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.
@Adamblanch,
CITATIONS NEEDED! you’re making a whole lot of unsupported calims, there, laddie. Care to back any of them up?
Oh, and you do realise that the USA isn’t the whole world, right? That VAW doesn’t apply in the UK where this video was made and where the Mankind Initiative is based? ‘cos your apparent lack of a clue doesn’t encourage me to give you credit for actually realising that.
And am I the only one wondering whether Adam Blanch is Peter LaCroix?
Well, apparently he is a real person: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Adam-Blanch-Counselling-Coaching-Self-Development/375365895872703
And he does counselling.
Adam, if you really are provisionally registered to become a counsellor, then I recommend you talk to your supervisor about some issues you have that will negatively impact on your ability to discharge your duties as a counsellor objectively.
You have, in two posts, conflated criticisms in this thread of one specific video with:
– an allegation that feminists do not do proper research (“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’”)
– an allegation that feminists have a “relentless propaganda campaign against men” also reflected in the comment “Women do it [violence] and feminists/deny/apologise/excuse it, to preserve their moral binary of ‘bad ‘perpetrating’ men, good ‘victim’ women’. ”
– the notion that feminists wish “to cast enough doubt that those who wish to believe that women couldn’t possibly be at fault can do so.”
– the conclusion that “This is a competition because that’s what the VAW campaigns made it by trying to render violence against men, by women, virtually invisible.”
– “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.” I would ask where the 30 years comes from, because I’m pretty sure that violence against men has been occurring throughout human history, but I’m not interested in your answer.
How can you possibly help heal people psychologically if you have this much baggage, particularly when it’s so focussed?
You’re right. And they also make it clear that everything is staged and that it’s just an advertisement, not a hidden-camera look at reality.
The author admits that himself. You aren’t providing and substantial criticism because the point of this article was not to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, but rather to show that this campaign is based on a potentially dishonest video and should be analyzed with caution.
It’s not a “moral binary.” What are you talking about? This shows that you don’t really understand feminist theories of violence. Feminists focus on male violence against women because they view it as a feature of a larger system of men as a class oppressing women as a class. If you think that men don’t oppress women, that’s a different matter, but what remains true is that the focus on male perpetration and female victimization has literally nothing to do with denying the existence of female perpetration and male victimization. This is part of feminism’s focus on women, and if you don’t like it, that’s too bad.
You’re just another boring MRA/MRA sympathizer with the same boring talking points and a presumptuous attitude reflected by your fluffed-up academic tone. If you thought you provided any thoughtful or reasonable criticism, think again.
“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.”
You didn’t answer my core question here. Do you believe that the message the ad is conveying is likely to be false? It’s only dishonesty if it’s knowingly conveying an untruth. Otherwise, editing is being used to compellingly convey a truth. So, do you really believe that we react appropriately to female-on-male violence as a society?
Honestly, I don’t believe we even react appropriately to male-on-female violence, let alone to female-on-male (or anyone who falls outside of the gender binary, who are almost always left out of these discussions entirely). But I think it’s a pretty open-and-shut discussion, the question of whether violence committed by women against men is less likely to be taken seriously.
Wrong. It’s presenting as real something that didn’t happen. That’s dishonest. There’s no “these are actors” disclaimer, it’s just a shoddily-edited (how very MRA-ish) attempt by a misogynist group at using a genuine problem to derail from a far more pervasive one.
Oh, and who’s responsible for most violence against men? Other men.
“Don’t speak for me by using “our” as a collective noun. I don’t approve of violence at all.”
I wasn’t. I was speaking as a feminist, on a feminist website. The fact that I disagree with you on this specific point doesn’t make me some horrible enemy. I’ve made if pretty clear that I don’t approve of violence either, and that I agree completely that violence against women is a much more pervasive, destructive issue than violence against men.
Or should I just stop referring to myself as a feminist because I once disagreed with some feminists? (Keep in mind that plenty of feminists are supporting this video).
“And selectively filmed and selectively edited video proves nothing.”
Once again, the video was intended to illustrate something, not to prove anything. If you seriously disagree with the contention that we treat violence by women against men less seriously than the reverse, I’d honestly question your understanding of the society we live in. We (as a society) generally think that women are simply not capable of victimizing men in most cases, and that if they do it’s the man’s fault for letting it happen, because of our patriarchal assumptions that men are stronger and more capable than women. Women get the worse end of these assumptions, but it “hurts men too”.
“Wrong. It’s presenting as real something that didn’t happen. That’s dishonest. There’s no “these are actors” disclaimer, it’s just a shoddily-edited (how very MRA-ish) attempt by a misogynist group at using a genuine problem to derail from a far more pervasive one.”
I disagree. I honestly just don’t see that the video itself minimizes violence against women. The simple comparison does NOT minimize violence against women. In fact, violence against women is shown as being unacceptable here, not excusable. I’ve made this point earlier in this thread but it’s been ignored. Care to point me to specifically how this video minimizes violence against women?
Talking about violence against men does not ‘derail’ the discussion of violence against women, unless it is deliberately interjected into such a discussion to do so (which is definitely a favourite MRA tactic, and gross). You’re basically saying here that if we ever talk about violence against men and how it’s treated differently from violence against women, we’re “derailing” the more important conversation about violence against women.
