The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive continues! If you haven’t already, please consider sending some bucks my way. (And don’t worry that the PayPal page says Man Boobz.) Thanks! And thanks again to all who’ve already donated.
The ManKind Initiative, a UK organization devoted to fighting domestic violence against men, recently put out a video that’s been getting a lot of attention in the media and online, racking up more than six million views on YouTube in a little over a week.
The brief video, titled #ViolenceIsViolence, purports to depict the radically different reactions of bystanders to staged incidents of domestic violence between a couple in a London plaza. When the man was the aggressor, shoving the woman and grabbing her face, bystanders intervened and threatened to call the police. When the woman was the aggressor, the video shows bystanders laughing, and no one does a thing.
The video has been praised by assorted Men’s Rights Activists, naturally enough, but it has also gotten uncritical attention in some prominent media outlets as well, from Marie Claire to the Huffington Post.
There’s just one problem: The video may be a fraud, using deceptive editing to distort incidents that may well have played out quite differently in real life.
A shot-by-shot analysis of the video from beginning to end reveals that the first “incident” depicted is actually a composite of footage shot of at least two separate incidents, filmed on at least three different times of day and edited together into one narrative.
A careful viewing of the video also reveals that many of the supposed “reaction shots” in the video are not “reaction shots” at all, but shots taken in the same plaza at different times and edited in as if they are happening at the same time as the staged “incidents” depicted.
Moreover, none of the people depicted as laughing at the second incident are shown in the same frame as the fighting couple. There is no evidence that any of them were actually laughing at the woman attacking the man.
The editing tricks used in the video were brought to my attention by a reader who sent me a link to a blog entry by Miguel Lorente Acosta, a Professor of Legal Medicine at the University of Granada in Spain, and a Government Delegate for Gender Violence in Spain’s Ministry of Equality. He goes through the video shot by shot, showing each trick for what it is.
The post in Spanish, and his argument is a little hard to follow through the filter of Google Translate, so I will offer my own analysis of the video below, drawing heavily on his post. (His post is still worth reading, as he covers several examples of deceptive editing I’ve left out.)
I urge you to watch the video above through once, then follow me through the following analysis.
The first “incident” is made up of footage taken at three distinct times, if not more. The proof is in the bench.
In the opening shot of the video, we see an overview of the plaza. We see two people sitting on a bench, a man in black to the left and a woman in white to the right, with a trash can to the right of them. (All of these lefts and rights are relative to us, the viewers.) The trash can has an empty green bag hanging off of it.
As the first incident begins, we see the same bench, only now we see two women sitting where the man was previously sitting. The trash can now has a full bag of trash sitting next to it.
In this shot, showing bystanders intervening in what is portrayed as the same fight, and supposedly depicting a moment in time only about 30 seconds after the previous shot, we see that the two women on the bench have been replaced by two men, one in a suit and the other in a red hoodie. The full trash bag has been removed, and the trash can again has an empty trash bag hanging off of it.
Clearly this portion of the video does not depict a single incident.
What about the reaction shots? The easiest way to tell that the reaction shots in the video did not chronologically follow the shots that they come after in the video is by looking at the shadows. Some of the video was shot when the sky was cloudy and shadows were indistinct. Other shots were taken in direct sunlight. In the video, shots in cloudy weather are followed immediately by shots in roughly the same location where we see bright sunlight and clear shadows.
Here’s one shot, 9 seconds in. Notice the lack of clear shadows; the shadow of the sitting woman is little more than a vague smudge.
Here’s another shot from less than a second later in the same video – the timestamp is still at 9 seconds in. Now the plaza is in direct sunlight and the shadows are sharp and distinct.
If you watch the video carefully, you can see these sorts of discontinuities throughout. It seems highly unlikely that the various reaction shots actually depict reactions to what they appear to be reactions to. Which wouldn’t matter if this were a feature film; that’s standard practice. But this purports to be a depiction of real incidents caught on hidden camera and presented as they happened in real time.
The issue of non-reaction reaction shots is especially important when it comes to the second incident. In the first incident, we see a number of women, and one man, intervening to stop the violence. There is no question that’s what’s going on, because we see them in the same frame as the couple.
