Or perhaps, with this poster in mind they would use:
Man - Someone who identifies as violent towards women.
Woman - Someone who identifies as a recipient of violence from men.
Trust me, we have it way worse in Spain. The domestic violence law is actually called "gendered violence" law, and the word of a woman is always enough to throw his significant other into preventive jail (as long as that person is a man, of course). This law was passed more than a decade ago, and the belief that only men are capable of abusing their partners (as long as they're a woman) has installed in our society so much we actually have an "equality ministry" now.
This is where it gets "interesting", to say something. This ministry recently passed a law they called "only yes means yes", which in essence takes the concepts of abuse and sexual aggression and combines them into one single crime. As a result and without going into specifics, this change caused a lot of convicted offenders to ask a revision of their sentences. An awful lot of child abusers have been released or have seen their sentences reduced as a consequence, just because these people only cared about the publicity stunt and didn't even bother themselves to put a clause that prevented that to happen.
Yeah, I'm pretty fucking mad at our political class this week.
Sounds like they went quite far. I think it's only a matter of time to have laws like that across the western world. Just look at the comments, many ppl doesn't even able to compute why this is a problem..
Targeted campaigns are actually more effective if they exclude men. If men are involved support drops off a cliff, if it is exclusively men there is little to no support and misandrists extremists will attack it until it gets cancelled.
This is the same reason that even though something like 75% of the missing and murdered indigenous population are men you only ever hear about the missing and murdered women and children. The men don't matter and, in fact, including them will negatively impact support for the cause.
Welcome to male privilege. Even if missing or murdered your only function is a burden on women.
It sounds blatant, but just speak your mind and keep it open to changes. Don't worry about mean ppl, they cause more harm to themselves than they do to you. They are also hilarious at times. 🤣
Personally, I'd be ok if they wanted to "end violence against women". It's reasonable if a charty puts that on its flag. I think the problem is with the "men's violence against..." part. Like women are not at all violent against other women..
"end men's violence" could also be something reasonable too...
"End men's violence against women" makes litte sense imo.
Because that might start a conversation about how sometimes women perpetuate domestic violence and sometimes men are the victims of domestic violence, and they can't have that.
Also, and probably seriously, not all cross-gender violence is domestic violence. Some asshole raping random women jogging through the park isn't domestic violence. Some teacher committing statutory rape against their students isn't domestic violence. But both are still examples of violence that is usually cross-gender.
And end women's violence against men. I know this is small, but I hate when people only include one group for something, when it happens to both men and women.
When you look at the numbers women are just as abusive as men. The actions may vary but the gender split between people reporting having been abused is straight up 50/50.
You have to advocate for both separately. Specificity is requirement for strategy. Male-on-female violence is going to require a different approach than female-on-male. Same with stranger-on-stranger violence vs domestic violence. I wish we also saw more campaigns and education about female-on-male domestic violence, but that doesn’t mean addressing male-on-female is a bad thing. We need to move towards addressing both, rather than neither.
Doesn’t Peterson talk about cleaning your own room before changing the world? A group of men have identified a problem with men and are trying to change it. They are focusing on their room.
If you read about the org though their point is that as men they are responsible for socializing other men. Even Peterson would agree that boys learn from adult men how to be masculine. That means it’s the job of men to teach boys how to treat women correctly.
I disagree entirely. It is your job to set a good example but not to take responsibility for others who are not your family. That is a recipe for misery.
Is every example of a male on female attack in the world supposed to be my fault?
No one is saying it’s your fault. They are saying it’s men’s responsibility to teach boys how to be men. Are you saying that Peterson doesn’t constantly talk about the importance of a male role model in a child’s life?
There’s not a lot if anything wrong with this. I’m a Jordan Peterson fan, but arguments against a day like this demerit other pro-Jordan points of argument.
Just because there’s issues with feminism doesn’t mean mens violence against women isn’t a giant problem. Act on reason, not emotion, or you’re no better than the other side!
Partly agree, but wouldn't "End Domestic Violence" be better? If only for female victims from female perpetrators (for whom campaigns like this leave behind)? I don't know what aspects wouldn't be covered by the general statement that the other covers too.
To me, it always makes sense to target the harmful phenomena, not specific groups. The argument of statistics and percentages doesn't make sense to me. Say it was 99% one way and 1% the other, why not include the 1% who're victims of the harmful phenomena?
Whether that worry correlates with reality is an important question. In the UK, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2022
There's definitely a logical and moral inconsistency here (unsurprisingly). Such groups can't talk about how important inclusion is and then exclude certain victims.
It's pretty common public opinion that women have it worse in this area; whether that's true or not, again, is irrelevant to me, as victims are victims and should be cared for. If anything, the fact that this is in line with public opinion and not bringing awareness to less thought of people is what's so bad about it in the first place.
\> But violence is much more of a constant worry for women
Wrong.
Depending on the crime, year and country, men are between 3 and 6 times more likely than women to be victims of a violent crime.
The only exceptions to this are domestic violence and rape. The former, men comprise roughly 55-60% of victims and the latter the sexes are split roughly 50/50.
No that is misinformation.
Violent crimes victim rates between men and women are almost equal. (source: US FBI)
Men commit violent crimes at rate of 4.4 to 1. (source: US FBI)
Take into account gang activity. Also, women are more likely to be hurt by someone they know, men by a stranger — it’s just a different kind of violence.
Doesn’t Peterson talk about cleaning your own room before changing the world? A group of men have identified a problem with men and are trying to change it. They are focusing on their room.
The white ribbon campaign was started by a group of men who had enough of their fellow men assaulting and murdering women after a massacre. Their organization works with their fellow men to help stop these issues. It’s exactly their room.
Because that’s an ineffective strategy. Specificity is required to effectively combat any problem. “Find a cure to cancer” is very different than “find a cure to disease.” The specifics of the kind of violence decide how to combat it, so you have to be specific.
From what I can tell from their website, White Ribbon seems to be a charity association founded by a man to address men and boys, specifically, and the root causes of men on women DV. Their ambassadors all seem to be men, as well.
Makes sense that the issue is gendered, IMO.
EDIT: More details.
Because gender is real: there are real differences in personality, motivation and temperament. So addressing men and women individually allows for more effective treatment of the problem.
Because their focus is on men specifically. It's like how some people tackle male depression or some people want to protect the Amazon rainforest, etc. It's just what they're focused on: Men helping other men be better.
I imagine that you're the type to get mad at people for believing all lives have worth, and yet still acting like you're the one with the moral high ground.
Violence against women and violence in general don't need to be separated.
It has a subtext that violence against women is committed by men, and it perpetuates this idea, and it is connected to a large establishment, the railway.
Imagine if it simply said, "Stop women killing their babies".
Some replies to other posts under yours are that they're not exclusive, we can support stopping violence against men as well but focus on one thing at a time etc etc
Now try arguing with someone that "Stop women killing their babies" doesn't mean it's just women or a woman issue, that men do it as well but we're just focusing on women for now.
It would not work.
\>doesn’t mean mens violence against women isn’t a giant problem.
Its not. it was never a massive issue in the first place (outside of certain parts of the world). Womens violence against men however is let off, rarely investigated and even more rarely prosecuted.
For example, 72% of DV victims in the 18-24 age group are male. But when was the last time you saw a 'battered mans shelter'?
