Misandry hits NY

November 26th, 2010 by Pelle Billing

New York State regularly has campaigns against domestic violence. Nothing wrong with that, domestic violence is an important issue. However, there are a couple of serious problems with their campaigning:

  1. They pretend that intimate partner violence is only about men hitting women, thereby forgetting all the other scenarios (women hitting men, women hitting women, men hitting men).
  2. They use and abuse young boys by having them pose for their posters. They also shame all the young boys who see these kinds of images and message in libraries, on the sidewalk, etc.

Here are a few examples:

picture-2_500

boy-eng-med

dv_ad

kiosk-poster_500

Thank you Alex for letting us know about this.

19 Responses to “Misandry hits NY”

  1. AlexNY Says:

    Thanks for your hard work Pelle.

  2. Emilio Says:

    En NY puede que sea publicidad, en España es ley.

  3. Pelle Billing Says:

    Verdad? Que dice la ley?

  4. Emilio Says:

    Quizá como mejor puedas enterarte es con este texto periodístico, pero si quieres hacerte una idea más global de como está el tema en nuestro país puedes adentrarte en alguno de los comentarios.
    El texto del diario El País es:
    http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/Gobierno/aprueba/retirar/custodia/involucrados/procesos/maltrato/elpepusoc/20101126elpepusoc_4/Tes

    Un saludo

  5. Pelle Billing Says:

    Wow, that’s a horrible law they propose. And Spain has already implemented quotas in the board room.

    Spain seems to be right up there with Scandinavia when it comes to crazy feminism.

    Saludos

  6. AlexNY Says:

    I wonder when men will begin to vote with their feet and escape these nations that treat them like beasts of burden.

  7. David Says:

    I really don’t like the tone of those ads–”waiting for instruction.” Some of these kids might develop ruthless superegos (self-attack).

    It’s especially troubling when we consider the idea that perhaps in some cases violence against women might have its root in childhood issues relating to “Mom,” like a cruel or neglectful mother.

    They seem to be treating boys here as though they are inherently violent towards women and that each one has to be socialized to be non-violent. In a way, there may be a little truth in that (considering biological drives, egocentric drives); modern and in some cases pre-modern (Amber) values to an extent provide this kind of socialization. But it seems like it has the potential to go a little over and above that to the point where it might have harmful effects on boys.

    In addition, it neglects to say anything about affective cruelty, which is the favored way to be cruel among females, as opposed to physical cruelty, which is more often perpetrated by men. This affective cruelty (from “Mom,” teachers, girls or women at large, as well as from males) could also have something to do with some physical violence of males against females.

    But they seem to be assuming here that it is simply natural behavior of boys growing up in a modern society to have an inclination to be abusive to women, and this isn’t the case. When a feminist ad also says, “Mom, teachers, be kind and respectful to your boys,” we’ll have gotten somewhere with this.

  8. hopeless_case Says:

    When a feminist ad also says, “Mom, teachers, be kind and respectful to your boys,” we’ll have gotten somewhere with this.

    That was beautiful!

  9. AlexNY Says:

    According to the centers for disease control, 329 men and 1181 women were murdered by intimate partners in 2005. This disparity (22% versus 78%) is the justification for focussing exclusively on males when dealing with domestic violence.

    According to the US department of Health and Human services, fathers murdered 138 children and mothers murdered 288 children in 2006. The disparity in murders of children (32% versus 68%) is even greater if all forms of child abuse are included (30% versus 70%).

    How would feminists react to an anti-child abuse campaign that featured young female children dressed in gang-like attire and instructed parents to “teach your daughters young and teach them often not to abuse or murder children”.

  10. Jim Says:

    “How would feminists react to an anti-child abuse campaign that featured young female children dressed in gang-like attire and instructed parents to “teach your daughters young and teach them often not to abuse or murder children”.”

    They’d scream like scalded hogs. That would discredit them while the public was watching.

  11. AlexNY Says:

    Feminism started as a hopeful movement of change. It has now darkened into a twisted movement of hate. This happened despite the presence of a majority of feminists who are good people trying to do the right thing.

    Hate is a powerful, infectious, and destructive force.

    There is nothing wrong with indignation at the mistreatment that society apportions to men, or with anger at the feminist hate campaign that underlies the twisted logic of mainstream misandry.

  12. AlexNY Says:

    Jim, I guess what I am trying to say is that I wish you had not used the term “scalded hogs.” If men’s sites cannot become less hostile to women, feminists will never visit. And, without the help of feminism, masculism is going nowhere.

  13. Jim Says:

    “Jim, I guess what I am trying to say is that I wish you had not used the term “scalded hogs.” If men’s sites cannot become less hostile to women,”

    So you think that was aimed at them because they are women. It’s not; that expression is standard in the language. If it doesn’t strike you as idiomatic it may be because you are in NYC and not exposed to idiomatic English so much. No harm no foul.