In the second incident, none of the supposed laughing onlookers ever appear in the same frame as the fighting couple. We have no proof that their laughter is in fact a reaction to the woman attacking the man. And given the dishonest way that the video is edited overall, I have little faith that they are real reaction shots.
The people who are in frame with the fighting couple are either trying resolutely to ignore the incident – as many of the onlookers also did in the first incident – or are clearly troubled by it.
I noticed one blonde woman who looked at first glance like she might have been laughing, but after pausing the video it became clear that she was actually alarmed and trying to move out of the way.
There is one other thing to note about the two incidents. In the first case, the onlookers didn’t intervene until after the man escalated his aggression by grabbing the woman by her face. In the second video, the screen fades to black shortly after the woman escalates her aggression to a similar level. We don’t know what, if anything, happened after that.
Is it possible that the first part of the video, despite being a composite of several incidents, depicts more or less accurately what happened each time the video makers tried this experiment? Yes. Is it possible that onlookers did indeed laugh as the woman attacked the man? Yes.
But there is only one way for The ManKind Initiative to come clean and clear up any suspicion: they need to post the unedited, time-stamped footage of each of the incidents they filmed from each of their three cameras so we can see how each incident really played out in real time and which, if any, of the alleged reactions were actual reactions.
In addition to the editing tricks mentioned above, we don’t know if the video makers edited out portions of the staged attacks that might have influenced how the bystanders reacted.
The video makers should also post the footage of the incidents that they did not use for the advert, so we can see if reactions to the violence were consistently different when the genders of attackers and victims were switched. Two incidents make up a rather small sample – even if one of these incidents is actually two incidents disguised as one.
Domestic violence against men is a real and serious problem. But you can’t fight it effectively with smoke and mirrors.
Hi, long-time lurker, first-time commenter. My friends and I recently had a long discussion about this video on Facebook. The Spanish article (which talks about “the new sexism” and how it’s unsurprising this video takes place in Great Britain, as it is one of the greatest culprits of this new sexism) says “the objective of this video is to draw attention away from violence against women.” Amen. The video is a visual derailing, period. And, like a lot of derailing, it is false (whether deliberately fabricated–as in this case–or simply unfounded). Someone else here said in the comments below that “most of the men I know are misogynist.” Unfortunately that goes for me too. I don’t blame them; most people at the beginning of the twentieth century were racist. Even the “enlightened” touted their “enlightened” ideas mostly to show how cultured they were, but how many were involved in real activism? How many whites then had friends of color (or today for that matter)? No one is saying it is men’s fault. It is the fault of the dominant culture. It’s been a hundred years since women got the vote in the United States. Do we really think that is enough time to stamp out thousands of years of oppression, of seeing women as “the second sex?” Really? What’s happening now is that women’s justifiable demands for equality and autonomy are outpacing men’s education in our society (and some women’s too; it’s easy to internalize messages of inferiority). There is a gap here, growing pains; this is the true cognitive dissonance of our times. So many people theoretically believe in women’s equality but in practice they think women act the equivalent of what we used to (still) call blacks: “uppity” (only for women it’s “bitchy”). Which really translates to “thinking they are deserving of respect.” My friends and I were trying to explain to a man exactly why this video is derailing and exactly why derailment is so frustrating (that women’s voices cannot be heard without some defensive complaint from men), and why this video was so false (people do NOT intervene in cases of domestic violence against women, and victims–male and female–are shamed and blamed into silence) even before we knew it was a fake. I blame neither men nor women for this; I blame people, and our current society. This too shall pass (I hope). People like MRAs will fall victim to Darwinian forces and will hatemonger themselves out of existence. There is a reason people aren’t marrying as much anymore and divorce rates are higher: women have options (and the kind of men who deep down don’t believe women should have options don’t want the kind of women who choose to exercise those options). As I said, growing pains. I know I’m preaching to choir here but I just had to say something. And I am sorry to say so many men I know harbor misogynist (entitled and embittered) ideas, but as a survivor of multiple sexual assault (and relationship violence) it’s hard for me to see it any other way. Men are assaulted too–I know that–but some women are assaulted all the time (most recently it was two friends of