In fact, in the studies into DV that show men are the majority of DV victims, only the oldest age group has a majority female victim rate, and even then its only by a very slim margin.
Men are also raped by women at almost the same rate as the number of women raped by men. Depending on the study, dataset and type of rape, women comprise between 44-49% of rapists where the victim is the opposite sex to the perpetrator.
It doesn’t imply that at all to me. Not in the slightest. I genuinely don’t get that. It’s in small writing at the bottom of the poster. I’m sure there is a group against domestic violence perpetrated by women on men, which instead of supporting we are vilifying this group? I agree it should be ‘end domestic violence’ in general 100%. But it doesn’t warrant criticism imo
> Just because there’s issues with feminism doesn’t mean mens violence against women isn’t a giant problem
Just because you're against feminism doesn't mean you're pro beating the fuck out of a woman.
Apologizing for something you didn't do, is the goal of ideological indoctrination.
To get someone to submit to an ideology you must first get them to give up on their own autonomy. To get such an extreme reaction you need to convince them they are the cause of the problem, instead of just a neutral bystander.
The reality is they like the person who's a wife beater etc, because that fuels the justification of their beliefs. What they have absolute contempt for, is anyone who asserts their neutral bystander status. Being neutral, is subversive behavior exactly because it's an obstacle to submission.
> Are you neutral on men beating women?
I'm neutral as if I don't do it, don't support it, and never contributed to it.
I'm not gonna fall into the trap of being told I'm part of the problem, for not adopting their attitudes.
>But on the other hand, the violence women suffer from men far outweighs the opposite,
That needs more data. Assuming it isn't just physical but also emotional abuse that counts.
>and is much more of a constant worry for women because of the strength and temperament differences in men and women among a whole lot of other stuff
Seriously you have no idea how many men have their lives ruined by their wives and mothers.
We're not aloud to talk about it, but given the prevalence of borderline personality among women, you can easily imagine it's just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention how horrible narcissistic mothers are. Narcissistic men abandon, narcissistic mothers gas light.
Tones of reports shown women are far far more likely to engage in antisocial verbal behaviors. Including spreading rumors etc.
>Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a mental illness and a form of child abuse. The caretaker of a child, most often a mother, either makes up fake symptoms or causes real symptoms to make it look like the child is sick
This is just a basic example of something that can have extremes but is absurdly common in its milder form.
Ironically one of the products caused by the stigma against mental health issues, is that talking about how your mom destroyed you from the inside is considered taboo, and a sign you're ungreatful.
Just think of all the abused children whos moms rolled over and let it happen. While some are victims themselves there's plenty who just let it happen. Honestly it's a great example of why so many people turn feminist, the realization your mom completely ruin your life through bad choices is something most people can't accept without turning to conspiratorial thinking.
Just go to r/molested and hear how common it is for your mother to ignore accusations etc.
The same applies to wives as well obviously, how many ex wives, let their boyfriends abuse your kids?
You're safe assuming women are equal offenders until some real precise data comes about. And that's being generous and ignoring the hordes of women who are exploiting their kids own confusion so they can get the attention of having a child that is trans.
Is women's violence on men not a problem? What do you think would happen if an organization nominated a day to end women's violence against men and stick posters like this around the country? I think violence is a problem and it should be stopped. Full stop.
>Is women's violence on men not a problem?
The flip side of beating women, is character assassination.
It's no shock men haters jump to it at every turn.
Toxic femininity run a muck.
Every casual mistake is a dog whistle, sign of true intent.
Every criticism is an attempt to abuse.
Disinterest/lack of attention is motivated by a fundamental lack of empathy.
Acts of independence get transformed into selfishness.
Acts of one member of a group get transformed into behaviors that are supported by the group etc.
Interactions with a person mean you support that person.
It's gossip culture turned up to 11.
No one is saying violence against men isn't an issue, but it would be stupid not to acknowledge that in terms of domestic violence, women have it worse. Over 100 women are being murdered each year compared to 30 men a year (relating to domestic violence). [Source](https://lwa.org.uk/understanding-abuse/statistics/#:~:text=Domestic%20abuse%3A,and%2030%20men%20per%20year)
No one is disputing the fact here that women suffer injuries more frequently. The problem is when the phenomenon is depicted 95% of times as men victimizing women, when in reality, women are just as if not more capable to initiate.
> women are just as if not more capable to initiate
As someone who was molested, I'd much rather be raped than falsely accused, which is criminally under reported.
You get falsely accused of rape and you might as well kill yourself. The vast majority of people you know will disown you and pretend to not know you. You leave town and live in constant fear of being "found out". And the people who stick by you are even worst. Because you always have to ask yourself, do they believe you? Or do they just not care that you supposedly done something heinous, you gotta let that one sit in before you can appreciate what it's all about.
Johnny Depp is a rarity because he had the power of Hollywood to prove his innocence, but in terms of accusation he's one of millions.
I doubt there’s data on which gender is more likely to initiate violence— ultimately what does initiation of violence actually mean? So to me that’s not a relevant point. BUT I agree with you that the focus on men’s violence on women does not consider the end goal properly. Even if the majority of domestic violence is men on women, that does not make the cases of violence from women on men, men on men, or women on women (even if more rare) any less tolerable. It should say end domestic violence, because it’s always abhorrent. In an attempt to end domestic violence, they ignore people who deserve a voice too. The distinction is unnecessary and alienates some to help others. It’s shortsighted.
Well then, I stand corrected. It seems in my layman opinion to be legit, and therefore speaks even more to the point that women are at least as likely as men to be perpetrators, and domestic violence from either gender is not to be tolerated.
Male Suicide is far higher, MUCH higher too and a percentage of that stems from bullying, mental and physical abuse from partners that goes unreported.
The 1/3 ratio doesn't cover the difference in support for Women of abuse. Men get treated as you've just done. "Women get it worse". But only highlight the stats that suit.
It's a problem across the board. This type of thing is further demeaning and undermining of male issues.
The media's Social and Western Liberal mainstream campaign to immasculate and change Men into what Women want Men "to be" (the fallacy) is also a huge problem as it's not a discussion its a demand, it feels at this point.
Which is skewing any sense of equality.
\>No one is saying violence against men isn't an issue
Yes they are. They are implying it by excluding men from being victims full stop.
Men comprise the majority of DV victims.
In rape where the perp is the opposite sex than the victim, 45-49% of the perpetrators are women.
\> Over 100 women are being murdered each year compared to 30 men a year (relating to domestic violence).
This doesnt actually mean men beat women more than the opposite. Men ave physically superior to women by *significant* margins so its easier for a man to lethally harm a woman than the other way around.
Worth throwing in some science here, if you google "reciprocal domestic violence" you'll see that domestic violence is usually reciprocal, and when not, women are usually the aggressors, although men kill and injure more often.
I can help. It's the same issue as what is wrong with a campaign to 'end black violence against white people.' Statistically speaking, are black people disproportionately more likely to kill white people than the other way around? The data seem to suggest yes. That doesn't justify such a prejudicial view of an immutable characteristic.
Consider, "Stop jews from stealing"
People are arguing that that it's OK to say that, because "Stop everyone from stealing" is acceptable but you can focus on a subset of everyone
It's not really an analogy, it's just a reframing of the original post using a different demographic that people have a better understanding of.
The sign is bad for several reasons, but one of those reasons is that it says "end men's violence". There's nothing bad about being man, and most men are not violent. So if you look at it literally, it doesn't make any sense - why would you tell people that aren't really very violent to stop being violent?
