Domestic violence on the school curriculum?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I think that is your own paranoia. Does she actually say that?

Read the quote in the first post. She doesn't seem to be putting much effort in to pointing out that men are also the victims.

[Flyboy]

I read that thank you, but I can not see any problem with it. Don't you think that it should be a priority to reduce domestic violence?

The quote does not say that violence against men should be ignored, but as a further link pointed out, women are disproportionately victims of domestic violence. Are you sure that your objection to this isn't just because it is Harriet Harman who is saying this?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I read that thank you, but I can not see any problem with it. Don't you think that it should be a priority to reduce domestic violence?

The quote does not say that violence against men should be ignored, but as a further link pointed out, women are disproportionately victims of domestic violence. Are you sure that your objection to this isn't just because it is Harriet Harman who is saying this?

Partially, I just don't like the woman. She should be making a statement about all domestic abuse being unacceptable, rather than concentrating on just one side of it. People like her giving more publicity to that one side will only serve to increase the incorrect belief that domestic violence against men is not taken seriously - a belief shown by a survey by Men's Health to be one of the main reasons male victims don't come forward.

[punky]

If anyone hasn't worked out why this won't work, i'll tell you.

Male domestic violence abusers broadly fit into two categories:

1. People that have uncontrollable rage. They know they shouldn't but once they are annoyed the red mist comes and lose control of their actions. Therefore telling them at 5 they shouldn't do it wouldn't be any use.

2. People that are just evil. They know they shouldn't do it but there brains are such badly-wired they don't care. Telling them at 5 they shouldn't do it wouldn't be of any use.

As for women, they know they shouldn't put up with domestic violence. They also know there are many organisations (of which many are female-specific) that can help. However the reasons they don't are often practicality such as kids, opportunity to get or emotional issues such as love or if they have been in long enough, they have become dependent on their abuser.

There has been several campaigns over the last couple of decades to get women to be more proactive in highlighting and fighting abuse. Reporting has risen dramatically and now almost plateaued. There are many domestic violence laws that have been enacted.

The cynic in me thinks this is just postering to appease the pink vote.

If anyone actually does care about domestic violence then its violence against males and LGBT that truly need help. Both are dramatically underreported and lacking in organisations to help.

One issue that particularly gauls me about domestic violence against men is that its considered funny or normal. i.e. A man asking a girl out getting a slap. Imagine the same happening in reverse? Its social attitudes like this which are causing women to believe they have the right to abuse men.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by punky

One issue that particularly gauls me about domestic violence against men is that its considered funny or normal. i.e. A man asking a girl out getting a slap. Imagine the same happening in reverse?

The singer Pink? In her videos she's often beating men up, same for the Sugababes - I don't hear Harman or her lot speaking out about that.

Basically we agree her quote should have said this instead:

...tackling violence against others was "one of the government's top priorities"...."...We have to work to change attitudes in order to eliminate violence against others and to make it clear beyond doubt that any form of violence against anyone is unacceptable,"

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

Basically we agree her quote should have said this instead:

Yes, excellently put

Originally Posted by Russ

The singer Pink? In her videos she's often beating men up, same for the Sugababes - I don't hear Harman or her lot speaking out about that.

I think it's different in those cases. It's not implying beating men up is ok but rather breaking with the perceived norm (i.e Men are stronger than Women) to show empowerment. You'll find the men in those cases are probably strong, imposing figures. It would be more worrying if the men were in a corner sheltering while they attack them with bats or something. It's often shown in a more fun/sexual way..

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think it's different in those cases. It's not implying beating men up is ok but rather breaking with the perceived norm (i.e Men are stronger than Women) to show empowerment. You'll find the men in those cases are probably strong, imposing figures. It would be more worrying if the men were in a corner sheltering while they attack them with bats or something. It's often shown in a more fun/sexual way..

In one of the Sugababes' videos, I think it's "Freak Like Me" it shows them beating up men in nightclubs. Is that the right way to show female empowerment?

Would it be morally right if a henpecked man or a guy who was the victim of abuse was depicted as punching a woman's lights out? If you're trying to imply that in these cases 2 wrongs make a right then I'd be surprised and a little disappointed.

There are other ways to represent female empowerment and violence is NOT one of them.

Originally Posted by Russ

In one of the Sugababes' videos, I think it's "Freak Like Me" it shows them beating up men in nightclubs. Is that the right way to show female empowerment?