mine, the weekend before last). This doesn’t make me hate or distrust all men, although I’ve lost interest again for a while. I still hold out hope someone will like me and not what I represent someday (sex, conquest, rejection, frustration). It’s happened before–someone liking me and not what they think I am. I’ve known plenty of good men too (that is, basically good; morality exists on a continuum, and no one is immune to awful thoughts or bad behavior). I actually think women are LESS bitter in general and more resilient because we often have lower expectations; unfortunately we are used to it. Many men are still raised with messages of entitlement and then find in the real world that things are a little different and a lot of women no longer will put up with such entitlement. I think this leads to bitterness such as that evidenced by Elliot Rodgers, whether it’s sexually or racially directed (ironically Hugo Schwyzer has something interesting to say about this: http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2012/07/23/mass-murder-and-white-male-privilege). Obviously race and class play a role in the scope and focus of that entitlement, but I think all men in societies of “posmachismo,” as Mr. Larente Acosta says, grow up with such soul-poisoning messages regarding women. And it’s bad for them too. Do you think someone like Paul Elam can ever find a loving, fulfilling relationship? Can he enjoy women’s friendship? I feel sorry for these kind of men in that respect–how warped their views are–and I feel sorry for all men forced to stifle how they really feel and forced to shoulder undue burdens in our society because of the same inequality that also negatively impacts women. But let’s not forget what women suffer. This is not “victim mentality;” most women I know don’t see themselves as victims. I would say most women I know are brave in the face of their struggles.– In any case I am not bitter, just sad. And today I just had to say something.
@Calabasita
I understand what you’re trying to get at, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to equate an expression of antiblackness with an expression of sexism (although it’s fair to point out their similarities). Especially since antiblackness and sexism often intersect and create a uniquely oppressive misogyny called misogynoir. Black women face a kind of misogyny that non-black women don’t. They are not only called “bitchy” and “uppity”, but they are also seen as categorically ugly and promiscuous. And on top of that, they face body policing that white women rarely ever face, particularly with respect to hair. Many a black woman is shamed for having long hair, naturally grown hair, etc. If you already knew about this and/or you are also black, I apologize, but I’ve seen this kind of comparison come from a lot of white folks – even those who are well-meaning.
(Also, I don’t want to jump on you too much, but please try to break up your comments into more paragraphs. It was kind of difficult to read your comment due to the lack thereof.)
[CN: survivor trauma, rape]
While I’m not a survivor and I will never have a survivor’s perspective unless I experience even more traumatic sexual abuse some day, I can understand their aversion to the word and the consequent desire to censor the ‘a’. It’s a way of using the word and understanding what it means without seeing the whole word spelled out right in front of them. After all, the word “rape” carries all sorts of troubling connotations for people: violable, dehumanizing, humiliating, shameful, disgusting, hopeless, abusive, worthless, powerless, vulnerable, and so on. It’s no wonder that so many survivors don’t want to admit that what happened to them was rape. For many survivors it probably takes a lot of courage, self-acceptance and support to get to the point where they can bluntly call it rape and not feel triggered. Some survivors are obviously very much capable of spelling out the whole word, but for many survivors still in the process of self-acceptance and coming to terms with what happened to them, it may be a bit feel a bit safer and more comfortable to censor part of the word.
@Ally–I am not sure why you think it’s inappropriate to equate sexism with racism. Of course there is twice the bigotry directed at you if you are female and black; I never said otherwise. And body policing is a topic I didn’t get into at all. Black people in general are on the receiving end of more body policing than white people (and women particularly, just as other women experience more body policing than men). Other than the fact that race is a sensitive subject, I’m not sure what the objection is (and “well-meaning” is pretty condescending). Bigotry is bigotry; the point is I don’t blame individual bigots for their bigotry (and the slurs “uppity” and “bitchy” ARE similar in their intent; in fact “uppity” has been used for women also. That is why I used this particular analogy, not to single out African-Americans specifically). If I had made another analogy using a different group of people who experience widespread discrimination would that have been better? Or should we simply not make comparisons for the sake of argument? Also, what does my race have to do with it (do I have more of a right to say something “well-meaning” but offensive if I am of the marginalized group about which I am speaking)? I will not ask your race, and I also will not disclose mine.