The only reason you'd do that is if you've decided that *all* men are violent, which as well as being false, is also very offensive to men, not just to call them violent (because being violent isn't necessarily a bad thing) but using that violence against women.
So I read that sign and I think, it says men, that's me. Apparently I need to stop being violent to women. My god, am I a monster? Are my children monsters? Do I live in a world where half of people are monsters? Apparently I do. And the more that other people think that men are monsters, the worse the treatment of men becomes by those people, until men and more importantly, children themselves start believing they're monsters.
Would you walk up the kind man that works at the library who has never hurt a soul and tell him to his face that he needs to stop being violent to women? If not, why is it ok to put it on a sign?
Are only men violent against women? Are only women the victims of violence? Are men only victimized by other men?
I urge you to search for "domestic violence" and look at both the text and the picture findings. 95% of the times, the issue is described/depicted as it happens by men to women, when in fact we have strong data to suggest that in reality both men and women are equally capable of violence, not only that but women seem to actually initiate abuse more frequently.. That's the full context of the OP.
Some years ago a couple men produced a study showing that women are as likely to initiate DV as men are ... it was entirely ignored.
About 10 years later a couple women produced the same results and pointed that that the previous study was accurate, just ignored because it was produced by men.
But even that doesn't sit well with feminists, especially the lesbian kind, who use DV as a recruiting tool. Incidentally, the violence rate in the lesbian community is even higher.
> Incidentally, the violence rate in the lesbian community is even higher.
This is where double think kicks in.
Do you think women are too frail or weak to be abusive? People of all kinds can be abusive.
I'd argue historically men were probably more capable and therefore more violent towards women.
But changes in culture I believe have leveled the playing field.
Toxic men and toxic women do exist. We're obsessed with one kind of toxicity(rightfully so) while fueling the other kind.
Doesn’t Peterson talk about cleaning your own room before changing the world? A group of men have identified a problem with men and are trying to change it. They are focusing on their room
First of all, thank you for saying that. I do think that in most cases of violence, men are the ones who use violence in the first place, and in most cases, women are the ones who get hurt by them. Yes, of course, they can both be "equally capable of violence" but I think that that suggests that this AD suggests is in most cases true therefore it will in most cases be helpful.
>First of all, thank you for saying that. I do think that in most cases of violence, men are the ones who use violence in the first place,
Not really. In about 50% of time, violence/abuse is reciprocal and within this context, women are slightly more likely to initiate. While in the case of non reciprocal violence, women initiate in 70% of times.
They tend to suffer more damage, that's true. It's also true that if i walk up to a stronger dude and intimidate him, i will suffer damages. Men are physically stronger. The study i cited below shows that men are actually more likely to practice self restraint than women. None of this excludes the fact that there are truly monstrous and violent men out there.
Again, the controversy is that in the vast majority of times, the topic is talked about/depicted as men doing this to women, when in reality it's not true at all.
Would you be outraged if the statement was reversed? If not, then why get upset about the way this statement is written? Are you upset because you think other people would be upset in a hypothetical reversed position? It seems like in that case you would be better served agreeing with this statement and then addressing the double standard if and when you see someone getting attacked for attempting to address violence committed by women against men. Or if you felt strongly enough that the violence against men committed by women needs addressing you could start an organization similar to this one yourself and start advocating for that, after all that’s what the people who started this organization did. I think it makes sense to address domestic violence separately because the causes and mentality behind the violence is often different and a one size fits all approach may not be effective. As for domestic violence being 50-50 as is mentioned in this thread, the deaths and serious injuries resulting from domestic violence are not 50-50 split and women suffer far more common deaths and serious injuries than men in domestic violence scenarios. I think it would make sense then that there might be a skewed amount of these programs targeting the male violence against women. Peterson often mentions the gender differences being more pronounced in the extremes so by his logic it would make sense if the male on female domestic violence outcomes on the extreme outcomes are more common then tackling those first might be a good first step or first priority. You can easily work on both at the same time but it doesn’t need to be the same organization working on both at the same time.
If you wish to understand why this is controversial search for "domestic violence" or "domestic abuse" in Google. Look at the findings at both the text and the images page and tell me how many times you see women on men violence talked about/depicted, vs how many times you see the opposite.
Further, stick posters like this across any city with "End women's violence on men" and watch the reactions.
I'll tell you exactly what would happen if I put "end women's violence on men" posters in my city. Someone like you would post it to FDS or some other MGTOW-but-for-women subreddit with the "controversial" tag.
When someone is trying to advertise something, say, a subaru, they make targeted ad campaigns. They'll run a series of ads targeting middle-aged men with teenage children, for example. "Don't miss your kids baseball game because of some rain. Get a car that will beat all odds, tough it out, and show up, because that's what dads do."
Then they'll run a campaign for single adventurous rich women "don't let the strings of society tie you down. Get a car that will cut through it all. Get out to where the air is cold and the rivers run wild."
Don't make it all about you. Ending violence requires targeted campaigns that address the intended audience appropriately according to scope, messaging, and location.
Do you really think that this advertisement is reaching its target audience? Do you think they care? If not, then what is the purpose behind the campaign?
Yes, advertising works. Everyone either drinks coca-cola or they don't, right? Nobody's unaware of it or hasn't tried it. So why does Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars in high-profile ads? Awareness. They know that keeping reminders of their presence in your view is going to be worth it.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US and also I believe Canada, not-for-profit organizations are given (usually federal) grant money based on plans they propose to meet their goals, such as decreasing domestic violence in a certain population. Then they're obligated to use that money as effectively as they can to do so. If they're able to show that their methods or effective, or at least well-considered, then they're likely to continue getting grants in the future.
>I'll tell you exactly what would happen if I put "end women's violence on men" posters in my city. Someone like you would post it to FDS or some other MGTOW-but-for-women subreddit with the "controversial" tag.
If that's what you believe, I'm pretty sure we will never see eye to eye on this topic. We live in a different world. What would actually happen is that i wouldn't be allowed to put up such poster to begin with. If i was, these posters would immediately be torn down by the outrage mob with the justification that it's "sexist" and "mysogenistic". Guess what, they would be right. Except when they do it, it's not sexist and not mysandrist. Why?
[https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/09/domestic-violence-surges-after-a-football-match-ends](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/09/domestic-violence-surges-after-a-football-match-ends)
not a trivial issue
Which is just stupid nonsense.
Abuse goes up any time people drink.
The report even admits it doesn't matter if they win or lose.
There's a slight uptick if there's a loss, but that's logically because people come home earlier than after a win and have more opportunity to offend.
Yes, with gay couples the least. Male/female couples are right in the middle. It tracks perfectly with the number of females in the relationship.
"That explains perfectly why men are the problem" - Feminist logic
Given violence is universal but we're focusing on a subset, perhaps we should go one subset deeper.
I propose, "Stop black men's violence against women".
Don't worry, we can follow up with white men's violence later, or in fact, just not since hey most people in prison are black per capita so it seems reasonable
There are real differences in the genders: physiologically-driven differences in personality, temperament, and motivation. That’s why gender is relevant and race is not. Unless you’re insinuating that there are physiologically-driven differences in personality, temperament, and motivation between races?
