2in2u.ie - government sponsered gender discrimination?

ApeXaviour

<this was a tangent on the gender discrimination is illegal motor insurance thread. It was suggested I start a new thread on the topic.>

In a pub the other day I saw an ad for www.2in2u.ie (don't even bother ticking the boxes, it very annoyingly doesn't make any difference to the outcome, just click the submit button at the bottom!). I was appalled at how it took such a circumscribed stance on what is not at all a gender specific issue. It's more shocking that rubbish like this is funded by our National Development Plan...

It irks me (no more or less than if it were reversed) when I see domestic abuse portrayed solely as a male=instigator, female=victim. While perhaps this is not quite so sinister, it's still harmful to attitudes. It really really did not need to be gender specific.

The following was was James Jones' peek into the other government agency stamped at the bottom: Cosc.

James Jones wrote: »

One of those Govt agencies is Cosc, "The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence".

It seems that gender based violence only affects one gender. I must get on to the Gender Equality Division who say that

"Gender equality is achieved when women and men enjoy the same rights and opportunities across all sectors of society, including economic participation and decision-making, and when the different behaviours, aspirations and needs of women and men are equally valued and favoured".

On second thoughts, maybe not. Their website states that

Government policy in this area includes:
the provision of a legal framework that provides for equal treatment of women and men;
the National Women's Strategy 2007-2016, which is the Government's policy document in relation to the advancement of women in Irish society. The Strategy contains 20 key objectives and over 200 planned actions which are grouped under the three key themes of:
Equalising socio-economic opportunity for women;
Ensuring the wellbeing of women;
and Engaging women as equal and active citizens.
a programme of positive action measures, including the Equality for Women Measure 2010-2013, to enhance women's skills and to foster their engagement in Irish society and decision-making where they are under-represented

HellFireClub

Just visited that site, it's disgusting... It's an absolute disgrace that taxpayers money can be spent on such an obviously feminist developed pile of utter rubbish such as this.

I wouldn't say that it is discriminatory, it's just downright offensive, I've been with girls over the years who have gone through my phone and/or e-mails, it was nothing to do with their gender, it was because they were paranoid sad immature individuals.

Is there any place that you could e-mail to object to this woeful use of taxpayers money???

HellFireClub

The campaign is plastered all over this site: http://www.womensaid.ie/

One of the slogans, is, "Remember, if it feel's wrong, it probably is"...

Sounds like a healthy dose of paranoia is now what is advised on the dating scene...

cantdecide

Is there some context that we're missing here? Is it part of some larger campaign or something like that? It just seems baffling one sided on it's own.

Fittle

I've heard that ad on the radio and to be honest, was completely confused by it! I really don't get it - and like the previous poster said, I was thinking it might be part of a wider 'women's rights' campaign perhaps, and we haven't heard about the rest of it? I don't understand why they would be targeting young women this way, when it's obvious that this particular issue (is it even a domestic violence issue - appears to me to be about control in relationships) is nothing to do with gender.

I'm female and find the ad completely offensive also.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I don't think its that big a deal - all the B options are pretty nuts and all the C options are outright bonkers.

IME women tend to be far far worse for staying with controlling men than men staying with controlling girls, and I have more male friends than female.

Just because it is targeted at women with crazy boyfriends doesn't mean they're implying there are no crazy girls out there or that B & C options are typical of men. Lets not get hypersensitive lads.

Bottle_of_Smoke

HellFireClub wrote: »

The campaign is plastered all over this site: http://www.womensaid.ie/

One of the slogans, is, "Remember, if it feel's wrong, it probably is"...

Sounds like a healthy dose of paranoia is now what is advised on the dating scene...

No not at all. I think its pretty good advice. Often people don't escape relationships because they feel they are in the wrong. Maybe that line will help people to follow their instinct

cantdecide

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

...Often people don't escape relationships because they feel they are in the wrong...

"People", yes. But why then aim this exclusively at women? That's the point.

clouds

Well said Bottle of Smoke.

And Hellfireclub what's wrong with using a small portion of taxpayer money on feminist issues? They use taxpayers money on every other interest group you care to name. Why not womens issues? Also what's the issue with it being 'plastered' all over the WomensAid site? Which is a site for women trying to escape domestic abuse. Would you expect to find anti-fatty foods ads on a heart health website? Your language is interesting and betrays your feelings about womens rights very clearly.

