![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaI appear to be very stupid and not quite on the same planet as everyone else this morning.
However. I'm unsure whether this is a further example of my stupid, or whether someone else is being stupid.
I was being encouraged to sign this petition:
http://apps.facebook.com/fourwaystospeakout/
... but I can't anywhere work out what the actual text of the petition I would be signing is. I understand I'm being asked to "send a strong message to the government", but what is the message?
NB I'm not logged in to Facebook, if that makes any difference.
However. I'm unsure whether this is a further example of my stupid, or whether someone else is being stupid.
I was being encouraged to sign this petition:
http://apps.facebook.com/fourwaystospeakout/
... but I can't anywhere work out what the actual text of the petition I would be signing is. I understand I'm being asked to "send a strong message to the government", but what is the message?
NB I'm not logged in to Facebook, if that makes any difference.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 09:12 am (UTC)As I read it, it seems to be calling for segregation of the parts of local government that deal domestic violence against women and children from the parts that deal with domestic violence against men. Seems like a bad idea to me, both from a duplication of services point of view, and the question of which department would handle a case where injuries to the child are the first tip-off that the authorities get.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 09:20 am (UTC)Read what !?
I literally can't find *anything* to read...
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 09:38 am (UTC)And googling for 'refuge avon speak out' finds their actual website, which has a bit more info: http://www.fourwaystospeakout.com/speak-to-the-government/
But yes, it's not at all clear exactly what you're actually signing up to say that you agree with. Full of fail.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 10:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 01:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 01:46 pm (UTC)Refuge and Avon are lobbying the Government to ensure that every woman and child, no matter where they live, can access domestic violence services.
These are things that should be guaranteed available to anyone, not just women and children. Pretending it's just a women's issue just makes things worse for men who are on the receiving end.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 08:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 08:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 09:35 pm (UTC)*But*, the ratio of those needing particular specialist services such as refuge may not be the the same as the ratio of those reporting assaults.
I'm pretty sure, though, that describing domestic violence as a problem which "99.9% affects women" *is precisely* a demand to ignore domestic violence against men (because you think it doesn't happen).
Which is not to say that every time anyone considers domestic violence against women, they must equally consider men. I don't think that's necessary, but I do think that domestic violence against men happens, and that to deny it is to perpetrate a harmful gender stereotype of women as victims, and men as un-victimisable.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 09:44 pm (UTC)I'm not up for looking through the full BCS reports right now, anyone else should feel free to jump in and do the legwork.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-03 08:08 am (UTC)*I* described the problem as 99.9% affecting women, not the campaign. The campaign simply asks for support to end domestic violence against women and children. What I object to is beating up on that campaign for not mentioning men.
I don't necessarily say that domestic violence against men should be ignored, but I do question whether it is a sufficiently large problem to merit its own campaign. More research needed, etc.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-03 12:12 pm (UTC)Even more so than venta, I haven't seen what the campaign actually is saying, but perhaps some confusion is caused by the call for "specialized" services. Someone who didn't know the subject might get the impression that domestic violence support exists even in the highlighted areas, but the campaign is calling for it to be more specialized for women and children. I assume that actually the call is for services specialized to deal with domestic violence, as opposed to general policing and general social services.
This sort of ambiguity could be a magnet for pedants and the terminally bored, and could worry those who think domestic violence shouldn't be always portrayed as against women. This quite aside from anyone who genuinely has an agenda against campaigns on behalf of women.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 09:55 am (UTC)I think it's reasonable of me to want to know more detail about this before signing it. Does this mean existing co-ed facilities will be coverted to women only? Does this mean that there will be more specialist facilities for everyone, but women and children are a more emotive topic? Does it, in fact, have any kind of a plan at all, or does it just think domestic violence is bad?
I'm beating up on this campaign for its complete lack of, well, campaign of any kind as far as I can tell.
As a separate issue, domestic violence against men is a problem, somewhat exacerbated by the majority of people utterly refusing to take it seriously at all.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 08:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-05 09:49 am (UTC)To me it seems more akin to attacking a campaign against the murder of women for failing to mention the murder of men.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-05 09:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-04 09:51 am (UTC)Yes. As I understand it, the biggest problem facing women who are the victims of domestic violence is finding the courage to report it. The biggest problem facing men is getting anyone to stop laughing long enough to get anyone to do anything about it.
A friend of mine, who was a victim of long-term domestic abuse from his wife, had one hell of a job getting custody of his children (who were also in danger) simply because no one would really believe his story.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-02 02:22 am (UTC)The javascript on facebook has a class called 'Bootloader' that triggers other javascript. Maybe the text is only visible to people with javascript turned off?
The main text comes from here, in a iframe:
http://www.fourwaystospeakout.com/facebook/
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 09:44 am (UTC)I'm not on Farcebook, so can neither sign nor read it anyway.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 09:52 am (UTC)Had I wanted to sign a nebulous petition!
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 10:03 am (UTC)Ah, there's your problem, you're not on Facebook, so you don't exist and no one wants your smelly signature anyway!
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 10:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 11:24 am (UTC)Shall we write them letters?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 11:41 am (UTC)So it seems that's perhaps 6,579 people signing without even knowing what they're signing - I always thought petitions were bad ways of judging public opinion, but this takes "Signing without considering what you're signing" to the extreme. But hey, it says "Help save lives", and who could possibly not want to oppose domestic violence, obviously whatever they're proposing must be worth signing!
(Even their website doesn't show the text. The page http://www.fourwaystospeakout.co.uk/speak-to-the-government/ has "Encourage the Government to do more to support women and children experiencing domestic violence." so perhaps that's it, though it's a bit of a vague petition.)
no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 12:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-01 04:18 pm (UTC)And of course, as another correspondent said, domestic violence against men *clearly does not and could not possibly exist*
Notes. It's possible that there is a constituency where 10,000 would return a member, but not in a typical constituency.
For the sarcasm-impaired, my claim about anti-male DV not existing is sarcastic.
Date: 2010-10-29 11:11 am (UTC)