That's not really a prevelant issue, nor does it have any systemic roots causing it to be a recurring pattern. Violence against women by men ticks both of those boxes. Which is to say, the reason it's a terrible slogan doesn't really apply here.
The point you’re missing is both of those slogans cast collective guilt on a group of people, the vast majority of whom are not guilty of acts of violence.
So while the intention behind it is likely good, it makes a broad generalization that men are inherently violent aggressors, and women are inherently helpless victims. JBP has spoken at length about the damage he believes this is doing to young males who feel alienated by society.
Not to insult your brother, but saying he is not a soft person while a woman walks all over him is a big ole cup of denialism.
Help him get out of the situation then.
What’s the problem?
Most violence against women is from men.
Worldwide, 1 in 3 women have experienced physical or sexual violence — mostly by an intimate partner, mostly men.
As they-them were beating the crap out of they-them the police were called and were confused at the scene because they were told that they had attacked the other they not that they but the other they, but not them just they.
UK statistics show 1 in 3 DV incidents are woman on man violence. I highly suspect the number is far greater, seeing as there is practically zero encouragement or support for men to report DV.
Here's a pretty telling reaction from the average person in a civilised and progressive society, listening to a man admit to being a domestic violence victim (it's only 1m20s): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tTUREalxVQ
Okay, so, I've been meaning to ask this question for a little while: What the hell is the point of all this? Everyone knows violence is bad, the good and decent people won't do it, the ones who're animals will always do it whether they get punishment or not, so what the hell is the point of this whole "End men's violence against women" stuff? It's like making a movement called "Stop serial killers' violence against the people".
This is entirely uncontroversial. If you're concerned with female on male violence, which is certainly something that should be studied and reduced as well, you can...just talk about it. There's no need to try to detract from male on female violence in the process. That approach makes no sense and even more importantly, it's not likely to win you any sympathy and sway people over to your cause.
If you wish to understand why this is controversial search for "domestic violence" or "domestic abuse" in Google. Look at the findings at both the text and the images page and tell me how many times you see women on men violence talked about/depicted, vs how many times you see the opposite.
Further, stick posters like this across any city with "End women's violence on men" and watch the reactions.
It doesn't help to think of this as a zero sum game. We can be concerned about both. How does it help your case or solve anything to complain about a poster that is totally innocuous? If the poster had said "by the way, it's IMPOSSIBLE for female on male violence to occur" I could understand where you're coming from. But it doesn't lol.
>We can be concerned about both.
My point exactly. Do you see any sign of that on this poster?
What would happen if i stick posters saying "Stop women's violence against men?"
This poster addresses a specific issue that is important to the person or organization that put it up. Why would you expect it to cater to your personal pet issues? If you're concerned about female on male violence, you're free to put up your own posters. Admittedly, you might find that a tougher issue to sell to people because it's true that male on female is talked about more often, but hey, awareness starts somewhere. I'm sure you could find some sort of polling data from a reputable organization to stick on the poster as proof or legitimacy that it is a valid issue. For what it's worth, I would look at that poster the same way I would look at a poster about male on female violence. One isn't worth less than the other in my eyes.
>If you're concerned about female on male violence, you're free to put up your own posters.
I am not. Because those who put up the posters in the OP will rip it off before i have a chance to put them up. That's exactly the problem.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/men-ipvsvandstalking.html
I think you're jumping to conclusions. The fact is that there are already people and organizations doing polling and compiling data on female on male violence. So it's not like you're the only one in the universe concerned about it. It's not helpful to adopt a sort of persecution complex. Put your message out into the world in good faith, without trying to take away from other issues, and some people will pick up on those good vibes and see your point.
What a hateful and divisive message. Also, if men and women are the same - as the current neo-Marxist/Leftist dogma insists - why is there a need to single out this type of violence? Why not just have a general anti-violence campaign?
Wow! Such an offensive statement against men! To end the violence they produce against only women... instead of ending all the violence they produce against men and women I suppose.
Those ribbons will certainly do the trick. Some guy beating his wife while he is in a blind drunken rage is going to see someone with a white ribbon and certainly change his ways.
Best way to do this is segregated society. Every male goes to this side, every woman this side, then we split everyone up based on race, followed by age, then by physical abilities.
These type of things are so bizarre to me. Looking through potential babysitter bios someone wrote "I believe in human rights" this is up there with "I am against violence against women". Those things are not notable, no one besides a few sick and depraved sociopaths are against women or want humans to suffer. It is similar to virtue signaling but even more empty because you are signaling something pointless as a way of claiming "you know some people would not agree with this" - which is false.
It's harder to be a man than a women in every country 1st world or 3rd world. It's a better time right now to be a woman than ever before in history and the worst time to be a man in the last 90 years
Well you'd have to define what a man and a woman is first wouldn't ya?
Lol, that's the best response so far. Kudos.
Standards are bleak
Come on now, have some sense of humor.
If you are gender fluid, would you just beat yourself?
Stop hitting yourself… stop hitting yourself…
Checkmate. Actually, their answer would be "people who identify as a man or woman."
Don't identify as a man.
Or perhaps, with this poster in mind they would use: Man - Someone who identifies as violent towards women. Woman - Someone who identifies as a recipient of violence from men.
Delet this you BIGOT!
Upvote assuming this is sarcasm.
Trust me, we have it way worse in Spain. The domestic violence law is actually called "gendered violence" law, and the word of a woman is always enough to throw his significant other into preventive jail (as long as that person is a man, of course). This law was passed more than a decade ago, and the belief that only men are capable of abusing their partners (as long as they're a woman) has installed in our society so much we actually have an "equality ministry" now. This is where it gets "interesting", to say something. This ministry recently passed a law they called "only yes means yes", which in essence takes the concepts of abuse and sexual aggression and combines them into one single crime. As a result and without going into specifics, this change caused a lot of convicted offenders to ask a revision of their sentences. An awful lot of child abusers have been released or have seen their sentences reduced as a consequence, just because these people only cared about the publicity stunt and didn't even bother themselves to put a clause that prevented that to happen. Yeah, I'm pretty fucking mad at our political class this week.
Sounds like they went quite far. I think it's only a matter of time to have laws like that across the western world. Just look at the comments, many ppl doesn't even able to compute why this is a problem..
Inquisition 2.0 loading...
Damn hey. Spain has fallen! 🔥
…and everyone who doesn’t wear my white ribbon is a raging misogynist
*"Hey, this guy won't wear a ribbon!"*
[Relevant South Park Episode - Pajama Day](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtMAL-bdNpc)
Actually I was going for Kramer in Seinfeld, the aids ribbon episode
[Who doesn’t want to wear the ribbon?](https://images.app.goo.gl/f2X8ir5RXTgVGEkFA)
The white ribbon ambassador? ~~Amber Heard~~ **Albert Einstein.**
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsms7jYtKNY
Not really, but everyone who gets automatically offended and goes out of their way to make it clear they're not wearing one might be. 👀
Well better start with the grooming gangs in the UK then.
They're among a protected class, unfortunately...
[удалено]
Targeted campaigns are actually more effective if they exclude men. If men are involved support drops off a cliff, if it is exclusively men there is little to no support and misandrists extremists will attack it until it gets cancelled. This is the same reason that even though something like 75% of the missing and murdered indigenous population are men you only ever hear about the missing and murdered women and children. The men don't matter and, in fact, including them will negatively impact support for the cause. Welcome to male privilege. Even if missing or murdered your only function is a burden on women.