And before you say they are portraying men as controlling abusers, eh no they're not. Most people (even feminists!) know the difference between an abuser and a normal man with normal faults. Ironically it's the people (usually women it has to be said) who are being abused and controlled who have the hardest time differentiating.

clouds

cantdecide wrote: »

"People", yes. But why then aim this exclusively at women? That's the point.

Because more women that men put up with domestic abuse.

And so what? Why not aim it at a certain subset of the population who are affected by a particular issue?

Perhaps anyone who is concerned for the men should set up their own charity aimed at helping them. i'd support it, like I support the women's one. I'd imagine most people would.

VERYinterested

I'm male and I had heard the radio commercial and I wanted to visit their site to see what it was all about. You would never know from the radio ad what the correct address is to type in to the URL bar. I tried Googling it and it doesn't come up, so the radio campaign is also a waste of money. Sounds like the radio ad was written and performed by work experience kids.

Edit: I also used to snigger at the 'two in to you' concept, it sounds like an ad for spit roasting!

clouds

Fittle wrote: »

I've heard that ad on the radio and to be honest, was completely confused by it! I really don't get it - and like the previous poster said, I was thinking it might be part of a wider 'women's rights' campaign perhaps, and we haven't heard about the rest of it? I don't understand why they would be targeting young women this way, when it's obvious that this particular issue (is it even a domestic violence issue - appears to me to be about control in relationships) is nothing to do with gender.

I'm female and find the ad completely offensive also.

I don't get this attitude Fittle. Why be offended because bad things happen to women and other people want to help them?

I don't have the stats to hand that say it's mostly a female issue. So I won't try to argue using them. But even if it's half and half WHY NOT target half that group? Perhaps mens groups can also stand up and be counted and put in 40 years of work like womens aid has, and maybe one day they too can have an ad partly funded by both male and female taxpayers aimed at helping them.

Anyway surely men undergoing abuse can identify with women in the same situation? If it's not a gendered issue surely nobody notices what gender the perpetrators/victims are and anyone affected will identify with the situation not the gender.

tricky D

clouds wrote: »

Well said Bottle of Smoke.

And Hellfireclub what's wrong with using a small portion of taxpayer money on feminist issues? They use taxpayers money on every other interest group you care to name. Why not womens issues? Also what's the issue with it being 'plastered' all over the WomensAid site? Which is a site for women trying to escape domestic abuse. Would you expect to find anti-fatty foods ads on a heart health website? Your language is interesting and betrays your feelings about womens rights very clearly.

The problem is that it's feeding a false perception that domestic abuse is almost all men towards women. This neglects the significant abuse which occurs the other way and importantly the effects on children. It's not a black and white issue at all, yet is too often portrayed as such.

cantdecide

clouds wrote: »

...what's wrong with using a small portion of taxpayer money on feminist issues? ...

clouds wrote: »

...Because more women that men put up with domestic abuse...

Should men who are suffering any form of abuse from their partner's go to hell then? This is a social issue not a gender issue. The government shouldn't support one-sided campaigns.

Bottle_of_Smoke

cantdecide wrote: »

"People", yes. But why then aim this exclusively at women? That's the point.

I guess that's because they're a women's group. Perhaps there shouldn't be women's groups in that format but that's a different issue.

As I said in the previous most IME women are much worse for staying in toxic relationships.

clouds

tricky D wrote: »

The problem is that it's feeding a false perception that domestic abuse is almost all men towards women. This neglects the significant abuse which occurs the other way and importantly the effects on children. It's not a black and white issue at all, yet is too often portrayed as such.

i don't think it's black and white at all. Nobody who knows anything about it does.
I'd love to see the stats which show domestic abuse is not gendered. Anyone have them or does everyone just want to keep asserting that women are just as likely to be domestic abusers themselves?

I am not denying it happens. But I don't think it's an equal thing.

Bottle_of_Smoke

cantdecide wrote: »

Troll much? Should men who are suffering any form of abuse from their partner's go to hell then? This is a social issue not a gender issue. The government shouldn't support one-sided campaigns.

