The signs were all there, the signs were all there

[venta]

I 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.

Comments

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

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

*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.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Yes, what I meant was that you did the thing phlebas accused the campaign of doing. I expect the campaign has to take care about hyperbole.

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.

[venta.livejournal.com]

No, the campaign apparently calls "for more specialist services for abused women and children".

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.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

I wasn't complaining about you beating up on the campaign - my comment was aimed at Phlebas. And, while I don't doubt that domestic violence against men is a problem, I question the need to criticise a campaign against domestic violence against women and children for failing to mention domestic violence against men. It seems rather akin to attacking a campaign against rape for failing to also mention murder.

[(Anonymous)]

Fair enough.

To me it seems more akin to attacking a campaign against the murder of women for failing to mention the murder of men.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Whoops, that was me.