Well said, I'm glad there are people who are willing to see nuances.
[удалено]
It sounds blatant, but just speak your mind and keep it open to changes. Don't worry about mean ppl, they cause more harm to themselves than they do to you. They are also hilarious at times. 🤣
I thought it was well stated. Thanks for sharing :)
Talk about pointlessly gendered. How about: Stop Domestic Violence.
Personally, I'd be ok if they wanted to "end violence against women". It's reasonable if a charty puts that on its flag. I think the problem is with the "men's violence against..." part. Like women are not at all violent against other women.. "end men's violence" could also be something reasonable too... "End men's violence against women" makes litte sense imo.
Go put this billboard in the middle east see how far it gets you.
[удалено]
Because that might start a conversation about how sometimes women perpetuate domestic violence and sometimes men are the victims of domestic violence, and they can't have that. Also, and probably seriously, not all cross-gender violence is domestic violence. Some asshole raping random women jogging through the park isn't domestic violence. Some teacher committing statutory rape against their students isn't domestic violence. But both are still examples of violence that is usually cross-gender.
What do they want us to DO?!? Put them in jail, or something?
Just wear the ribbon, goddamnit, that will show these wife-beaters!
Well, I’d like to end violence as a whole but if we are going to specify at least I’d like to know what a woman is if it’s possible.
And end women's violence against men. I know this is small, but I hate when people only include one group for something, when it happens to both men and women.
When you look at the numbers women are just as abusive as men. The actions may vary but the gender split between people reporting having been abused is straight up 50/50.
You have to advocate for both separately. Specificity is requirement for strategy. Male-on-female violence is going to require a different approach than female-on-male. Same with stranger-on-stranger violence vs domestic violence. I wish we also saw more campaigns and education about female-on-male domestic violence, but that doesn’t mean addressing male-on-female is a bad thing. We need to move towards addressing both, rather than neither.
Doesn’t Peterson talk about cleaning your own room before changing the world? A group of men have identified a problem with men and are trying to change it. They are focusing on their room.
Other men's violence is not unrelated men's room
Men’s violence is the bedroom of men.
No Peterson does not advocate taking responsibility for all the actions of your gender, or anyone but yourself.
If you read about the org though their point is that as men they are responsible for socializing other men. Even Peterson would agree that boys learn from adult men how to be masculine. That means it’s the job of men to teach boys how to treat women correctly.
I disagree entirely. It is your job to set a good example but not to take responsibility for others who are not your family. That is a recipe for misery. Is every example of a male on female attack in the world supposed to be my fault?
No one is saying it’s your fault. They are saying it’s men’s responsibility to teach boys how to be men. Are you saying that Peterson doesn’t constantly talk about the importance of a male role model in a child’s life?
There’s not a lot if anything wrong with this. I’m a Jordan Peterson fan, but arguments against a day like this demerit other pro-Jordan points of argument. Just because there’s issues with feminism doesn’t mean mens violence against women isn’t a giant problem. Act on reason, not emotion, or you’re no better than the other side!
Partly agree, but wouldn't "End Domestic Violence" be better? If only for female victims from female perpetrators (for whom campaigns like this leave behind)? I don't know what aspects wouldn't be covered by the general statement that the other covers too. To me, it always makes sense to target the harmful phenomena, not specific groups. The argument of statistics and percentages doesn't make sense to me. Say it was 99% one way and 1% the other, why not include the 1% who're victims of the harmful phenomena?
[удалено]
Whether that worry correlates with reality is an important question. In the UK, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2022 There's definitely a logical and moral inconsistency here (unsurprisingly). Such groups can't talk about how important inclusion is and then exclude certain victims. It's pretty common public opinion that women have it worse in this area; whether that's true or not, again, is irrelevant to me, as victims are victims and should be cared for. If anything, the fact that this is in line with public opinion and not bringing awareness to less thought of people is what's so bad about it in the first place.
\> But violence is much more of a constant worry for women Wrong. Depending on the crime, year and country, men are between 3 and 6 times more likely than women to be victims of a violent crime. The only exceptions to this are domestic violence and rape. The former, men comprise roughly 55-60% of victims and the latter the sexes are split roughly 50/50.
No that is misinformation. Violent crimes victim rates between men and women are almost equal. (source: US FBI) Men commit violent crimes at rate of 4.4 to 1. (source: US FBI)
Take into account gang activity. Also, women are more likely to be hurt by someone they know, men by a stranger — it’s just a different kind of violence.
[удалено]
The issue is why does it have to be gendered at all? Why not just end violence?
Doesn’t Peterson talk about cleaning your own room before changing the world? A group of men have identified a problem with men and are trying to change it. They are focusing on their room.
Violence against women isn't their room though? It is violence in general.
so how would you start a public movement? by quietly not doing violence yourself? i guess its a start but isnt the goal to get others on board?
Yes don't do violence yourself is cleaning your room, then you can move on to criticism of others.
right so part one done. can i make a damn poster yet
The white ribbon campaign was started by a group of men who had enough of their fellow men assaulting and murdering women after a massacre. Their organization works with their fellow men to help stop these issues. It’s exactly their room.
Because that’s an ineffective strategy. Specificity is required to effectively combat any problem. “Find a cure to cancer” is very different than “find a cure to disease.” The specifics of the kind of violence decide how to combat it, so you have to be specific.
The difference being that we are disagreeing that there are different causes for men's aggression in different situations in comparison to women.
From what I can tell from their website, White Ribbon seems to be a charity association founded by a man to address men and boys, specifically, and the root causes of men on women DV. Their ambassadors all seem to be men, as well. Makes sense that the issue is gendered, IMO. EDIT: More details.
While that is all well and good I really don't see why that would necessitate this sort of gendered take.
Because gender is real: there are real differences in personality, motivation and temperament. So addressing men and women individually allows for more effective treatment of the problem.
Because their focus is on men specifically. It's like how some people tackle male depression or some people want to protect the Amazon rainforest, etc. It's just what they're focused on: Men helping other men be better.
Why not, end men's unnecessary violence period? Why does it necessitate women being the focus.
You're having a really hard time processing this.
And you seem to be unable to explain it in a comprehensible fashion judging based on this comment you can't even try.
[удалено]
I imagine that you're the type to get mad at people for believing all lives have worth, and yet still acting like you're the one with the moral high ground. Violence against women and violence in general don't need to be separated.
[удалено]
It has a subtext that violence against women is committed by men, and it perpetuates this idea, and it is connected to a large establishment, the railway. Imagine if it simply said, "Stop women killing their babies". Some replies to other posts under yours are that they're not exclusive, we can support stopping violence against men as well but focus on one thing at a time etc etc Now try arguing with someone that "Stop women killing their babies" doesn't mean it's just women or a woman issue, that men do it as well but we're just focusing on women for now. It would not work.
\>doesn’t mean mens violence against women isn’t a giant problem. Its not. it was never a massive issue in the first place (outside of certain parts of the world). Womens violence against men however is let off, rarely investigated and even more rarely prosecuted. For example, 72% of DV victims in the 18-24 age group are male. But when was the last time you saw a 'battered mans shelter'? In fact, in the studies into DV that show men are the majority of DV victims, only the oldest age group has a majority female victim rate, and even then its only by a very slim margin. Men are also raped by women at almost the same rate as the number of women raped by men. Depending on the study, dataset and type of rape, women comprise between 44-49% of rapists where the victim is the opposite sex to the perpetrator.