I think(hope) Amen receive government funding, they reach out to men with campaigns against abuse toward men. Maybe these things need to be gender specific to get through to the vulnerable.

clouds

cantdecide wrote: »

Troll much? Should men who are suffering any form of abuse from their partner's go to hell then? This is a social issue not a gender issue. The government shouldn't support one-sided campaigns.

DON'T call me a troll, if you don't mind, Candecide.

That is not what I said. Read what I wrote I can't be bothered to go through it again. It was very clear the first time.

Count Duckula

You know, just because that one happens to be aimed at women doesn't mean it's saying that violence and abuse doesn't happen against men in a relationship, too.

cantdecide

clouds wrote: »

DON'T call me a troll, if you don't mind, Candecide.

That is not what I said. Read what I wrote I can't be bothered to go through it again. It was very clear the first time.

Things can be perfectly clear and still wrong.

tricky D

clouds wrote: »

i don't think it's black and white at all. Nobody who knows anything about it does.
I'd love to see the stats which show domestic abuse is not gendered. Anyone have them or does everyone just want to keep asserting that women are just as likely to be domestic abusers themselves?

I am not denying it happens. But I don't think it's an equal thing.

Nobody said it is equal. That's misrepresenting my point. Here's one study which is not done by women's groups (National Crime Council (NCC), in association with the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI)) which paints a different picture to what is too often perceived.

http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15270.htm

amacachi

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't think its that big a deal - all the B options are pretty nuts and all the C options are outright bonkers.

IME women tend to be far far worse for staying with controlling men than men staying with controlling girls, and I have more male friends than female.

Just because it is targeted at women with crazy boyfriends doesn't mean they're implying there are no crazy girls out there or that B & C options are typical of men. Lets not get hypersensitive lads.

"Sometimes. He likes to know what I'm up to." I better stop texting several of my friends because it's obviously an abusive friendship we have.

Bottle_of_Smoke

amacachi wrote: »

"Sometimes. He likes to know what I'm up to." I better stop texting several of my friends because it's obviously an abusive friendship we have.

Initially that caught my eye and was gonna criticise it but the question for it is:

Does he send you constant texts checking up on you when you're not with him?

So in the context of the question its ok to have there

Otis Driftwood

Before this gets too heated,if anyone has an issue with a post then report it.Accusations of trolling or any other shenanigans will be handled by the mods.Cheers.

Count Duckula

amacachi wrote: »

"Sometimes. He likes to know what I'm up to." I better stop texting several of my friends because it's obviously an abusive friendship we have.

That was a strange one, because the 'good' option was something along the lines of "I text him no more than I text my other friends".

Now, I don't think there's anything particularly harmful about a couple texting each other more than they do their other friends!

Galvasean

Well it's a womensaid campaign so I can see why it's gender specific. Sure if you really wanted you could just swap 'boy' with 'girl' and it's the exact same thing.
I think the reason why it doesn't matter which boxes you tick is because it is more to make people (girls) think about what they are reading/admitting properly, rather tahn just telling them. It's probably more useful if they come to the conclusion themselves.

FWIW, I found some stats from 2005 on abuse in relation to gender:
http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15270.htm
Interestingly, according to the stats women are more than twice as likely to suffer from domestic abuse. Although 1 in 3 women reported abuse to the gardai (a ssadly low number IMO), only 1 in 20 men did so.

chicken fingers

Absolutely disgusting site.
Obviously made by a woman or women who have SERIOUS issues with previous relationships and are generalizing those experiences somehow into a government funded campaign. Its apparent by the very narrow bands of possible outcomes, the skew and the bizzarely worded situations.

Whoever decided to spend taxpayers monet on that should be sacked but they probably got a promotion for it.

donfers

it's simplistic, one-sided, insidious and disgraceful so all par for the course and rather predictable when it comes to the sexist prism that these issues are often viewed through.

Kevin Duffy

clouds wrote: »

Well said Bottle of Smoke.

And Hellfireclub what's wrong with using a small portion of taxpayer money on feminist issues? They use taxpayers money on every other interest group you care to name. Why not womens issues? .

Because it's not a feminist issue or a women's issue, it affects everybody. A campaign run with the same money could reach anybody in an abusive (in the broadest sense) relationship, men and women and of all sexualities. This doesn't just ignore men being abused, it ignores LGBT relationships.

It also blames men, not abusers. All the questions are "he" does such-and-such, not "your partner". The same campaign could have been broader and more inclusive with a little intelligence in the wording of the questions.

Making the whole campaign and the wider argument about blaming men also provides only a negative outcome, suggesting a relationship is not healthy and starting to be very wary of your partner in response to a very poorly worded, simplistic quiz. Surely a better solution would be to provide awareness for everyone affected, on either side of the relationship, that they may be witnessing or exhibiting warning signs. From previous relationships, I can answer B to every question. I can also recall conversations after each incidence which made her aware why something wasn't on and cleared that behaviour right up - much more healthy than imagining a cause and effect that wasn't there, getting paranoid and leaving. There may be many people who need education, development, more maturity or whatever - a bit of help would be better than blame.

Aswerty

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Because it's not a feminist issue or a women's issue, it affects everybody. A campaign run with the same money could reach anybody in an abusive (in the broadest sense) relationship, men and women and of all sexualities. This doesn't just ignore men being abused, it ignores LGBT relationships.

It also blames men, not abusers. All the questions are "he" does such-and-such, not "your partner". The same campaign could have been broader and more inclusive with a little intelligence in the wording of the questions.

Making the whole campaign and the wider argument about blaming men also provides only a negative outcome, suggesting a relationship is not healthy and starting to be very wary of your partner in response to a very poorly worded, simplistic quiz. Surely a better solution would be to provide awareness for everyone affected, on either side of the relationship, that they may be witnessing or exhibiting warning signs. From previous relationships, I can answer B to every question. I can also recall conversations after each incidence which made her aware why something wasn't on and cleared that behaviour right up - much more healthy than imagining a cause and effect that wasn't there, getting paranoid and leaving. There may be many people who need education, development, more maturity or whatever - a bit of help would be better than blame.

You've really hit the nail on the head there. Especially with regards to LGBT.

I heard an ad for this on the radio this morning and really thought 'what the hell'. It's another step in the demonisation of men from a womans lobby group who doesn't represent the majority view of women let alone people. I mean how hard is it to say partner as opposed to BF or GF, one little change and the entire tack of the campaign is moved to a far more egalitarian angle (excluding the pink website ).

This is just off the back of me having a discussion with someone last night about the closure of a domestic violence refuge being closed down in Sligo. While although terrible for women I couldn't help but think that the male population who undergo domestic violence never had a service like that to avail of to begin with.

I think gender discrimination towards women ranks higher out of the sexes but at least there is a fairly general understanding that it is slowly being eroded since a fair bit of it is a legacy from the not so distant past. On the flip side of the coin male discrimination seems to be on the rise if anything from the actions of current "womens" orginisations.

clouds

But just because one group of victims are being highlighted it doesn't mean that other groups are being denied.

Like if I collect money for dffodil day it doesnt mean that I don't care about cardic patients. It' just focus

Aswerty

clouds wrote: »

But just because one group of victims are being highlighted it doesn't mean that other groups are being denied.

Like if I collect money for dffodil day it doesnt mean that I don't care about cardic patients. It' just focus

I'd only consider that analogy to be sound though if daffodil day collected for cancer patients of a specific gender. The complaint isn't that only domestic violence is being focused on but that domestic violence against women in heterosexual relationships is the only aspect being looked at.

clouds

Aswerty wrote: »

I'd only consider that analogy to be sound though if daffodil day collected for cancer patients of a specific gender. The complaint isn't that only domestic violence is being focused on but that domestic violence against women in heterosexual relationships is the only aspect being looked at.

The analogy is perfectly sound, as it's about focusing on one subset of victims.

tricky D

clouds wrote: »

But just because one group of victims are being highlighted it doesn't mean that other groups are being denied.

It is reinforcing a false and damaging stereotype for one group and completely neglecting the damage to another. An awful example of navel gazing (of sorts) at its worse. It's worse than denying as it actually damages.

