Photos via Womanist Musings blog.
A Texas organization called The Family Place that provides court-ordered treatment for domestic-violence offenders and victims recently initiated an awareness-building ad campaign about the risks faced by children in households when they grow up.
Various Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) object on the grounds that it’s male bashing. A prominent MRA, Glenn Sacks, says the the ads should be withdrawn.
Renee of doesn’t agree that the ads should be taken down.
Society needs to be shocked out of its complacency when it comes to domestic violence. We have normalized images in the mainstream media of women being beaten and brutalized. We have justified male aggression by asserting that in some way that women are asking to be treated this way. Enough is enough. If even one person is shocked into realizing that they need help, or a woman is empowered to leave an abusive relationship then these ads will have served their purpose.
For the record, while Beck and, to a certain degree Renee, feel the ads are male-bashing The Family Place (TFP) itself seems to be more neutral. Two data points from their website, however, are in order:
- This year, we have provided court-ordered batterer’s treatment to 449 male, 106 female and 98 adolescent offenders.
- To date we have counseled 9 male and 1,335 female victims in our outreach programs.
Source: The Family Place Awareness Campaign page
I’m… pretty sure I’m as aware that men are victims of DV as anybody, and just as aware that women can be abusers. The numbers of perpetrators TFP has treated bears that out.
I’m also aware that standard gender stereotypes hinder even male victim’s recognition of domestic violence as well as female perpetrator’s. The ratio of men and women victims TFP has treated really bears that out.
That said, I think the ads are fine for at least two reasons: first because even though they don’t serve every victim they absolutely serve the 80-85% of DV victims who are abused by men… and for any ad strategy that’s pretty good coverage.
Second because the phenomenon of female-partner and child abuse are well recognized these ads point at changing a known context. To the extent that violence against male partners in heterosexual relationships and violence against same-sex partners are less recognized an awareness-building ad campaign would need to have completely different objectives and thus falls outside the scope of… the shelter program of the agency that placed the ads in question.
Again, this isn’t to say it’s not appropriate to call attention to female-on-male, female-on-child, the very common female-on-frail-or-elderly, and same-sex domestic violence. In fact it’s necessary and, I think, by raising awareness that it’s not something just for “women and children” to watch out for such a campaign could even generate synergy with campaigns such as The Family Places.
But!
It’s nonsense, even counterproductive to say their ads should be taken down.
Frankly I’m disappointed with Sacks who, as one of the other commenters at Rene’s place mentioned, seems to be personally far more moderate than the average member of the constituency he’s chosen to represent**. I mean, it’s not as though he’s without resources of his own. And, considering the size of his audience if he or his constituency was serious… if they seriously considered violence against men an issue instead of a diversion… then he could certainly marshal considerable support for a separate campaign. Again, that he’s not — nor as far as I know has any significant MRA group — suggests the MRA movement really isn’t serious… really does see domestic violence against men as a dodge against responsibility. Which, again, is disappointing because, y’know, it really does happen. (Based on their client breakdowns it’s very likely TFP would welcome backing for such an initiative if they believed it was offered in good faith.)
The good news? There’s strong evidence that a great deal of DV against men happens under two circumstances: defensively, as when an abused partner cracks and assaults a sleeping, drunk, or otherwise temporarily incapacitated partner***; and, more frequently, later in life when the formerly abusive partner becomes infirm before his erstwhile victim. Consequently campaigns to end the more common domestic violence against women and children will reap collateral benefits to male victims in those two categories.
So again, no matter how you look at it it’s at best counterproductive and at worst selfish and blame-avoiding for MRAs to object to traditional DV-reduction campaigns. My vote would be “counterproductive” though — by fretting about feminism instead of making common cause, we men stay vulnerable to the much greater problems anti-feminism imposes on us… including greater vulnerability to our (proportionately small) share of the receiving end of domestic violence. If MRAs were serious they’d neither object to nor compete with but contribute to and supplement traditional DV-awareness programs.