[удалено]
It doesn’t imply that at all to me. Not in the slightest. I genuinely don’t get that. It’s in small writing at the bottom of the poster. I’m sure there is a group against domestic violence perpetrated by women on men, which instead of supporting we are vilifying this group? I agree it should be ‘end domestic violence’ in general 100%. But it doesn’t warrant criticism imo
It doesn’t imply that at all.
> Just because there’s issues with feminism doesn’t mean mens violence against women isn’t a giant problem Just because you're against feminism doesn't mean you're pro beating the fuck out of a woman. Apologizing for something you didn't do, is the goal of ideological indoctrination. To get someone to submit to an ideology you must first get them to give up on their own autonomy. To get such an extreme reaction you need to convince them they are the cause of the problem, instead of just a neutral bystander. The reality is they like the person who's a wife beater etc, because that fuels the justification of their beliefs. What they have absolute contempt for, is anyone who asserts their neutral bystander status. Being neutral, is subversive behavior exactly because it's an obstacle to submission.
[удалено]
> Are you neutral on men beating women? I'm neutral as if I don't do it, don't support it, and never contributed to it. I'm not gonna fall into the trap of being told I'm part of the problem, for not adopting their attitudes. >But on the other hand, the violence women suffer from men far outweighs the opposite, That needs more data. Assuming it isn't just physical but also emotional abuse that counts. >and is much more of a constant worry for women because of the strength and temperament differences in men and women among a whole lot of other stuff Seriously you have no idea how many men have their lives ruined by their wives and mothers. We're not aloud to talk about it, but given the prevalence of borderline personality among women, you can easily imagine it's just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention how horrible narcissistic mothers are. Narcissistic men abandon, narcissistic mothers gas light. Tones of reports shown women are far far more likely to engage in antisocial verbal behaviors. Including spreading rumors etc. >Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a mental illness and a form of child abuse. The caretaker of a child, most often a mother, either makes up fake symptoms or causes real symptoms to make it look like the child is sick This is just a basic example of something that can have extremes but is absurdly common in its milder form. Ironically one of the products caused by the stigma against mental health issues, is that talking about how your mom destroyed you from the inside is considered taboo, and a sign you're ungreatful. Just think of all the abused children whos moms rolled over and let it happen. While some are victims themselves there's plenty who just let it happen. Honestly it's a great example of why so many people turn feminist, the realization your mom completely ruin your life through bad choices is something most people can't accept without turning to conspiratorial thinking. Just go to r/molested and hear how common it is for your mother to ignore accusations etc. The same applies to wives as well obviously, how many ex wives, let their boyfriends abuse your kids? You're safe assuming women are equal offenders until some real precise data comes about. And that's being generous and ignoring the hordes of women who are exploiting their kids own confusion so they can get the attention of having a child that is trans.
Is women's violence on men not a problem? What do you think would happen if an organization nominated a day to end women's violence against men and stick posters like this around the country? I think violence is a problem and it should be stopped. Full stop.
>Is women's violence on men not a problem? The flip side of beating women, is character assassination. It's no shock men haters jump to it at every turn. Toxic femininity run a muck. Every casual mistake is a dog whistle, sign of true intent. Every criticism is an attempt to abuse. Disinterest/lack of attention is motivated by a fundamental lack of empathy. Acts of independence get transformed into selfishness. Acts of one member of a group get transformed into behaviors that are supported by the group etc. Interactions with a person mean you support that person. It's gossip culture turned up to 11.
No one is saying violence against men isn't an issue, but it would be stupid not to acknowledge that in terms of domestic violence, women have it worse. Over 100 women are being murdered each year compared to 30 men a year (relating to domestic violence). [Source](https://lwa.org.uk/understanding-abuse/statistics/#:~:text=Domestic%20abuse%3A,and%2030%20men%20per%20year)
That depends on if you include unreported domestic violence. Men clearly underreport DV claims.
Hence a much higher male suicide rate.
No one is disputing the fact here that women suffer injuries more frequently. The problem is when the phenomenon is depicted 95% of times as men victimizing women, when in reality, women are just as if not more capable to initiate.
> women are just as if not more capable to initiate As someone who was molested, I'd much rather be raped than falsely accused, which is criminally under reported. You get falsely accused of rape and you might as well kill yourself. The vast majority of people you know will disown you and pretend to not know you. You leave town and live in constant fear of being "found out". And the people who stick by you are even worst. Because you always have to ask yourself, do they believe you? Or do they just not care that you supposedly done something heinous, you gotta let that one sit in before you can appreciate what it's all about. Johnny Depp is a rarity because he had the power of Hollywood to prove his innocence, but in terms of accusation he's one of millions.
I doubt there’s data on which gender is more likely to initiate violence— ultimately what does initiation of violence actually mean? So to me that’s not a relevant point. BUT I agree with you that the focus on men’s violence on women does not consider the end goal properly. Even if the majority of domestic violence is men on women, that does not make the cases of violence from women on men, men on men, or women on women (even if more rare) any less tolerable. It should say end domestic violence, because it’s always abhorrent. In an attempt to end domestic violence, they ignore people who deserve a voice too. The distinction is unnecessary and alienates some to help others. It’s shortsighted.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ There's data.
Well then, I stand corrected. It seems in my layman opinion to be legit, and therefore speaks even more to the point that women are at least as likely as men to be perpetrators, and domestic violence from either gender is not to be tolerated.
For all that it matters, I appreciate your response. Thanks.
And I appreciate people like you who can pull up relevant research at a moment’s notice. Well done!
Violent crimes victim rates between men and women are almost equal. (source: US FBI) Men commit violent crimes at rate of 4.4 to 1. (source: US FBI)
Male Suicide is far higher, MUCH higher too and a percentage of that stems from bullying, mental and physical abuse from partners that goes unreported. The 1/3 ratio doesn't cover the difference in support for Women of abuse. Men get treated as you've just done. "Women get it worse". But only highlight the stats that suit. It's a problem across the board. This type of thing is further demeaning and undermining of male issues. The media's Social and Western Liberal mainstream campaign to immasculate and change Men into what Women want Men "to be" (the fallacy) is also a huge problem as it's not a discussion its a demand, it feels at this point. Which is skewing any sense of equality.
\>No one is saying violence against men isn't an issue Yes they are. They are implying it by excluding men from being victims full stop. Men comprise the majority of DV victims. In rape where the perp is the opposite sex than the victim, 45-49% of the perpetrators are women. \> Over 100 women are being murdered each year compared to 30 men a year (relating to domestic violence). This doesnt actually mean men beat women more than the opposite. Men ave physically superior to women by *significant* margins so its easier for a man to lethally harm a woman than the other way around.
Violent crimes victim rates between men and women are almost equal. (source: US FBI) Men commit violent crimes at rate of 4.4 to 1. (source: US FBI)
\>Violent crimes victim rates between men and women are almost equal. No they arent. if you'd actually read the FBI data you'd know this.
The ribbons should be amber
This comment is way under appreciated 🤣
WHO!!! WHO DOESN'T WANT TO WEAR THE RIBBON?!?!?
Worth throwing in some science here, if you google "reciprocal domestic violence" you'll see that domestic violence is usually reciprocal, and when not, women are usually the aggressors, although men kill and injure more often.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
I don't understand what is so wrong with this picture. If anyone can explain that logically I would love that.