And if that is all you got out of my post, then I am doubly sorry.
As to paragraphs, that was more spontaneous-outpouring than anything else (I’m pretty sure you probably noticed that by the ending–“and today I just had to say that”). Maybe next time I can use paragraphs.
I may sound angry, but as somehow who can understand why women might want to censor the word “rape,” then maybe you can understand why it is also difficult to talk about your own rape (or rapes). The point is that women experience violence–domestic or otherwise–all the time, and people don’t intervene as this fake video suggests. As far as I know men in free society don’t experience the frequency of sexual violence that women do and in fact many seem to be pretty clueless about it as evidenced by how uncomfortable the topic makes them. Maybe I have just been unlucky, but I’ve been a target since age 13. For a lot of women it’s even younger, and as with me it doesn’t stop. It’s a whole range of behaviors, from street harassment and sexual menacing to unwanted groping, kissing, stalking, to outright rape, and it becomes for many of us part of the fabric of our everyday lives. It’s something I just have to put up with, unfortunately. I fight back in my own way, but it’s hard. Going to the police is not really an option, as I learned the first time I tried; if you aren’t battered enough it’s always he-said she-said. I have no problem with this–I believe in proof beyond a shadow of a doubt–but the cold indifference, dismissiveness or outright prurient curiosity I was met with the two times I tried to report certainly wasn’t encouraging. In any case, disclosing something like that isn’t easy, and I’m sorry if I stepped on your toes in the process, paragraph and analogy wise.
But thanks, anyway, for reading it. I guess maybe I didn’t care if anyone read it or not and maybe that’s why I didn’t bother with paragraphs. I just needed to say it.
@Calabasita
That wasn’t all I got out of your comment. I thought the rest of it was cogent and well articulated. I just objected to one little part of it.
Anyway, all I’m saying is that a lot of folks unknowingly erase anti-black misogyny by equating misogyny with antiblackness. But in light of your response I have a reason to believe that you understand this and didn’t intend to erase antiblack misogyny. I’m sorry if I seemed super critical, but I’ve seen a lot of folks erase anti-black misogyny and I try to call it out as often as I can. I’m cool with you, though.
You’re right, that wasn’t appropriate for me to mention. I apologize.
Except that The Mankind Initiative has antifeminists in its upper echelons, including Erin Pizzey.
Yet this campaign seems to be trying to undermine VAW campaigns.
Also, their statistics are (as has been pointed out) questionable at best, which makes some people skeptical of the nobility of their aims.
Why does this have to be a competition, though? Why does the conversation about violence against men have to be build on minimizing the issue of violence against women?
We do. We are. Doesn’t mean we have to support every single attempt, especially when they’re trying to pull themselves up by tearing us down.
The MRM =/= support for men’s issues, either…
It’s pretty important to expose a campaign based on altered evidence that doesn’t really support their message by virtue of its shaky origins. You think that all campaigns should be coddled and supported no matter how shaky their own justifications are? It would suffice to point out the unique institutional problems that men face when they are abused. Yet the creators of this video decided to argue for their position with unreliable evidence.
RE: Ally
Some survivors are obviously very much capable of spelling out the whole word, but for many survivors still in the process of self-acceptance and coming to terms with what happened to them, it may be a bit feel a bit safer and more comfortable to censor part of the word.
I can understand that, but in my case, it often feels like my reality is so horrible I can’t even say the name out loud, which feels kinda gross. A slur is a word intended to denigrate a whole group of people, while rape is an action.
“Yet this campaign seems to be trying to undermine VAW campaigns.”
How? By pointing out that there’s a difference in our reactions to violence against women (an appropriate reaction) and violence against men? How else could one effectively illustrate this? Where in the video does it in any way suggest that violence against women is acceptable?
I find this especially difficult because you go on to say:
“Why does this have to be a competition, though? Why does the conversation about violence against men have to be build on minimizing the issue of violence against women?”
It doesn’t! It isn’t a competition! This video does nothing but point out that men are also victims of domestic violence, and that our reaction to female-on-male violence is generally not cool. Why is it that simply pointing out the contrast is somehow “trying to undermine VAW campaigns” unless you’re seeing it as a competition?
