agenda with trying to help people most support and advertisements are towards female victims.

whatever, Salatatrix
Have you read my posts about death?

let's focus on all those white male victims first and then we can concentrate on everyone else

i am interested to see the other poster for this campaign to see if the man is brandishing a weapon or whether his masculinity is enough alone to put his woman in her place.

the only person i have ever seen throw a show was a man throwing it at barack obama on tv.

that line that "it's just one advert" is pathetic as an argument tbh. along the lines of, "it's just one woman that died, not worth making a fuss".

the advert has issues, they should be addressed, the fact that it is one advert is irrelevant. all adverts are just 1 advert. by your logic none of them should ever be held accountable for what they advertise and how they do it.

Yes I have read your post Sakura and well 3 men a month are killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover. Why must it be either/or there is crime occurring and the justice system should help anyone in need regardless of the gender they were born.

I really don't see how you can say that a small number of adverts (in comparison to womens) towards helping male victims is putting men first....

ILove
The message of the advert is not wrong DV can happen to males and that he or those that see it occurring should report it.

I say 1 advert because that's what it is you hardly see a flood of ad campaigns for male victims most are for female victims. Meaning that 1 ad is not detracting from the many ads for women all it is trying to do is help people. If you are against that I am not sure what to say.

rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0209.pdf

and how many of those men were killed by men?

And how many of those men were killed by a woman they'd been beating up for years, who finally couldn't take any more?

i think as ever this goes back to people's understanding of why we have so much male violence to women. Unless you get and accept the feminist analysis then you will fail to see why male victims can't be seen as part of the problem. Saltatrix, i am interested in why you think so many men abuse their female partners? are the causes and consequences of this different from from female violence?

So I understand this then:

Women are the main victims of DV.

A very tiny percentage of men are victims and they could be in gay couples.

Most of the men who claim to be victims of DV are actually the perpetrators and are blaming it on the women.

Or are being violent towards the woman and she has fought back.

Is that about right?
I dont have an agenda I'd just like to understand, this is not often discussed in real life.

again, slatatrix. for all the reasons previously stated, the ad is wrong.

yes Truckulent. Regardless of how you define the differences the point is they are very different issues - - different causes, different consequences, and therefore requiring different responses.

To me that NIPS ad is on a par with a campaign about child abuse reminding us that 'parents can be victims of child violence too'. And actually i read a piece yesterday about the growing levels of child to adult violence. But should that detract from the very important campaigning around child abuse? Of course not - they are totally separate issues.

The Home Office report that Saltatrix linked to (very interesting, btw!) states that 3 in 10 women and 2 in 10 men were victims of what the Home Office calls 'intimate violence' in 2007-8. This covers sexual and non-sexual abuse within the family circle. In the dates covered by the report, 1.6 million more women than men experienced 'intimate violence'.

Radio
Radio the Justice system is out to protect all therefore if a crime is occurring they should make attempts to minimise or stop (unlikely) it happening. Men are victims of DV therefore making attempts to make people aware it occurs and to report it is right. Most resources are spent towards female victims making people aware is not about taking detracting anything from anyone I doubt any victim is having fun because they are male.

As to the second part yes I think males are more prone to violence after all males have genetic differences which 'in general' make them more aggressive and 'in general' better physical attributes to mete it out. I think there are many reasons for abuse some people will be sadistic and systematic in their approach looking for victims who they feel will be vulnerable. Others I think have anger and control problems getting frustrated and taking it out on their partner they may not have intended for it to happen but the result is still the same.

Truckulent
No the % of men who are victims of DV is not 'very tiny' if you see the report or look at Lions post you will see it is not so small as to be blamed on the gay community.

actually saltatrix what is required by all agencies working to stop DV is an integrated approach underpinned by a shared understanding of the causes and conbsequences of DV. This problem is bigger that the Justice system and if they go their own merry way in trying to tackle it they will undermine the work of other agencies and organizations

I see from the second part of your response that you do not have a feminist analysis of DV. I wonder why that is? Have you been properly exposed to it, or have you chose to reject it.

If you have time i would urge you to read this Scottish Government strategy Doc

www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/06/02153519/1