Would it be morally right if a henpecked man or a guy who was the victim of abuse was depicted as punching a woman's lights out? If you're trying to imply that in these cases 2 wrongs make a right then I'd be surprised and a little disappointed.

There are other ways to represent female empowerment and violence is NOT one of them.

No. What I am suggesting is that the reason why it's objected to is not because it's Men beating up Women or Women beating up Men but that's it's the Strong beating up the Weak. The reason why it mostly manifests as Men beating up Women is because historically and cultural we perceive men as stronger than women.

In this videos the Men are strong, and the empowerment idea is that counter to the idea that Women are weak they are actually strong. The sides are matched, it's not the strong beating on the weak. These videos use a rather obvious way of expressing that

Really, it's not different to men vs men fights and so on. Look at movies/TV shows. It is much less offensive if a man and women are fighting if they are equally matched (James Bond films are an example). Of course in real life any form of violence is offensive.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

No. What I am suggesting is that the reason why it's objected to is not because it's Men beating up Women or Women beating up Men but that's it's the Strong beating up the Weak. The reason why it mostly manifests as Men beating up Women is because historically and cultural we perceive men as stronger than women.

In this videos the Men are strong, and the empowerment idea is that counter to the idea that Women are weak they are actually strong. The sides are matched, it's not the strong beating on the weak. These videos use a rather obvious way of expressing that

Really, it's not different to men vs men fights and so on. Look at movies/TV shows. It is much less offensive if a man and women are fighting if they are equally matched (James Bond films are an example).

Do you agree that showing women beating up men in these videos is the wrong way to represent female empowerment?

And do you agree it might encourage their more impressionable fans to think it's acceptable for women to hit men?

[nomadking]

Erin Pizzey set up the world's first refuge for battered women in 1971 - and went on to establish an international movement for victims of domestic violence.
.
.
Indeed, my mother's explosive temper and abusive behaviour shaped the person I later became like no other event in my life.

Thirty years later, when feminism exploded onto the scene, I was often mistaken for a supporter of the movement. But I have never been a feminist, because, having experienced my mother's violence, I always knew that women can be as vicious and irresponsible as men.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the movement, which proclaimed that all men are potential rapists and batterers, was based on a lie that, if allowed to flourish, would result in the complete destruction of family life.

From the very beginning, I waged war against my mother and quickly learned to disassociate myself from the pain of her beatings.

Her words, however, stayed with me all my life. 'You are lazy, useless, and ugly,' she would scream. 'You look like your father's side of the family - Irish trash.'

They were vicious words that I have heard repeated over and over by mothers everywhere. Indeed, when I later opened my refuge for battered women, 62 of the first 100 to come through the door were as abusive as the men they had left.

Originally Posted by Russ

Do you agree that showing women beating up men in these videos is the wrong way to represent female empowerment?

And do you agree it might encourage their more impressionable fans to think it's acceptable for women to hit men?

I am not sure if it's the correct way to show it, I honestly don't have an answer to that since I think female empowerment is not about physical attributes but should be about equal rights. However that is not a popular topic for music videos and not as visually dramatic. I certainly do not think it encourages domestic abuse.

I don't agree it makes a culture of it being acceptable to hit men anymore than the fights between James Bond and that women in Goldeneye encourages violence against women. The difference is if one side is portrayed to be a victim, and weak, while the other is dominant and strong. Even then it might be artistically justified if the actions are shown to be evil and not to be emulated (i.e domestic abuse storylines in dramas).

If in the video the men were shown to be victims and weak, then they hit them, and it glorified it, then yes I would object to that.

If they are shown be equal and fighting then it's no different in any other form of violence in the media. I think we are smart enough to separate reality from fiction.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

If they are shown be equal and fighting then it's no different in any other form of violence in the media. I think we are smart enough to separate reality from fiction.

On the assumption that you'd agree that a pop video showing men beating up women would cause outrage, can you see why there's a general feeling of one-sidedness in this?

Originally Posted by Russ

On the assumption that you'd agree that a pop video showing men beating up women would cause outrage, can you see why there's a general feeling of one-sidedness in this?

Yes, That one sided, but that's because of a cultural perception. However what you said what be objectionable if the women was portrayed as a victim and it was glorified. If they were righting and it was equal it wouldn't be outrageous.