“We do. We are. Doesn’t mean we have to support every single attempt, especially when they’re trying to pull themselves up by tearing us down.”
Honestly, this is what I’ve believed, and said many times in vicious arguments with MRAs (back before I quit Reddit). And seriously, if you can point me to specifically where this video tears down the effort to fight violence against women, unless it’s literally just the fact that it contrasts the response we have to the two different types of violence, which is a patently inane argument considering how we constantly point out the differences in how men and women are treated when it’s women who are being treated poorly, and scoff at the accusation that this is us minimizing the suffering of men simply by drawing the same contrast…
“The MRM =/= support for men’s issues, either…”
I completely agree. The’re utterly wretched. But we’re not wretched… right?
“It’s pretty important to expose a campaign based on altered evidence that doesn’t really support their message by virtue of its shaky origins. You think that all campaigns should be coddled and supported no matter how shaky their own justifications are? It would suffice to point out the unique institutional problems that men face when they are abused. Yet the creators of this video decided to argue for their position with unreliable evidence”
This is just a bizarre argument to me. This video was not evidence. I can’t even fathom the idea that you would genuinely need evidence for this. This video was an ad. It was designed to highlight the issue. Every single person in it could be a paid actor, as with the wonderful (and hard to watch) ads from the National Domestic Violence Hotline a while back, and it would in no way undermine the message of the ad.
The video was not intended as evidence. Treating it like it was is just such a ridiculously huge straw man argument I don’t even know where to begin. Do you genuinely believe that we don’t treat violence perpetrated by women against men extremely differently from that perpetrated by men against women? Like, is this the honest counter-proposition you’re making here? To me it seems like you’re attacking the video just because you found an angle to attack it with, not because you honestly, sincerely believe it misrepresents our cultural reality.
Forgot this!
“Also, their statistics are (as has been pointed out) questionable at best, which makes some people skeptical of the nobility of their aims.”
Their single statistic is, to my understanding, relatively reliable. The fact that there is nuance, and that perpetrators of serious violence or of longer-term violence are more likely to be men (and victims more likely to be women) than the single statistic they give — it doesn’t mean that their valid statistic is “questionable at best”.
This is a campaign which is aimed in no way at feminists. It’s aimed at the majority of traditionally-minded, misogynistic people who believe that women are not really any serious threat to men, and that no “real man” would let himself be victimized by a woman anyway. Using the best true number you’ve got (40%) to shock these people into realizing that something’s amiss is only fair. It’s great to point out the ways in which 40% is definitely an oversimplification, but so is 1 in 3 or 1 in 6 — that doesn’t mean they’re not effective, persuasive statistics to use when trying to convey a message.
Look, I get it. I’ve been in the comment trenches arguing with MRAs who are so infuriatingly oblivious to any perspective outside of their own whiny echo chamber that I wanted to throw something across the room. That doesn’t make it any less disappointing to see one of my favourite websites run an unsubstantiated, straw-man hit piece against one of the few organizations which are actually trying to help male victims of domestic violence.
Don’t speak for me by using “our” as a collective noun. I don’t approve of violence at all.
And selectively filmed and selectively edited video proves nothing.
It does when they’re trying to downplay domestic violence against women.
Have you read this entire thread? People posted links about this group. The founder is an anti-feminist who thinks all the problems in the UK are due to feminism and women no longer conforming to traditional gender roles. Literally no one here is saying that male victims shouldn’t be taken seriously. We are saying that are legitimate reasons to side eye this video.
Yeah, it’s highlighting the issue with a video that depicts edited footage of events that may have in fact been completely staged due to all of the editing. That’s not something we can just ignore. Forget about my word choices – the problem is that the video is dishonest. And we can avoid such dishonesty by providing another means of highlighting the problem. Like an ad whose producers make it clear to the audience that the events were staged. The dishonesty undermines the message rather than support it.
Actually, neither motivation fits here. I just don’t like dishonesty in campaigns that are supposed to help people. For all of your talk about straw man arguments, you sure seem to love them yourself.
Azurain:
And ad that pretends to be showing a Truth. An ad which is making an argument. An argument which is fraudulent, in presentation; and in content.