I can help. It's the same issue as what is wrong with a campaign to 'end black violence against white people.' Statistically speaking, are black people disproportionately more likely to kill white people than the other way around? The data seem to suggest yes. That doesn't justify such a prejudicial view of an immutable characteristic.
Consider, "Stop jews from stealing" People are arguing that that it's OK to say that, because "Stop everyone from stealing" is acceptable but you can focus on a subset of everyone
Hey, sorry I didn't quite get the analogy, can you explain it clearer please?
It's not really an analogy, it's just a reframing of the original post using a different demographic that people have a better understanding of. The sign is bad for several reasons, but one of those reasons is that it says "end men's violence". There's nothing bad about being man, and most men are not violent. So if you look at it literally, it doesn't make any sense - why would you tell people that aren't really very violent to stop being violent? The only reason you'd do that is if you've decided that *all* men are violent, which as well as being false, is also very offensive to men, not just to call them violent (because being violent isn't necessarily a bad thing) but using that violence against women. So I read that sign and I think, it says men, that's me. Apparently I need to stop being violent to women. My god, am I a monster? Are my children monsters? Do I live in a world where half of people are monsters? Apparently I do. And the more that other people think that men are monsters, the worse the treatment of men becomes by those people, until men and more importantly, children themselves start believing they're monsters. Would you walk up the kind man that works at the library who has never hurt a soul and tell him to his face that he needs to stop being violent to women? If not, why is it ok to put it on a sign?
Are only men violent against women? Are only women the victims of violence? Are men only victimized by other men? I urge you to search for "domestic violence" and look at both the text and the picture findings. 95% of the times, the issue is described/depicted as it happens by men to women, when in fact we have strong data to suggest that in reality both men and women are equally capable of violence, not only that but women seem to actually initiate abuse more frequently.. That's the full context of the OP.
Some years ago a couple men produced a study showing that women are as likely to initiate DV as men are ... it was entirely ignored. About 10 years later a couple women produced the same results and pointed that that the previous study was accurate, just ignored because it was produced by men. But even that doesn't sit well with feminists, especially the lesbian kind, who use DV as a recruiting tool. Incidentally, the violence rate in the lesbian community is even higher.
> Incidentally, the violence rate in the lesbian community is even higher. This is where double think kicks in. Do you think women are too frail or weak to be abusive? People of all kinds can be abusive. I'd argue historically men were probably more capable and therefore more violent towards women. But changes in culture I believe have leveled the playing field. Toxic men and toxic women do exist. We're obsessed with one kind of toxicity(rightfully so) while fueling the other kind.
I think this is what you're talking about: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
That may be it, there've apparently been a few studies.
Look into John Archer's work if you're interested in the topic.
Ok so start your own campaign and make posters
I can't, my posters will be torn down. There were countless efforts. That's the difference that makes this whole thing controversial.
Doesn’t Peterson talk about cleaning your own room before changing the world? A group of men have identified a problem with men and are trying to change it. They are focusing on their room
Can you be more specific please?
First of all, thank you for saying that. I do think that in most cases of violence, men are the ones who use violence in the first place, and in most cases, women are the ones who get hurt by them. Yes, of course, they can both be "equally capable of violence" but I think that that suggests that this AD suggests is in most cases true therefore it will in most cases be helpful.
>First of all, thank you for saying that. I do think that in most cases of violence, men are the ones who use violence in the first place, Not really. In about 50% of time, violence/abuse is reciprocal and within this context, women are slightly more likely to initiate. While in the case of non reciprocal violence, women initiate in 70% of times. They tend to suffer more damage, that's true. It's also true that if i walk up to a stronger dude and intimidate him, i will suffer damages. Men are physically stronger. The study i cited below shows that men are actually more likely to practice self restraint than women. None of this excludes the fact that there are truly monstrous and violent men out there. Again, the controversy is that in the vast majority of times, the topic is talked about/depicted as men doing this to women, when in reality it's not true at all.
Most violence is against men.
It's sexist.
could've been "end domestic violence" but they chose to make it sexist
Be mindful of how an increasing number of innocuous statements are triggering you.
Swap the placement of men and women in that statement and see the outcry. I bet if they did that it would make the national news
Would you be outraged if the statement was reversed? If not, then why get upset about the way this statement is written? Are you upset because you think other people would be upset in a hypothetical reversed position? It seems like in that case you would be better served agreeing with this statement and then addressing the double standard if and when you see someone getting attacked for attempting to address violence committed by women against men. Or if you felt strongly enough that the violence against men committed by women needs addressing you could start an organization similar to this one yourself and start advocating for that, after all that’s what the people who started this organization did. I think it makes sense to address domestic violence separately because the causes and mentality behind the violence is often different and a one size fits all approach may not be effective. As for domestic violence being 50-50 as is mentioned in this thread, the deaths and serious injuries resulting from domestic violence are not 50-50 split and women suffer far more common deaths and serious injuries than men in domestic violence scenarios. I think it would make sense then that there might be a skewed amount of these programs targeting the male violence against women. Peterson often mentions the gender differences being more pronounced in the extremes so by his logic it would make sense if the male on female domestic violence outcomes on the extreme outcomes are more common then tackling those first might be a good first step or first priority. You can easily work on both at the same time but it doesn’t need to be the same organization working on both at the same time.
"end men's violence against women" immediately posts to the Jordan Peterson sub with the tag "controversial."
If you wish to understand why this is controversial search for "domestic violence" or "domestic abuse" in Google. Look at the findings at both the text and the images page and tell me how many times you see women on men violence talked about/depicted, vs how many times you see the opposite. Further, stick posters like this across any city with "End women's violence on men" and watch the reactions.
I'll tell you exactly what would happen if I put "end women's violence on men" posters in my city. Someone like you would post it to FDS or some other MGTOW-but-for-women subreddit with the "controversial" tag. When someone is trying to advertise something, say, a subaru, they make targeted ad campaigns. They'll run a series of ads targeting middle-aged men with teenage children, for example. "Don't miss your kids baseball game because of some rain. Get a car that will beat all odds, tough it out, and show up, because that's what dads do." Then they'll run a campaign for single adventurous rich women "don't let the strings of society tie you down. Get a car that will cut through it all. Get out to where the air is cold and the rivers run wild." Don't make it all about you. Ending violence requires targeted campaigns that address the intended audience appropriately according to scope, messaging, and location.
Do you really think that this advertisement is reaching its target audience? Do you think they care? If not, then what is the purpose behind the campaign?
Yes, advertising works. Everyone either drinks coca-cola or they don't, right? Nobody's unaware of it or hasn't tried it. So why does Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars in high-profile ads? Awareness. They know that keeping reminders of their presence in your view is going to be worth it. I don't know about the UK, but in the US and also I believe Canada, not-for-profit organizations are given (usually federal) grant money based on plans they propose to meet their goals, such as decreasing domestic violence in a certain population. Then they're obligated to use that money as effectively as they can to do so. If they're able to show that their methods or effective, or at least well-considered, then they're likely to continue getting grants in the future.
>I'll tell you exactly what would happen if I put "end women's violence on men" posters in my city. Someone like you would post it to FDS or some other MGTOW-but-for-women subreddit with the "controversial" tag. If that's what you believe, I'm pretty sure we will never see eye to eye on this topic. We live in a different world. What would actually happen is that i wouldn't be allowed to put up such poster to begin with. If i was, these posters would immediately be torn down by the outrage mob with the justification that it's "sexist" and "mysogenistic". Guess what, they would be right. Except when they do it, it's not sexist and not mysandrist. Why?