[** In this regard Sacks is a bit like Heart, a counterpart who hosts an equally galvanized constituency at Womens Space. —fl]
[*** Remember that most abuse victims who assault their abusers, a la Lorena Bobbett aren’t feminists — people who are aware of feminism are also aware that there are many less violent ways out of an abusive relationships. —fl]
Submitted by 2481 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-11-03 07:14.
Speaking as an advocate for male victims, I agree with Glenn Sacks' position on this and his efforts to have the two offensive ads pulled. They are counterproductive and part of the reason why male victims receive little to no help and do not come forward. Organizations like The Family Place perpetuate the myth that males are not victims and perpetuate the myth that only males are abusers. While it is commendable that The Family Place occasionally offers services to male victims, the fact that the group supports these ads demonstrates that their concern for male victims is less than genuine. They could have requested ads also showing males as victims, particularly in regards to suicide, which males are four times more likely to commit (I personally know three people, all male, two boys, who committed suicide). By standing behind these ads, The Family Place essentially states that boys and men never commit suicide and are never physically, sexually or emotionally victimized by women. That is not just false, not just a lie, but blatant misandry.
As for the statistics on domestic violence, recent studies have shown that the majority of violence committed by women is non-defensive and unprompted:
The claim that women only abuse men in self-defense is statistically inaccurate. Speaking as male victim, that kind of false information, that kind feminist "any violence committed by women against a boy or man is acceptable and deserved" is part of the reason I never came forward and part of the reason I do not trust feminists.
[Meh, what's not to trust? My very first long-term partner was both verbally and physically quite abusive. Because of both indoctrination and ignorance it took me decades to figure it out. And who helped me finally understand what had happened to me? Or that it wasn't my fault? Or that men can be victims of domestic violence? Some feminist roommates who... volunteered at a woman's shelter! Those same feminists are the ones who persuaded me that I wasn't the only one. So... again, who's supposed to be the villain in that scenario? I'd say *nobody.*
Also, in my post I mentioned two types of domestic violence against men that a DV-awareness program could incidentally benefit by reducing resentment, not that either one of them was a primary source. And if I was to prioritize the two instances I mentioned I'd say the latter -- abuse in custodial care -- was much larger. Just to be clear about that.
And finally, if one's intention is to have abuse of men *included* in the narrative, and if one's position is that men aren't coming forward, it's counterproductive to attack feminism for standing up for those victims -- primarily women and children -- who *do* come forward. Thanks, TS. --fl]
Submitted by 2481 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-11-03 17:25.
[...] people who are aware of feminism are also aware that there are *many* less violent ways out of an abusive relationships.
Most of the women who abused me, and the woman who partner raped me, self-identified as feminists. One of them, at least, also worked in a domestic violence shelter. The fact that they were recognized as feminists made it much more difficult for people to believe that they would have done what they did, and I was often told that I had to have done something to them to have them act that way -- because feminists know better than most the kind of damage that can result.
The people who helped me get through this, both the men and the women? None identified as feminists. All of them, including one who did offender and victim treatment services under contract with the DOC, with both male and female offenders and victims, were quite aware that labels and ideas have their limits.
This isn't to say that the fact that the abusers identified as such was a causal factor in the fact that they were abusive -- although they did use arguments like the historical oppression of women to justify it in some cases, along with the argument that more men abuse women than the reverse, so payback was fair play, among others -- but it is to say that whether or not someone identifies as such, or is even aware of feminism, is a less than reliable indicator of whether or not they will abuse someone else.
If there's one thing that I've learned from these experiences (as well as the other traumas that I've experienced at the hands of female perps, such as incest and statutory rape), it's that people will put ideas to use as they see fit. That the ideas may have been well-intended is far less of a factor than the character of the person who hears them.
The response that I've heard when mentioning this, that these women weren't actually feminists in spite of their claims, might explain these things away. But it does nothing to help. It does nothing to even give us the impression that the damage these things cause -- I ended up being more or less constantly suicidal for over a decade, and it even got to the point at which I didn't go outside of the apartment except to get mail and groceries, and go to my therapy appointments -- is even recognized.
Those of us who doubt that a feminist self-identification, or even an awareness of feminism, likely results in something positive... we often have very good reasons for believing that.