Aswerty

clouds wrote: »

The analogy is perfectly sound, as it's about focusing on one subset of victims.

And one set of perpetrators.

Both the subset of victims and perpetrators are inherently discriminatory. It's a double edged form of discrimination. The victims are described as female and the perpetrators are described as male.

I might even compare the discrimination to the motor insurance discrimination picked up on by the ECHR. The fact that these subsets ecompass demographics entirely based on gender is discrimination. The subset that should be focused on is perpetrators of domestic abuse not men because they have the largest pool of abusers. Just like the motor insurance companies should focus on bad drivers as opposed to the gender with the highest cost of claims. (Though I'm probably shooting myself in the foot by bring up the insurance ).

If this was privately funded I'd agree that they have the right to focus on this specific subset but I'd still object hugely to the focus on a gender as opposed to the crime. Considering this has got public funding I consider it to be a disgrace.

evercloserunion

I think what's more outrageous than the sexism is that it makes you actually ticks the boxes and then gives you a single message saying "If you checked..." regardless of what you do.

Panthro

that could have been narrowed down to one question:
"is your boyfriend a nutbar?"
what a waste of time.

Kevin Duffy

clouds wrote: »

But just because one group of victims are being highlighted it doesn't mean that other groups are being denied.

Like if I collect money for dffodil day it doesnt mean that I don't care about cardic patients. It' just focus

The analogy doesn't work as collecting for medical causes doesn't blame or exclude anyone. The campaign, specifically the quiz highlighted in the thread, identifies men as the perpetrators of abusive behaviours by its language. The campaign should be aimed at all abusers, regardless of gender or sexuality, just the same as you'd distribute the funds from your collection to all suffers of the conditions.

spurious

Why is it that men do not organise themselves in the way women did (and still do) over issues like this?

Every time the issue of violence within relationships, or sexism in advertising comes up in this forum, there is the same old wailing about men being ignored, but no organisation.

It didn't happen overnight for the women's 'movement' and it won't for the men either, particularly as a large subsection of men seem happy to moan and groan and blame women for what is their own inaction.

Aswerty

spurious wrote: »

Why is it that men do not organise themselves in the way women did (and still do) over issues like this?

Every time the issue of violence within relationships, or sexism in advertising comes up in this forum, there is the same old wailing about men being ignored, but no organisation.

It didn't happen overnight for the women's 'movement' and it won't for the men either, particularly as a large subsection of men seem happy to moan and groan and blame women for what is their own inaction.

Firstly I'd say that I don't like the idea of gender specific movements. Why should we have separate movements for the same problem? The most obvious approach I see is for these female organisations to broaden into egalitarian organisations. Building up male organisations to compete for funding is absolutely daft. The fact is womens organisations built a big following when females were heavily discriminated against and this meant that when things started to balance their presence was still there and allowed resources to be plugged into them. Male organisations are more recent and are only beginning to pick up steam. To be honest I can only see grief down the long for society if we end up having seperate organisations for each gender.

And the reason their is wailing and gnashing of teeth is because some female organisations such as in this case are actually negatively affecting males. For some reason they don't believe in domestic abuse within gay couples or else don't deem it worthy of highlight so any lesbians should be giving them short shrift in this case as well.

The main thing is that it baffles me that someone will join a movement that actively excludes one of the genders. A problem stemming from this is that the female only organisations (due to lack of integration) are forcing the makeup of male organisations as opposed to egalitarian ones.

Kimia

chicken fingers wrote: »

Absolutely disgusting site.
Obviously made by a woman or women who have SERIOUS issues with previous relationships and are generalizing those experiences somehow into a government funded campaign. Its apparent by the very narrow bands of possible outcomes, the skew and the bizzarely worded situations.

Whoever decided to spend taxpayers monet on that should be sacked but they probably got a promotion for it.

I find this post pretty offensive tbh. So the whole Woman's Aid charity is just a bunch of women with issues? So you're saying that domestic violence against women should receive no government funding whatsoever? Your post just makes you sound misogynistic tbh.

I don't see the big deal either and I think BOS and Clouds make some valid points. If I saw a site that highlighted domestic abuse against men, by women, I would cheer because isn't it wonderful that the issue is being raised and maybe some good will come of it. Maybe an abused man who doesn't know how to handle it will find some courage to ask for help from it. I certainly don't bitterly shout it down as an affront to women country-wide.