If they had made an honest ad, this wouldn’t be an issue, and we’d be supporting them.
Other than them chucking the nuance out the window and pretending to very different sorts of abuse are the same: esp. because they have (fraudulently) juxtaposed the same sort of violence before making the one which has removed the relative nuance of the difference in the sorts of violence which tend to occur.
This is funny. The feminists are talking about small sample sizes and transparency. If only they applied the same critique to their own so called ‘research’ and relentless propaganda campaign against men. Most of the feminist domestic violence advertising is filmed in a studio using actors for every role according to a script which always shows men as the perpetrator and women as the victim – its called propaganda.
The author of this piece has not ‘proven’ anything, none of their inferences are backed up and none of their suspicions are substantiated. Its simply a ‘slur’ piece full of statements like ‘may be a fraud’ and there ‘could be edited’. I’m sure it is merely one of the many hundreds of articles that will try to diminish and excuse it in feminist circles over the next few months. It is not intended to prove their case, only to cast enough doubt that those who wish to believe that women couldn’t possibly be at fault can do so.
Violence IS violence. Women do it and feminists/deny/apologise/excuse it, to preserve their moral binary of ‘bad ‘perpetrating’ men, good ‘victim’ women’. Any reasonable person realises, usually just from their own experience, that women are not any less prone to committing than men are. Any fair minded person consults the legitimate scientific research (www.domesticviolenceresearch.org) before making a decision, and also comes to the conclusion that there really is no difference between the sexes when it comes to domestic violence. Any sexist fanatic intent on finding ways to hate all men will believe whatever they want to believe and invent anything they need to invent to do so.
“Why does this have to be a competition, though? Why does the conversation about violence against men have to be build on minimizing the issue of violence against women”
This is a competition because that’s what the VAW campaigns made it by trying to render violence against men, by women, virtually invisible. We have had thirty years of violence against men being denied, ignored and played down, and every time its mentioned the VAW crowd say that someone is trying to undermine them. The VAW’s started a war against men and now they are complaining because men have finally joined the battle, in response to seeing their legal rights eroded year after year.
The fact that there is there even a a VAW campaign in the first place is pure sexism – since when are women more deserving of protection from violence than men?
If they’d made a video with a fully-acted scene presented as such, that would be fine. But as soon as they say “hidden cameras,” that signals that a) the bystander reactions are real and b) we’re supposed to draw a conclusion from their reactions, both of which are totally negated if they manipulated the video.
There is also the laughably naive idea from Azurain that an ad could be made that contains no key idea/message.
There is always a purpose behind an ad, which is why people react so negatively to ones that are manipulative/deceptive. Like this one. And why there are advertising codes of conduct, which this one clearly *fails*.
@Azurain:
Really? If you care to read
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/10858831/Domestic-violence-viral-ad-the-real-difference-between-attacks-on-women-and-attacks-on-men.html
If female perpetrators being “3 times more likely to be arrested than men”, I’ll take that kind of “not being taken seriously” any day.
Citation needed. Because you’ll see from
http://kareningalasmith.com/2013/04/29/this-thing-about-male-victims/
So, to reiterate, violence is unacceptable, whomever it is against. However, this video was produced by a notibly bigoted group of people which attempts to “big up” DV against men by minimising DV against women. The cause of preventing/reducing DV against men and helping male survivors of DV is a great one. This video is crap and the people who made it deserve to be called out on it.
VAW legislation exists because, while violence against men occurs, violence against women is entrenched in society. As a gender, women need that legislation. Individual men need protection from violence committed against them. The male gender doesn’t. They don’t face systemic gender-based violence. They face lots of different kinds of violence but the violence committed against men is rarely gender-based. The reasons men are subject to violence (usually committed by men) are usually very different from the reasons women are subjected to violence (also usually committed by men.)
It’s not about who deserves it. It’s about who needs it. This isn’t difficult to understand.
QFT
How could we possibly see something that was presented as actual responses to situations of domestic violence happening in real time that turned out to be merely edited to appear to show what the editors wanted it to as dishonest, guys?
How? Adamblanch wants to know.
…because he doesn’t own a dictionary and has no idea what “dishonest” means.
^this