    But if it’s because you think that term is indelicate tyo use on a woman, but acceptable on a man, then that quite simply is chivalry. So that would be bullshit. “Hostile to women” – what exactly does that mena? Does it mena a site that does not pander to their expectations of how they should be treated? That’s either narcissistic on thier part, or else it just reinforces traditional gender norms.

    ” feminists will never visit. And, without the help of feminism, masculism is going nowhere.”

    This also is bullshit. If feminists don’t visit, that’s their loss. They do not have to be wooed to a site, or if they do, then that pretty musch discredits them. In fact that idea that feminists need to be wooed is just princess privilege. It smacks of the sick dating script men complain of so much, and rightly.

    Feminists are peripheral to masculism or the MRM. Woman may or may not make themsleves useful in the project; it’s to their advantage if they are, not so much to the advantage of masculism. But feminists; not so much either. And feminism has very litle to contribute to masculism except as an example of what to avoid. It has very little in fact to contribute even to a masculist analysis of gender relations.

  14. AlexNY Says:

    Jim, thanks for your reply. I appreciate that you responded in a measured way to criticism from someone who does not even know you. I certainly do not presume to know your feelings about women in general or about the feminist movement.

    I sometimes post on feminist web sites. There is so much anger and hate towards men, collectively, that very few men post on those sites. The few male posts that I do find consist of nauseous sycophancy by men who pander for scraps of approval as a way of adjusting to a world where anti-male hate and the presumption of male guilt are commonplace.

    The feminist movement is hundreds of times stronger than the masculist movement. Without disparaging the brave efforts of those who fight for men’s rights, this battle will be very difficult to win if it is seriously opposed by the women’s lobby. Chivalry has nothing to do with it. My intent is utterly practical. One women’s movement site that I saw regularly mines negative comments about women on men’s movement sites.

    Feminism has declared war on all men, and I feel indignation at this campaign of hate. However, like you say, one of the things that men can learn from the failure of feminism is “an example of what to avoid.” By living in nests of man-hatred, feminists can avoid exposure to any opinions other than their own. As a result, feminists have talked themselves into outlandish nonsense that no sane person would imagine. We should not do the same.

  15. AlexNY Says:

    Jim, perhaps you are right, the feminist movement will never ally itself with masculism. I just got booted for this post, responding to a claim that men cannot experience sexism:

    Imagine that the majority of the world’s airlines had an explicit, written, and zealously enforced policy to demand that any women next to an unaccompanied child must give up her reserved seat and move elsewhere in the aircraft? Imagine that any woman who refused was escorted off the aicraft by armed guards? Imagine that the written, explicit reason for this sexist policy was to protect children from child abuse? Keep in mind that there has never been a incident of child abuse on any commercial aircraft.

    How is it not institutional sexism to assume that all males are a danger to children? Statistically, twice as many children are murdered by their mothers as are mothered by their fathers (138 fathers murdered their children in 2006, compared to 288 mothers). Why single out men as deranged lunatics that must not be allowed to sit next to children on aircraft?

    Airlines that have admited to an explicit institutional sexism policy of assuming that all males are collectively guilty of a crime that has never occured even once in recorded human history:

    British Airways
    Quantas
    Air New Zealand AlexNY

  16. Jim Says:

    Alex, you make a very good point, and actually that’s what i thought you really menat, that there is a tactical need to bringm feminists in. That works for a lot of women who identify as feminists; lots are fed up with what they find in academic or internet feminism. April at ethecofem is one. She comments at Feministe occasionally, and always runs the risk of being shouted down. She is in line with about 90% of the MRM agenda just on feminist grounds, as she understands her feminism.

    Male feminists are another matter. sooner or later they show their misandry. Hugo Schwyzer is a glaring example of this. He writes man-hating articles about semen as a tool fo misogyny or some such shit, and tauts MGM as oh, just wonderful, on some pompously over-written high-minded bullshit gounds. (He was born with a deformity. Adult circumcison was great for him. He doesn’t have the sense or honesty to follow the actual MGM discussion.)

  17. Porky D. Says:

    New York, what can you expect? Spain’s board quotas, now that surprises me.

  18. ScareCrow Says:

    The political agenda that started in the 60′s with a bunch of mentally ill women is still at work obviously.

  19. Rad Says:

    “New York State regularly has campaigns against domestic violence. Nothing wrong with that, domestic violence is an important issue.”

    No, it’s not. And yes, there IS something wrong with that.

    Violence is violence. You can’t win by engaging on a battlefield that’s rigged against you. i.e., win by using (or attempting to re-brand) feminist terms (propaganda) and premises, you have to eschew the whole concept altogether.

    You say” DV” and then quickly use the term “intimate partner violence” which is NOT the same concept. DV effectively means: male violence against women. Calling the ocean “the sky” will never convince anyone.

    Either create a new term or focus on essentials, i.e, that the term “domestic” has nothing whatsoever to do with the wrongness of the violence in such situations so it should be legally discarded.

    DV is like the term “hate crime”: It’s a package deal of a legitimate wrong with some politically motivated bullshit. i.e., the attempt to use justice as a guise to bring about injustice.


Google