I don't understand that view point - why is it disgusting? They are clearly not calling every man an abuser, just as a hypothetical Amen campaign for the very same issue (which all the naysayers on here would love, presumably?) would not be calling every woman an abuser.

Some pushing of individual agendas here I reckon.

ApeXaviour

spurious wrote: »

Why is it that men do not organise themselves in the way women did (and still do) over issues like this?

As with any behaviour that apparently differs on a whole between the sexes, it comes down to a mixture of nature and nurture: evolutionary psychology and (the greater influence) culture and stigma.

You'll see examples of white-knighting all the time, man rushes to defend woman (sometimes violently) while being completely ignorant of their situation. It happens even on the internet. In a way we're bred to do this. Our reptile brains know that women's safety > men's for the continuation of the species.

Then there's a stigma against men gathering seemingly (and wrongly) "against" women... it doesn't help that the other gender advocacy community, feminism (well seated in society), tends to undermine most attempts by fathers rights groups etc. Something I find quite bizarre, I would have expected a modicum of solidarity. The cultural aspect is mostly ignorance... the concept of masculism or men's rights or male gender advocacy is laughable to the majority because they base their metric on the upper fringe of society. Yes there are more male CEOs, billionaires, sports-stars, stunt-pilots, celebrity chefs, politicians etc... there are also more males homeless, in prison, dropping out of school, drug addicts, in dangerous low-paying jobs etc. Yet any movement strikes deep in many hearts as some sort attempt to reclaim male patriarchal oppressor status.

It's basically just unpopular to have sympathy for men as a group...

ApeXaviour

Kimia wrote: »

I find this post pretty offensive tbh. So the whole Woman's Aid charity is just a bunch of women with issues? So you're saying that domestic violence against women should receive no government funding whatsoever? Your post just makes you sound misogynistic tbh.

In fairness you're building a bit of a strawman. Also the site isn't even about domestic abuse, it's about controlling insecure boyfriends, something that should have no gender bearing, and who's message wouldn't be lessened in the slightest were it to be gender neutral. It's the one with an agenda.

As to whether the creators have issues, yeah sure its unsubstantiated conjecture I'm sure chicken fingers was venting.

Thought experiment. Reverse the genders... maybe something you'd expect in a men's magazine, fine (if it was in cosmo I'd not bat an eyelid). But a publicly funded national campaign (!!) painting women as emotionally unstable, jealous, bunny-boiling control-freaks (and by extension implying men as cool and collected). You can't doubt for a second that women's groups would publicly lynch the creators. I would not be too happy about it either.

Fukuyama

clouds wrote: »

Well said Bottle of Smoke.

Ironically it's the people (usually women it has to be said) who are being abused and controlled who have the hardest time differentiating.

Men are the biggest victims of domestic violence and controlling behaviour. Just when a women slaps a man it's not domestic violence. :rolleyes:

clouds

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

The analogy doesn't work as collecting for medical causes doesn't blame or exclude anyone. The campaign, specifically the quiz highlighted in the thread, identifies men as the perpetrators of abusive behaviours by its language. The campaign should be aimed at all abusers, regardless of gender or sexuality, just the same as you'd distribute the funds from your collection to all suffers of the conditions.

TBH I've no problem for blming nutjobs for wrecking the lives of those around them. Sometimes blme is neccessry. But a very significant subset is comprised of male nutjobs and female enablers. Why not reflect reality? Again I exclude the vst majority of normal non abusive men. Doesn't everyone?

Women tend to think that the behviours given are romantic or a sign of how much they are loved. Men don't, they generally think bunny boiler and needy and desperate. Society shores up this view. So for that reason I've no problem with the genders depicted.


sorry my 'a' key is sticking

Kevin Duffy

clouds wrote: »

Again I exclude the vst majority of normal non abusive men. Doesn't everyone?

Women tend to think that the behviours given are romantic or a sign of how much they are loved. Men don't, they generally think bunny boiler and needy and desperate. Society shores up this view. So for that reason I've no problem with the genders depicted.