“Oh, and who’s responsible for most violence against men? Other men.”
Yes! Overwhemlingly so! In fact, over 90%. Somewhere around 95% of reported violence is committed by men (reported, but still, it’s a compelling statistic). I agree completely. The problem is, the small minority of victims who are male are more likely to be ridiculed for it than offered support, and if you disbelieve me on this I honestly don’t know what world you’re living in.
*headdesk*
The real one. The one you are oblivious to certain aspects of and completely unwilling to learn.
EUCH. I just noticed this Adam twit, trying to capitalize on this discussion with his creepy MRA ramblings. This is why I gave up arguing online. So, I’m out. Really, I just wanted to express my disappointment with this article. That disappointment remains, although after a bit of reading (thanks for the links) my support for the Mankind Institute is a little shaky now. The video itself, though, is a genuinely good addition to the discussion of gender-based violence (even while it sucks that MRAs are latching onto it with their slimy little paws).
Thanks for the discussion everyone! In almost every other context I’d be wholly onboard.
Would you mind to present evidence of this?
I the world that I live, the small minority of victims who are male are more likely to be believed if they go to the police, and women agressors are way more likely to be arested.
The fact that dudebros in their day-to-day lives like to mock female-on-male violence is not an indication of how the whole situation turns out for male victims of abuse.
Please read the links I provided. THis is not the case. Actually, the female perpetrators are likely to be punished more severely than males ones (who will be generally excused) for stepping outside of society’s acceptable female role.
Fucking BS #1.
Fucking BS #2. So the nagging wife, spendthrift wife, spermjacking female, cock-carousle riding female, liars about rape, and child-custody thieves for alimony/threaten never to let the children see the father again/falsely accuse the father of child abuse tropes are either (1) shit I just made up now on the spot or (2) not illustrations of how men stereotypically view women’s victimisation of men? There’s more to the perception of female victimisation of males than physical violence.
Stick to the flounce.
But it is knowingly conveying something false – namely, by presenting a video that this heavily edited and therefore does not depict actual real-life hidden-camera events. That is dishonest no matter how one looks at it. If they just edited it and said “Hey, we’re making this video that doesn’t actually show real-life situations but is nevertheless used to highlight the problem of male victims being mistreated in public”, then their video wouldn’t be dishonest at all. But that’s simply not what they did.
Anyway, I’m of the opinion that women have it worse due to the nature of the gendered power structure in which they are oppressed, but that’s besides the point.
Viewing public acknowledgment of how domestic violence is gendered as “good PR” for women, like it’s somehow a victory for feminism that women are being abused, just shows how unafraid you are of being violently controlled by your partner. Feminists care about the gendered nature of domestic violence because it impacts all of our lives, both directly for women who are victims/survivors of violence, or indirectly for those who have loved ones who have been abused, and finally all women as we all face the spectre of violence from the men in our lives and are forced to change our behaviour to try to avoid it.
I actually somewhat appreciate Adam’s honesty here. At he’s not pretending to give a flying fuck about violence against women.
It’s bone chilling that he’s a counselor though. I don’t see how he can do his job ethically with this much hatred towards women.
By the way Adam, I can’t speak to laws in the UK, but in the US the VAWA despite the name does not apply to only women. Male victims can use the programs it creates/funds too.
Again I ask, have you read the thread? Titianblue just posted statistics. Your question was already answered.
Sorry if my points were already addressed. I’m still behind on the thread.
Wow, are you really this obtuse? The video didn’t present a man attacking another man. It presented a woman attacking a man. It’s basically setting out the claim that women will be supported and men won’t in such situations. Guess what, victims generally get shit heaped on them whatever their gender!
Wait, so I can use whatever kind of dishonest editing techniques I want, as long as my message is true?
So I can like, make a completely staged, fictional film and tell everyone it’s a documentary?
Sweet.
@Azurian
Given who made the video, are many feminist actually supporting it if they know who did it? Cuz I’d like, oh I don’t know, a citation.
Also, I’ve been trying to ignore the influx of trolls here, because it’s morning and I can’t mock apporiatley, but anyone else curious if Azurian is going to start to claim to be the mostest feministest of us all (and that zie speaks SEVEN LANGUAGUES!)
Don’t forget to stick to the flounce!
@sparky
Make it about penguins.
If it’s going to have penguins, can it also have hard chairs?
Adam, thank you for making it clear that you’re too stupid to be worth arguing with. It’s a real time-saver!
Azurain, I’d like you to take a good, hard look at Adam’s comments. This is the context we operate in when we try to discuss domestic violence: men who (1) think that talking about VAW is sexist and (2) can’t discuss violence against men without also complaining that women are getting too much attention. In that context, is it easier to see why this video feels adversarial to us?
Ah. “It may not be true, but it’s True.” You don’t think that being caught in an obvious lie might undermine someone’s credibility and make people wonder if the Truth they’re conveying is actually true?
Truthiness!
So the video is the revealed Truth? Which, again, supports the contention that mens rights activists rely on faith and belief rather than evidence.
Your god has worse than clay feet.