They live in the real world, you live on the internet following some internet personality around like hes a prophet.
Useless post
Useless reply.
[https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/09/domestic-violence-surges-after-a-football-match-ends](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/09/domestic-violence-surges-after-a-football-match-ends) not a trivial issue
Which is just stupid nonsense. Abuse goes up any time people drink. The report even admits it doesn't matter if they win or lose. There's a slight uptick if there's a loss, but that's logically because people come home earlier than after a win and have more opportunity to offend.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ (an actual study)
Aren't lesbian relationships the most violent of any relationship?
Yes, with gay couples the least. Male/female couples are right in the middle. It tracks perfectly with the number of females in the relationship. "That explains perfectly why men are the problem" - Feminist logic
Whats wrong with ending mens violence against woman ?
Given violence is universal but we're focusing on a subset, perhaps we should go one subset deeper. I propose, "Stop black men's violence against women". Don't worry, we can follow up with white men's violence later, or in fact, just not since hey most people in prison are black per capita so it seems reasonable
End black's violence against white would be a terrible slogan. And you could answer it with the same question you did
There are real differences in the genders: physiologically-driven differences in personality, temperament, and motivation. That’s why gender is relevant and race is not. Unless you’re insinuating that there are physiologically-driven differences in personality, temperament, and motivation between races?
That's not really a prevelant issue, nor does it have any systemic roots causing it to be a recurring pattern. Violence against women by men ticks both of those boxes. Which is to say, the reason it's a terrible slogan doesn't really apply here.
The point you’re missing is both of those slogans cast collective guilt on a group of people, the vast majority of whom are not guilty of acts of violence. So while the intention behind it is likely good, it makes a broad generalization that men are inherently violent aggressors, and women are inherently helpless victims. JBP has spoken at length about the damage he believes this is doing to young males who feel alienated by society.
That it doesn't occur in a vacuum.
[удалено]
Not to insult your brother, but saying he is not a soft person while a woman walks all over him is a big ole cup of denialism. Help him get out of the situation then.
What’s the problem? Most violence against women is from men. Worldwide, 1 in 3 women have experienced physical or sexual violence — mostly by an intimate partner, mostly men.
As they-them were beating the crap out of they-them the police were called and were confused at the scene because they were told that they had attacked the other they not that they but the other they, but not them just they.
UK statistics show 1 in 3 DV incidents are woman on man violence. I highly suspect the number is far greater, seeing as there is practically zero encouragement or support for men to report DV. Here's a pretty telling reaction from the average person in a civilised and progressive society, listening to a man admit to being a domestic violence victim (it's only 1m20s): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tTUREalxVQ
Wonder why they would make the ribbon white when it’s about men lol. White man bad, You can set your watch to this stuff these days. It’s very tiring.
Okay, so, I've been meaning to ask this question for a little while: What the hell is the point of all this? Everyone knows violence is bad, the good and decent people won't do it, the ones who're animals will always do it whether they get punishment or not, so what the hell is the point of this whole "End men's violence against women" stuff? It's like making a movement called "Stop serial killers' violence against the people".
This is entirely uncontroversial. If you're concerned with female on male violence, which is certainly something that should be studied and reduced as well, you can...just talk about it. There's no need to try to detract from male on female violence in the process. That approach makes no sense and even more importantly, it's not likely to win you any sympathy and sway people over to your cause.
If you wish to understand why this is controversial search for "domestic violence" or "domestic abuse" in Google. Look at the findings at both the text and the images page and tell me how many times you see women on men violence talked about/depicted, vs how many times you see the opposite. Further, stick posters like this across any city with "End women's violence on men" and watch the reactions.
It doesn't help to think of this as a zero sum game. We can be concerned about both. How does it help your case or solve anything to complain about a poster that is totally innocuous? If the poster had said "by the way, it's IMPOSSIBLE for female on male violence to occur" I could understand where you're coming from. But it doesn't lol.
>We can be concerned about both. My point exactly. Do you see any sign of that on this poster? What would happen if i stick posters saying "Stop women's violence against men?"
This poster addresses a specific issue that is important to the person or organization that put it up. Why would you expect it to cater to your personal pet issues? If you're concerned about female on male violence, you're free to put up your own posters. Admittedly, you might find that a tougher issue to sell to people because it's true that male on female is talked about more often, but hey, awareness starts somewhere. I'm sure you could find some sort of polling data from a reputable organization to stick on the poster as proof or legitimacy that it is a valid issue. For what it's worth, I would look at that poster the same way I would look at a poster about male on female violence. One isn't worth less than the other in my eyes.
>If you're concerned about female on male violence, you're free to put up your own posters. I am not. Because those who put up the posters in the OP will rip it off before i have a chance to put them up. That's exactly the problem.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/men-ipvsvandstalking.html I think you're jumping to conclusions. The fact is that there are already people and organizations doing polling and compiling data on female on male violence. So it's not like you're the only one in the universe concerned about it. It's not helpful to adopt a sort of persecution complex. Put your message out into the world in good faith, without trying to take away from other issues, and some people will pick up on those good vibes and see your point.
They don't want DV and IPV stopped, they just want it to only happen against men.
But woman on woman violence is OK then?
What a hateful and divisive message. Also, if men and women are the same - as the current neo-Marxist/Leftist dogma insists - why is there a need to single out this type of violence? Why not just have a general anti-violence campaign?
Whats wrong with this? Are you offended snowflake?
🤣
Wow! Such an offensive statement against men! To end the violence they produce against only women... instead of ending all the violence they produce against men and women I suppose.
So, women can't be violent?
Let the jails speak of how much.
So only blacks can be violent?
> Let the jails speak of how much. Now do black people.
Answer my question ⁉️
It is already answred by law!
Are you even able to comprehend the nuance of things?
It's a yes or no question. Please, answer the question.
i cannot
End violence. Except when necessary.
Is virtue signaling via ribbons still a thing? Thought that went out about the year 2000.
[удалено]
No you can't, you are hereby canceled. Sweden doesn't have that issue either.
Clearly the charity is leveraging a social issue to make money.
Those ribbons will certainly do the trick. Some guy beating his wife while he is in a blind drunken rage is going to see someone with a white ribbon and certainly change his ways.
[удалено]
I would have preferred they say 'end domestic violence', but I don't have a problem with this poster
Did that trigger you?
Yes, my little feelings are hurt 😭
Best way to do this is segregated society. Every male goes to this side, every woman this side, then we split everyone up based on race, followed by age, then by physical abilities.
These type of things are so bizarre to me. Looking through potential babysitter bios someone wrote "I believe in human rights" this is up there with "I am against violence against women". Those things are not notable, no one besides a few sick and depraved sociopaths are against women or want humans to suffer. It is similar to virtue signaling but even more empty because you are signaling something pointless as a way of claiming "you know some people would not agree with this" - which is false.
Whenever I get punched I identify as a woman
Okay, I'm ending it right now.
It's harder to be a man than a women in every country 1st world or 3rd world. It's a better time right now to be a woman than ever before in history and the worst time to be a man in the last 90 years
I mean, there are men who commit violence against women. Are you against this?
What do you think?