The Dim-Post

July 31, 2010

Hilarious domestic violence poster of the day

Filed under: blogging — danylmc @ 10:37 am

Via Andrew Sullivan, they’re laughing at our women’s refuge ads over there.

Not even Women’s Refuge is immune from the ad campaign signed off after a three hour lunch phenomenon. A quote from Sullivan’s post:

The point, I guess, of this unfortunately humorous ad for a New Zealand domestic violence support organization is that, when you’ve been abused by an angry man-monster, you see angry man-monster faces everywhere. Sorry, but smiles should never be the result of viewing an ad for such a serious subject.

About these ads

24 Comments »

  1. Reading Andrew Sullivan on Saturday morning, the things Danyl does for his readers…

    Comment by Berend de Boer — July 31, 2010 @ 10:47 am

  2. commenting on a post of DM’s on a Saturday morning – the things the Boer does for a hobby

    Comment by Cnr Joe — July 31, 2010 @ 11:17 am

  3. Commenting on BdB’s comments on a Saturday morning – the commencement of an infinite regress …

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 31, 2010 @ 11:23 am

  4. Go outside & play children.

    Comment by davy crockett — July 31, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

  5. Worst is this quote from Copyranter:

    One in three is a pretty damn high number—are Kiwi men especially misogynistic?

    Thanks a lot, Women’s Refuge. No, Kiwi men aren’t especially misogynistic, but Kiwi women’s groups seem especially bad with statistics.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — July 31, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

  6. hobbits and transexuals are a problem

    Comment by Neil — July 31, 2010 @ 1:07 pm

  7. I’m a guy, and I’m also afraid of women with goatees, and midgets. Where’s Men’s Refuge???

    Comment by gazzaj — July 31, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

  8. New Zealanders soon came to regret their government’s laissez-faire attitude towards human cloning …

    Comment by Mako — July 31, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

  9. I suspect that the concept came from Aphex Twin’s ‘Come To Daddy’ video:

    Comment by Fuzzy Dunlop — July 31, 2010 @ 2:02 pm

  10. NZ women have every right to be frightened of men who don’t complain long and loud over the quality of such statistics.

    JC

    Comment by JC — July 31, 2010 @ 2:21 pm

  11. *sigh*

    I’ve just given them money, sorry Womens Refuge, but you’re now off my Christmas card list.

    Shades of the scurrilous and dishonest ‘Mental Health Foundation’ 1-in-4 advertisements. Most men in my experience – far more than 66% – are thoroughly decent and don’t deserve to be subjected to this sort of gender political rubbish.

    Comment by Mary — July 31, 2010 @ 4:29 pm

  12. One in three sounds about right. The white, middle-class sample I think of has about that proportion. I don’t think I know particularly violent people.

    I think that the only unfortunate thing about this ad is that it might not be effective. I imagine that those who authorised the ad were incapable of seeing it in ways other than they intended – the concept is after all a powerful one, it is only the execution that it falls short.

    Comment by George D — July 31, 2010 @ 7:01 pm

  13. Ah, the old lie. Which was disproven … in the Dunedin Child Development Study, and the Christchurch Child development study. The one in three statistic has no evidence to back it. None.

    Men and women are both violent. They both hit — verbally and physically — at around the same rate. However, men don’t complain. And men do not have the support system in place: we need just as many men’s refuges as women’s refuges.

    Comment by Chris — July 31, 2010 @ 7:11 pm

  14. It is a most remarkable photo. Looks like some sort of sequel to This Is Not my Life.

    Comment by NeilM — July 31, 2010 @ 7:18 pm

  15. “Unfortunately humorous”?? I don’t find it so.

    Comment by Mark — July 31, 2010 @ 7:26 pm

  16. The ad, at best, is confusing. Therefore it fails.

    A complete waste of money.

    Comment by peterlepaysan — July 31, 2010 @ 8:08 pm

  17. The one in the blue jacket looks like a former all Black. It sure does need help.

    Comment by Adolf Fiinkensein — July 31, 2010 @ 8:31 pm

  18. Mr Dunlop (what, is everyone here a Wire fan?) you could be right. The Windowlicker video is even better for my money. Regarding the concept, is it living in fear of bad fashion choices? Or is the woman in green the 1 that needs help because, let’s face it, the other 2 (the midget lady and the one in the fetching blue cardy) are probably safe from being ever being ‘domestic’ in the first place?

    Comment by MCRAD — August 1, 2010 @ 12:39 am

  19. The 1 in 3 statistic probably depends on definitions. If you include scary ex-boyfriends, stalkers, and partners who destroy your self esteem in non violent ways, 1 in 3 sounds a bit low, if anything. Mind you, by that definition a pretty high proportion of men would also have ‘lived in fear’. I am also giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they mean 1 in 3 nz women has, at some point, been the victim of an abusive relationship, rather than 1 in 3 women currently is. Assuming this is a lifetime statistic, it doesn’t imply that 1 in 3 men is abusive, since abusive men will typically have and abuse multiple partners over the course of their lives.

    So while they could have worded it a bit better (or used better statistics, possibly) I think refusing to support them is a bit childish. Come on, are you really thinking, ‘they have sort of implied that there is a 33% chance that I am violent, therefore all their work protecting women who clearly are victims of serious violence is unworthy of my (probably fairly small) financial support’?

    ps @MCRAD: yeah, pretty much everyone.

    Comment by helenalex — August 1, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

  20. I expect they have defined “domestic abuse” so broadly that it covers one in three NZ women. However, the effect isn’t that I feel horrified at the thought of one in three women “living in fear” and resolve to give more to Women’s Refuge next time, the effect is that I lose respect for Women’s Refuge as an organisation and hand over the cash in spite of their ad rather than because of it.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — August 1, 2010 @ 2:39 pm

  21. @helenalex: ‘I think refusing to support them is a bit childish. Come on, are you really thinking, ‘they have sort of implied that there is a 33% chance that I am violent, therefore all their work protecting women who clearly are victims of serious violence is unworthy of my (probably fairly small) financial support’?’

    Not at all.
    1. I’m a woman.
    2. ‘1 in 3 NZ women need your help’ implies that these women currently need help, so implies that 1 in 3 current relationships include violent men.
    3. I’m fed up with anti-male propaganda like this crap. If Womens’ Refuge stuck to their core function, I’d still support them. But if they’re going to use donations to produce advertising that demonises men as a group, then their objectives no longer coincide with mine, and I don’t donate.

    Comment by Mary — August 1, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

  22. It’s badly worded. I believe that one in three women are the victims of violence, because I have no reason to believe otherwise on the basis of my own experiences in this world.

    “But if they’re going to use donations to produce advertising that demonises men as a group”

    Well, only if you think that this advertising does that. I don’t think it does.

    Comment by George D — August 1, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

  23. If you’re looking for excuses to make yourself feel better about not giving a fuck, then just say you don’t give a fuck. There’s no excuse for being a twat about not giving to organisations like Women’s Refuge, so don’t even try and make one.

    Gits.

    Comment by dontsurf — August 1, 2010 @ 9:58 pm

  24. That’s it dontsurf. Give her the bash!

    Or maybe she has plenty of reasons. After all, everyone has a finite amount of resources to give to a huge amount of charities. And the ad, complete with bullshit stats, rubbish execution and slop-sloppy copy (who wrote the last line – Horatio Caine?), might just be enough.

    Comment by McRad — August 3, 2010 @ 1:33 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 351 other followers

%d bloggers like this: