A very powerful and influential group of men came together to talk about a single issue in a PSA for the “1 is 2 many” campaign to prevent violence against women.
Eli Manning, David Beckham, Jeremy Lin, among others such as our President and VP, Joe Torre and Evan Longoria all landed their famous mugs and voices to the commercial.
Do you think positive role models like this can help prevent violence against women?
About The Good Feed Blog Editors[...] This is a comment by Archy on the post “David Beckham, Jeremy Lin and Eli Manning: Taking a Stand Against Violence Against Women“. [...]
Same-sex marriage and adoptions are now legal in France.
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the first publication of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”
An AIDS activist, a Christian missionary, a wilderness first responder, and a revolutionary rock star… Premium Members talk to four men who’ve made it their lives’ work to help other people, and how any of us can be prepared to take action in a crisis.
Every Wednesday in Hartford’s Bushnell Park, a barber sets up shop to give free haircuts to anyone who wants one—the homeless to longtime clients all pay the same fee: one hug.
One “ragtag group of ruffians” with a mission plus a global community make Upworthy.com a social media site that makes a difference.
Spoon Jackson writes, “I believe art is waiting to come out when allowed the room to flow up.”
“The Future belongs to crowds,” said Don DeLillo. Aaron Gilbreath is embarking on a project to document that future in a new book, “Crowded.”
When destruction threatens our ability to hope, gratitude is a balm.
How hateful is your section of the country? Twitter provides the answer.
Take a look at how many people have enough drinking water or how many know how to read in this stylish infographic.
These are comments by David May and Rick on the post “For The Love Of God, Please Stop Saying ‘Bromance’”.
This Comment of the Day was by wellokaythen on the post How We Can Improve Sex Ed for Boys?
| Join Our Mailing List |
Do you know the way to your own heart? Men who cook and write wanted.
Sometimes, what makes us do evil is easier to understand than the reasons why we choose to do good.
Copyright © 2013 GoodMenProject.com · Powered by WordPress, Genesis Framework & 
· Privacy Policy · Log in
I get it, but I can’t help thinking a holistic anti-anyone violence/pacifism campaign would be more beneficial. I guess that would require admitting that things like war etc are wrong though, and that men shouldn’t be disposable. You can’t end violence against women without addressing male to male violence too (and intimate relationship violence is started 50/50 by males/females, too, which is important).
I actually don’t disagree with that.
I think there are two things that need to happen. First, campaigns like this DO need support because it is really, really important to get a message of anti-violence out to mainstream America featuring “heroes”.
If we jump on every single campaign that’s against violence against women we come off as being completely insensitive to women’s experiences.
However, I agree about a holistic approach. I think that we need a LOT more anti-intimate partner campaigns. Things like, “Love doesn’t mean hurting someone” or something like that. “If you care, you won’t hit” or whatever.
If we had more holistic anti-violence campaigns, then having targeted ones would be fine. In fact, it’s fine now too. Telling men not to hit women doesn’t negate that men shouldn’t hit men, women shouldn’t hit men, women shouldn’t hit women, etc… It truly does not negate that.
But calling for action for more holistic campaigns is a good idea. As long as you don’t negate the message being sent in campaigns like this.
“But calling for action for more holistic campaigns is a good idea. As long as you don’t negate the message being sent in campaigns like this.”
I guess we’re having problems understanding why not highlighting violence against women in anti-violence campaigns actually negates the message that violence against women is wrong.
I want to know why those who are so in support of these violence against women campaigns haven’t already made, and popularized a similar one for men? Support for domestic violence is extremely gendered, only one gender truly gets any decent support. I have better chances it seems of bedding 2 models tomorrow night then seeing a decent campaign on suppporting male victimization and dare I say it, female perpetration that actually reachs even 1/4 of the level the violence against women campaigns get.
To me, that is probably the most dehumanizing and saddening things I’ve noticed, that gaping black hole of awareness, we have had stats proving men get significant levels of abuse and women commit significant levels of abuse, yet for the last decade that these stats have been out (maybe longer) there still hasn’t been anything even remotely similar to the white ribbon campaign that I’ve ever seen even spoken about in the mainstream media.
The only campaign I’ve seen is http://www.oneinthree.com.au which I’ve NEVER seen in Australian media, I only found it by chance in google. People need to realize the message they’re sending men, there is a good reason there are many bitter and aggrivated men, especially when the words “violence against women” are used. Having scars deep in my mind and knowing other men that have had physical, mental, n sexual abuse perpetrated by women as I have had against me, it pisses me off to never hear of the support for violence against men. I caused a bit of a stir with some female friends because I flat out refused to support the white ribbon campaign, told them I can’t support it as it should be violence against all people, or at least have created a brother campaign after all this time. There are no excuses left to justify the lack of support for men, clearly society doesn’t really seem to give a flying fuck about men and it’s very hard to care about others when no one cares about you.
Imagine being a male victim of abuse, seeing sooooo many resources for women but very little for you because you have a penis and you’re seen as the aggressor even if you don’t fight back. I’d like to see the creator of these campaigns of stopping violence against women tell me why they didn’t make it gender neutral, or why they or those who have the resources haven’t made a campaign for men and had it reach even 1/10th the awareness the white ribbon campaign got.
Asking one gender to stand up n to end violence against the other gender whilst their own gender is ignored in regard to their own victimization especially at the hand of the other gender…..Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how blatantly offensive that can be. If there were no anti-rape campaigns for women and I made one only for men, I’d expect women to be pissed off when no one else seems to bother making one.
I am young, have very few resources and various illnesses to battle so I can’t do much to start a campaign but it breaks my heart to know that there are so many who say they support ending DV against all people, but there is only one campaign that barely gets a mention that I know of in Aus, haven’t heard of any globally. This chivalrous action that is expected of us quite frankly feels wrong. I especially get angry when I see violence against women AND children type statements, it completely dismisses violence against men as if it is different or doesn’t exist, and that women and children are the only ones worthy of our support.
I fully support ending violence against ALL. Not women only, not men only, not 1 gender of adult + the kids only, but ALL.
That said I do hope these stars can help in any way, but wake me up when I see actresses/etc standing up for violence against men. It might restore my faith in anti-violence campaigns.
Yeah I totally get the “women and children” thing, don’t get me wrong I love children and if there is a group of people that warrant our sacrifice, that would be our children. But to say “women and children” is to say “not men” (actually I hear “not men” whenever I hear “women”).
Take the atrocities that were taking place in Syria a couple of weeks ago. The media just kept hammering home that the victims included “women and children” as if the murder of women somehow carries greater gravity than the murder of men. They could have just said “children” were among the victims and I would have understood the especial heinousness of the crime, but why keep throwing in “women”? Its as though without women among the victims. the headlines would have had to read: “1000s murdered, fortunately all victims were just men, also its scorching hot today”
Powerful people will always need disposable people below them to justify their importance and power. Since the people in power and in the disposable fields tend to be men i would bet these men project themselves on the people below them (if i can do it so can you) removing any thought to their advantages and the others drawbacks. In a sense their ego and privilege blind them to other men’s hardship along with the fact that men are trained not to show weakness or seek help. This is possibly why currently women are viewed as better/more egalitarian bosses because they are socialized to empathize more and that mostly male industries are viewed as hostile, dog eat dog, winner takes all, and terrible for women.
Or maybe its a twisted evolution of sexual competition. The thought of “i don’t care about other men b/c they are my competitors in life and love.”
How ironic that Eli Manning doesn’t criticize the NFL for violently doing brain damage to thousands of young men. But, they’re men. Who cares, right?
“I get it, but I can’t help thinking a holistic anti-anyone violence/pacifism campaign would be more beneficial.”
Obviously, that would be the most logical, reasonable, and effective approach but don’t hold your breath. That would be acknowledging that men are human beings worthy of the same level of respect and consideration. They’d sooner slit their wrists and jugular. . .
See, the main thing they are trying to accomplish here, as always, is to paint men as the perpetrators always, never the victims, and women as the victims always, and never the perpetrators. This ensures that men are sufficiently painted as inferior. Anything else is gravy.
I’m a major fan of J-Lin. But, everyone should pray for good health for Barack because Biden’s dumb as a rock IMO.
@Eric, what are u talking about? Eli Manning has supported advanced measures for player safety as well as speaking out strongly against the Saints bounty system. Why the heck do people find it necessary to criticize Eli Manning who does nothing but good things for the nfl and his community?
“@Eric, what are u talking about? Eli Manning has supported advanced measures for player safety as well as speaking out strongly against the Saints bounty system. Why the heck do people find it necessary to criticize Eli Manning who does nothing but good things for the nfl and his community?”
Full disclosure. I’m a NYer. I had ful-blown Linsanity. I have an Eli Manning jersey and wore it at both SuperBowls.
So, I am not a critic of Eli per se, rather the fact that football has for decades been causing brain damage to young men. Now, suddenly, when those brain damaged men and their families (since many died prematurely) threaten to sue for many billions, all of a sudden, people care. The NFL has zero moral authority to criticize anyone for being violent.
By the way, even Terry Bradshaw, when asked last week by Jay Leno if the NFL cares about the players, said NO. Four time Superbowl champion, Terry Bradshaw. That they selected a football player shows the relative value of men vs. women. Men who are victims have to threaten to sue for billions before anyone cares.
It’s not the first time boys will be taught that it’s not OK to strike a girl. Unfortunately, after teaching men not to defend themselves and the rest of society that it’s wrong for a man to defend himself, no one will combat the perception in society (men and women) that because a man might be physically capable of defending himself that he be expected to defend himself. I think a companion question would be if this results in a reduction in violence against women, do you think it will result in an increase in violence against men?
It is too bad that Mike Foley isn’t in this video. He is both a ardent campaigner for RAINN.org and as someone who speaks to a different segment of the population.
@JohnA: I don’t think what is being advocated is to just never defend yourself just because your attacker is a woman. Its really geared toward not abusing an imbalance of physical power specifically in the context of “dating violence”. As other comments have pointed out a campaign against violence in intimate partnerships would also help. I do think that starting with “dating violence” is an effective first place to start. “Dating violence” is in the public space. Its were we can see it and if you can change the culture there, you can stem intimate partner violence. Kind of like starting programs in elementary school.
“I don’t think what is being advocated is to just never defend yourself j”
So it starts out no one should EVER hit a woman, not their wife, not their girlfriend, not their date. The intent might ne to end dating violence AGAINST WOMEN, but I don’t see an indication that the PSA is telling men that they can defend themselves. It’s in fact saying the opposite regardless of intent.
Who says you have to hit someone to defend yourself? I usually consider hitting an offensive move. I think the word “ever” is used for emphasis, not prescription. I don’t think you need to be so literal with it. If someone is so literal and suggestible that they take this that way and get seriously hurt because they lay back and take a beating… well I guess that’s fine with me.
“Who says you have to hit someone to defend yourself?”
Why do you think there will NEVER be a need to? Why do police officers carry guns, barons, and tazers? Who says they have to use them? For example, my brother has been a police officer for over 20 years and never fired his gun on a call. Are you suggesting that cops who do are doing it because it’s more convenient? I think in most cases they just came across a different set of circumstances. What of women who kill their “abusive” husbands?
Whenever I hear feminists say things similar to men don’t need programs (or mention) because they are less victimized than women, if women do it it’s OK because of the context or power imbalance, etc. I always get this question in my head what is the acceptable number of male victims? What level of victimization do men have to reach before it becomes an issue? I always felt that the answer should be zero.
It is a message to publicly shame people that would never do something like this on order to appeal to the most important voting block in this election for Pres Obama, which is single young adult women.
Single young adult women respond very positively to hearing messages about how “all” men are bad (except for those really attractive rich men telling all the rest of us off) so I think it is very effective for its purpose..
I think it’s a great idea…anything to help bring about greater awareness and to open up the conversation….there is so much denial going all around….
The violence gets passed down from one generation to the next…a boy who I thought was my friend long ago used to say the most degrading things to me and he would verbally and physically fight with me (in junior high!)….Luckily, I just walked away from it one day because I could see that I had other choices than to hang out with him….From reading his memoir (he now teaches creative writing at a prominent university), I realized he was just repeating some of the hateful things his father and mother used to say to each other as their marriage was breaking up….It seems like he was trying to re-enact their marriage in our relationship then in 8th grade and later at 2 reunions (he kept chasing me like I was some romantic prize and meanwhile, I was just hanging out making schmoozy polite conversation)…..I suppose for him it must be some kind of compulsion to re-enact scenes from his past, except that this time he is in a position of power (playing his father) instead of some confused, vulnerable kid [except this homie don't want to play!]…..{His wife is a contributor to a major newspaper…maybe I should shoot her an e-mail if he declares his love for me at next reunion!}….
So you know this guy has had trauma and probably needs help so you pull the men don’t have emotions or need help. Instead you try to seek revenge/have some fun at his expense, that from the basic description of the situation is guaranteed to make it worse.
Since a boy growing up today is most likely going to be raised by a single mother, should the onus not fall to parental abuse instead since the father is not there? or do you believe it is genetic?
I’m sure this sort of campaign doesn’t do any harm, and in that respect it’s fine.
But I can remember these sorts of ads running back in the 1990s. Granted, back then I’m pretty sure it was the cast of Saved by the Bell rather than the vice president, but the ads were run nonetheless.
If we’ve had these ads for 2 decades, is one more really going to change anything? Shouldn’t we maybe focus our efforts on something else?
I don’t think this ad is bad at all, and if it makes people feel better that it’s running, then it should keep running. I’m just not personally a fan of taking action “because we have to do something” without any certainty that the action we’re taking will create improvement.
I don’t oppose champagnes to help women unless I think that there is a string possibility that it could also hurt men. I remember growing up I was taught that you don’t hit girls or people with glasses.
“”I did not fight back because there were at least five of them and they were stronger than me. In any case, I was brought up not to hit girls.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478781/Sick-happy-slap-girl-gang-sexually-abused-teenage-boy-jailed.html
I’m not sure if fighting back in this case would have helped him, but there is some suggestion that if there were only 2 or 3 girls (a change of circumstance making the option viable. IMO the circumstances already make such a response acceptable), it may have made a difference.
When society tells men they shouldn’t need help, backs it up by not providing a social safety net for men and at times denying men the safety net that is there, and then removes their only acceptable response, self defense, I can see the potential for male victimization.
If the PSA ended with you shouldn’t hit your wife, GF, etc, but they shouldn’t hit you either and if they do call, then sure, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. If they added if you’re abused or feel the need to abuse call, after wives and GF shouldn’t hit. It would still be all good.
I know many people would see this type of gendered campaign and not see any problem with it. I mean, if it can keep anyone from being abused in any form then that’s a good thing, right? Except, I can’t help but wonder what is the cost of supporting one group of victims above another? When they assign a gender to the victim and/or the perpetrator they exclude those of us who don’t fit within that very narrow definition. I know this because it was campaigns like this that I was forced to see my whole life, and as a result, it kept me silent about my own abuse. When I was confronted with messages that support such a narrowly defined group, I always felt like my own abuse didn’t count or didn’t matter. It took me until my 30s before I even told anyone about what happened to me. When I see campaigns like this it pains me to think of all the other people who are like me who continue to remain silent about their abuse because they can’t relate to these gendered messages. I strongly believe that until we see most of the campaigns that are meant to prevent violence become gender neutral, they will continue to marginalize people like me and keep us silent.
So I have to admit, I’ve never really understood the special attention that “violence against women” (calling this VAW) receives over other violent crimes. It’s not that I think VAW isn’t abhorrent, its just a curiosity that it gains such special attention and investment. Is it that we think VAW is ignored, or poorly served, by our police and court system and needs an alternative means of prevention? Or are we saying that violence against women is so especially abhorrent and/or pervasive as to warrant additional incremental investment over the current system? If we’re saying its especially abhorrent, then why? (yes, that last question is loaded)
Well I can understand it considering that several decades ago the first major strides in combatting DV were specifically of male against female violence. And I like what they have done.
My problem is when it comes at the cost of downplaying, dismissing, and ignoring other violent crimes.
Do you think positive role models like this can help prevent violence against women?
Yes and I think it helps that they are athletes.
*BARF*
How gutless. Campaigns like this are harmful because they support the belief that when it comes to gendered violence, we should only care about women.
