A really annoying Public service announcement.

[Pythos]

There is a PSA I hear and see in the media that just rubs me the wrong way.

Now understand, the message it states is a fine one. It deals with domestic violence, and it is usally done by a baseball player or country music singer (ironic).

The problem I have with it is, it is way too limited in its message.

The message is "teach your boys that violence against women is wrong."

Here is an even better idea. "teach your children that violence against anyone who has not hurt you, is wrong".

Notice how the second message is much wider in scope, but focuses on the real problem. Pointless senseless violence. The way the message is currently seems to put across the message that boys shouldn't hit women, but women can hit men. Both are wrong.

I don't like the fact that in a domestic violence situation it is always the man who is arrested, EVEN if it was the woman that was doing the striking. That is blatently unfair, but it happens all the time.

any wonder I don't want to get involved with just anyone?

[Departed Member]

Hear, hear, Pythos - well said!

We have similar problems in the UK with (so PC!) County Councils like Nottinghamshire - they have just launched a campaign relating to Domestic Violence - according to them (cretins, that they are), ALL domestic violence is committed by men against defence-less women & children. Yet police records show it to be 60/40 as far as reported incidents are concerned (which doesn't take into account a significant number of blokes who don't/won't make a complaint, for fear of public ridicule). My wife's best friend's mother has persistently attacked her (now 86 yr old) husband, recently leaving him hospitalised with a broken hip. So it's not just youngsters/middle-aged involved! Needless to say, Notts CC will be receiving a formal complaint from us, shortly.

[AMM]

There is a PSA I hear and see in the media that just rubs me the wrong way.
...
The problem I have with it is, it is way too limited in its message.

The message is "teach your boys that violence against women is wrong."

Here is an even better idea. "teach your children that violence against anyone who has not hurt you, is wrong".

Notice how the second message is much wider in scope, but focuses on the real problem. Pointless senseless violence. The way the message is currently seems to put across the message that boys shouldn't hit women, but women can hit men. Both are wrong.

First of all, I hope (maybe in vain) that we can avoid getting into one of those dreaded (and forbidden) Political Discussions(tm).

On the one hand, I think there is a point to specifically targeting (a) male violence and (b) violence against women.

1. At least in my part of the world (USA), boys are brought up with the idea that being violent is an essential part of masculinity, and those who can't or don't respond to threats with violence are considered legitimate targets. Behavior that would earn jail time when done by adults is considered normal and expected behavior among boys.

There is nothing like this for girls; if anything, they are trained to be passive in the face of threats and attacks.

2. Girls (and women) are considered, by definition, in the "target" class. Supposedly, there is a rule that "boys don't hit girls," but I've never noticed that men that hit women lose any face among their friends. There are a lot of guys out there who can find ways to see it as justified. It's considered even cooler (in those circles) to go out and find guys that you can beat up, but it's much rarer because unless you're real tough, you might get beaten up yourself. The "nice thing" (from the guys' point of view) about hitting women is that you don't have to worry about the women fighting back. (And they pick women who won't fight back.)

Women can be violent, too, but there's much less of an active culture of female violence. Count the number of films, TV shows, books, ads, etc., showing men "solving" problems with fists, guns, etc., and see if you can find even a tenth as many showing women doing the same.


On the other hand, PSAs like this annoy me, too.

My objection is that they just sound so clueless. It's like the "just say no" campaigns -- they blithely ignore the enormous social forces that cause the problems. All they do is allow the people who create and air the PSAs to pride themselves on "doing something," without actually changing anything.

+ + + + +

I'm not sure how this relates to men-in-skirts, except that it is part of the male-female gender role divide:

trousers = male = tough = aggressor

skirts = female = weak = victim

[Pythos]

*I'm not sure how this relates to men-in-skirts, except that it is part of the male-female gender role divide: *

I think the title of this section is Other stuff. *looks at title*, yup, other stuff.

[Departed Member]

First of all, I hope (maybe in vain) that we can avoid getting into one of those dreaded (and forbidden) Political Discussions(tm).

Err, just how could anyone see this topic as 'political', unless you are comparing different countries current social standards?

On the one hand, I think there is a point to specifically targeting (a) male violence and (b) violence against women.

Whilst I understand that you are saying, that in the USA, it is normal, acceptable behaviour for males to beat up females, it certainly isn't in the UK. Domestic violence, carried out by men only, just does not occur in 10% of homes that our PSAs would like to have us believe. If it did, the hospital waiting rooms, police stations & doctors would be full to bursting point 24/7. Sure, I've known families where this has occurred, but no more than where the woman has been the aggressor. Of course, the UK is (& has been for some 500+ years), primarily a matriarchal society, so that may well account for the disparity between your perception (of domestic violence) and mine!

My objection is that they just sound so clueless. It's like the "just say no" campaigns -- they blithely ignore the enormous social forces that cause the problems. All they do is allow the people who create and air the PSAs to pride themselves on "doing something," without actually changing anything. .

Now, I will strongly agree with your observations here! The biggest bugbear we have in the UK are the County Road Safety Committees in this respect!

I'm not sure how this relates to men-in-skirts, except that it is part of the male-female gender role divide:

trousers = (male =) tough = aggressor

skirts = (female =) weak = victim

Try leaving out the gender section there. That really does impinge on why many blokes, otherwise interested, fear wearing skirts 'out & about'!

[crfriend]

Whilst I understand that you are saying, that in the USA, it is normal, acceptable behaviour for males to beat up females, it certainly isn't in the UK.