Firstly, no, not everyone does exclude the non-abusive men. That, among other reasons, is why campaigns like this need to be better thought out.

Your last two statements are sweeping generalisations. They don't reflect how I think, or the thoughts of many people I know, men and women.
Whatever problems there are in society's view, or in addressing the behaviours, they won't be helped by lazy generalisations or poorly worded, divisive campaigns.

cantdecide

clouds wrote: »

TBH I've no problem for blming nutjobs for wrecking the lives of those around them. Sometimes blme is neccessry. But a very significant subset is comprised of male nutjobs and female enablers. Why not reflect reality? Again I exclude the vst majority of normal non abusive men. Doesn't everyone?

Women tend to think that the behviours given are romantic or a sign of how much they are loved. Men don't, they generally think bunny boiler and needy and desperate. Society shores up this view. So for that reason I've no problem with the genders depicted.


sorry my 'a' key is sticking

Thats all fine and well for you, personally. The point is you are not a government. A government must be impartial.

Let's say that this behaviour was generally accepted as particularly associated with a specific ethnic minority. Do you think it would it would be okay for a government to endorse a similar campaign if it had racist instead of sexist undertones?

clouds

Dean0088 wrote: »

Men are the biggest victims of domestic violence and controlling behaviour. Just when a women slaps a man it's not domestic violence. :rolleyes:

eh? link please that's interesting

clouds

The only division I can see is between abusive bastards and teh rest of us.

Like in general I see a division between murderous bastards (mostly men according to the stats) and the rest of us. I'm comfortable with those divisions. Who wouldn't be?

Aswerty

clouds wrote: »

The only division I can see is between abusive bastards and teh rest of us.

Like in general I see a division between murderous bastards (mostly men according to the stats) and the rest of us. I'm comfortable with those divisions. Who wouldn't be?

Tricky D though provided some stats that indicated that when taking severe and minor abuse into account that the stats are pretty even. Although I accept the ratio of severe abuse was 15:6 in favour of woman suffering abuse but the fact is it is a significant figure for both genders. I would also point out that in gay couples the abuser and victim are of the same sex and an organisation that differentiates between genders in a heterosexual context (as in this case) completely misses this entire demograph.

I think our main difference arises when an organisations has a platform to promote awareness of domestic abuse but focuses on only one gender. In my view they waste the potential of the platform they have gained by promoting only a specific aspect of gender abuse. Not only that but the absence of the acknowledgment of other domestic abuse paints a skewed picture of the broader picture. The main point though is that I find it hard to get to grips with an organisation that could easily be inclusive but chooses to be exclusive on grounds that I would deem superfluous at best (what genitals you have, really?).

I understand subsets are needed because no person or organisation can tackle all the worlds problems with respect to all the different peoples affected. But a gender specific subset is divisive and will marginilise genders, cause rifts over funding imbalances and wastes time and resources in supporting two organisations that in essence have the same goal. An example of healthy subsets in this case would be a subset focused on emotional abuse and another on physical abuse. Other subsets could be the focus on combating environments that are conducive to creating domestic abuse or promoting non judgmental environments for potential abusers to get help (i.e. nipping the problem in the bud).

Domestic abuse survivors can develop trust issues with regards to the abusers gender. I think in a gender inclusive organisation it would help deter these trust issues if each survivor saw that the harm visited upon them was done by an individual and not by an individual of a specific gender.

sophia25

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think(hope) Amen receive government funding, they reach out to men with campaigns against abuse toward men. Maybe these things need to be gender specific to get through to the vulnerable.

Actually I was in the Legal Aid Board yesterday and there on their walls was a poster with a man on it clearly a victim of female domestic abuse. The poster was supported by cosc and gave the Amen number as a contact. I certainly wasn't offended by it, I hoped that it did help someone in a vulnerable position to seek help. I think Cosc do provide finance for ads specifically aimed at various sections of the population. For instance there is a ad in the Health Centre re elder abuse. Again, as a younger (somewhat!) person I certainly did not take offence that I was portrayed as the abuser and the older person as a victim. These ads are designed to get a victim to relate to their own situation, I don't think it's helpful to be offended that in one particular ad a specific segment is targetted.