They are showing no courage hear, just mindlessly following the standard cultural script.
Why do people think that awareness about violence is a zero sum game? Its not as if you have a limited amount of awareness which requires pulling from one thing in order to apply to another. The specific target of this campaign, “dating violence”, is a very visible problem and is part of our popular culture. It is about intimidation, the use of violence and fear of violence in order to control someone. It is not about defending yourself from an attacker. Defending yourself from an attacker, man or woman, is a totally different issue. Campaigning against “dating violence” with popular icons is the right way to go about it because it is so visible in our popular culture.
I’m sorry that some people perceive that campaigns like this establish a one way view of gendered violence. I agree, there is not enough visibility of women on men violence. We need men to speak out about their experience. Its a cultural problem. We need to make it acceptable to for victims to talk about it and shed light on how pervasive it is. What is needed is a watershed moment. Think back 15 years ago; No one was talking about the sexual abuses of a part of the catholic church. Once enough men got the courage to talk about the experiences, we saw the extent of it. Please, I’m not comparing women on men violence to sexual abuse of young boys, but I am comparing the awareness created by that watershed moment in the late 90′s early 2000′s. Since women on men violence is not a visible part of our culture, we need men to talk to each other about it; not sports icons and politicians. If there was a icon that was willing to start talking about it, that would be great. Someone to speak honestly and frankly about it. First we need to make the cultural space for that to happen.
Men have told their stories, some on this very site about being taught not to hit girls or having been so negatively affected by the gendering of the crime in these PSAs that it made it more difficult for them to recognize their abuse and seek help . Telling their stories won’t help if people are so blinded by their political ideology that they won’t listen. Maybe people listening to the stories need to start laying some groundwork so they can actually hear what is being said.
“Why do people think that awareness about violence is a zero sum game?”
Maybe because this is what we’re told, we’re told that a holistic approach is good as long as it doesn’t detract from the message of this PSA, which is violence against women is wrong. We’re told this because quite frankly, where are the ads telling women not to commit violence against men? Obviously there is either limited funding and men aren’t the priority (zero sum game), this detracts from the message that violence against women is wrong (zero sum game) or there is a limit to a person’s empathy (zero sum game). Where are the calls for a PSA telling women not to abuse men? Where are the PSAs telling men they should accept abuse? Many feminists, who supposedly decry DV of any kind but only seem to take any action when DV is perpetrated by men against women, are women. Where is the companion ad? I would suggest not holding your breath until one is produced anyway again a zero sum game.
“The specific target of this campaign, “dating violence”,”
The specific target is violence against women and the ad constantly repeats the notion that it is NEVER appropriate to strike a woman. The greatest abuse of power is when a man hits a woman seems to say that it’s not as bad as when a women hits a man.
“I’m sorry that some people perceive that campaigns like this establish a one way view of gendered violence.”
Maybe because they equate abuser = male and victim = female throughout the PSA. Kind of leaves out the lesbians too doesn’t it?
The rest of your post makes some sense, but why shouldn’t there be a PSA? Why should men accept that all they can do is tell their stories. Maybe that is true, but why should we accept it as right? Why can’t we demand more, even if we don’t expect to get it?
The kind of white ribbon campaign evolution that some are suggesting here can start locally. We started a White Ribbon Campaign in our community last year and extended the language to women, children and intimate partners. It worked great and we would suggest that other communities do the same…
Steve, thanks for your comment…I hadn’t seen your website before and at a glance (and although I could only spend a few minute today, I promise, I will head back to your site when I have more time) your efforts look helpful. I truly appreciate your efforts. Having said that, there is still something that bothers me: your extended language has no specific mention of men. Sure, we are probably included within the “intimate partners” collective but it feels to me like we’re still seen as less important than women and children – who are specifically mentioned. In that regard it doesn’t feel any different to me than every other time I’ve been told that my own abuse and the pain it causes isn’t as bad or as important for society to deal with as women and children. Your extended wording leaves the oppression hierarchy unchanged and feels like more of the same marginalization, just packaged a little differently.
If the language changes to be more gender inclusive let me know and link the site. I’d like to see it. If not, it’s just another BS site claiming to help men by helping women and I don’t need to see it.