It is most certainly NOT "acceptable behaviour" in the USA. Domestic assault, and battery, are both criminal offences -- and felonies at that in most jurisdictions. That doesn't mean that it does not happen, because it does, and safety-nets are available for those in distress which is very important. We're not that backward!

[AMM]

Whilst I understand that you are saying, that in the USA, it is normal, acceptable behaviour for males to beat up females, it certainly isn't in the UK.

It is most certainly NOT "acceptable behaviour" in the USA. Domestic assault, and battery, are both criminal offences -- and felonies at that in most jurisdictions. That doesn't mean that it does not happen, because it does, and safety-nets are available for those in distress which is very important. We're not that backward!

"Acceptable behavior" to whom? It isn't acceptable to me, and if it's acceptable to any of the people I know, they don't express it in front of me. And, as crfriend points out, there are laws against it.

But if you look around the web, or listen to radio, you'll find plenty of people who do consider it "acceptable behavior."

If anyone is really interested in learning about it, there are plenty of resources on the Web and in libraries about this, so I won't belabor it.

[Skirt Chaser]

There is a PSA I hear and see in the media that just rubs me the wrong way.

Now understand, the message it states is a fine one. It deals with domestic violence, and it is usally done by a baseball player or country music singer (ironic).

The problem I have with it is, it is way too limited in its message.

Haven't seen the ads but my assumption is that it is funded by a group focused on preventing abuse of women so that would be why the message is limited in that way. Looking up domestic violence sites I do see spotty inclusion for battered men though. A group with the name "National Coalition Against Domestic Violence" only speaks of helping women and children. Excluding battered men from that definition defies reality and helps nobody.

On the other side I bumped into a site devoted to preventing abuse in teen relationships http://loveisrespect.org/ and their message is gender neutral. Their parent site "The National Domestic Violence Hotline" http://www.ndvh.org/ is also very clear that anybody can be a victim. This little educational fact-finding tour was quite a sobering one. Both of these well done, inclusive sites begin with a pop up reminding the user that computer use is easily monitored and there is an "escape" button at the top of each of their pages so that the user can quickly get to a basic search website if their abuser walks in on them while at the domestic violence site. In the midst of living that kind of reality the last thing a battered man needs is to feel is that he is alone and it only happens to women.

Quiet Mouse

[Departed Member]

The impression we get from the various USA-generated films, TV, etc., is that 'domestic violence' is 'one way traffic' (&, I'm sorry to say, not apparently unusual - hence my un-qualified acceptance of the jist of AMM's earlier post).

PC-oriented groups here (UK), are mounting strenuous efforts to portray this 'social cancer' (for that's what it is) as 100% male sponsored. I'm getting angry, very angry (rare, so rare), and that doesn't bode well for those who cross followers of Wicca. The PC brigade (here in the UK) are completely undermining efforts to fight this 'cancer'. It doesn't help that the SS is in the forefront of this anti-male propaganda (SS = Social Services).

We are currently trying to help my wife's best friend's family cope with what's happening within their lives. Her Dad just won't complain - he feels the 'powers-that-be', not only wouldn't listen, but be only too happy to condemn him! It's taken some effort, but we now have the SS 'over a barrel' - they will be compelled to act - in his favour, if things get worse. It is extremely frustrating that it becomes necessary to forcibly 're-focus' Social Workers - this (domestic) story inevitably will have no happy ending, but at least we, as friends, will be there to support each & every.............

[DavidsSkirts]

Whilst I understand that you are saying, that in the USA, it is normal, acceptable behaviour for males to beat up females, it certainly isn't in the UK.

It is most certainly NOT "acceptable behaviour" in the USA. Domestic assault, and battery, are both criminal offences -- and felonies at that in most jurisdictions. That doesn't mean that it does not happen, because it does, and safety-nets are available for those in distress which is very important. We're not that backward!

What a pity then that it is still so prevalent, in that case - it often seems that the laws and safety-nets over there are about as effective as they are here, and anywhere else...


This is not a political discussion, but it is social..
and even the mere threat of violence against anyone - someone acting violently towards a person who simply looks or acts differently to them, without actually threatening or harming the aggressor; or to take a position of power over someone (e.g. spousal abuse, child abuse, sexual assaults, gang turf wars, terrorist attacks, pre-emptive strikes, invasions to "liberate" resources..); or simply for the thrill of inflicting harm and pain - is obviously wrong..


Violence by women is often a lot higher than was once suspected or reported - it can be up to 25% of the total number of assaults (with children often more heavily represented among the victims..) - this is because of under-reporting of female violence in the past, which also represents a under-reporting of total attacks by around 20%.
The obvious reason for a lot of this would have been because a few people simply didn't want to believe that so many women could be so violent, or some men would be victims..
And down here, some male victims are finding that female aggressors are still being treated like victims - as can be seen in the USA and UK...

[Since1982]

Someone has been watching too many very old Police shows on American TV. Up until about 1995 that IS the way it was. Not any more, now they arrest the woman just as quickly as the man if SHE starts the fight. You have to look at the top of the film to see the date it was filmed. Most that end up giving the message that the guy is the only one arrested have dates before the turn of the century and even more yet are in the early 90's. IT HAS CHANGED. Make sure you get the dates of your "new" information checked before you accept it as current. I've been a cop show buff for 30 years and have seen the changes that have happened. :)The ones that start with the tune "Bad Boys, Bad Boys, whatcha gonna doooo, whatcha gonna dooo when they come for youuuuu" are the old ones. The real life "Video Vigilantes" specializing in catching Cops doing the wrong thing have nearly stopped Police injustice completely.

[sapphire]

Ay in 2007arls an interesting aside, early in 2007, Massachusetts passed legislation to protect animals in domestic abuse situations.