Categories
domestic violence MRA shit that never happened

Is The Mankind Initiative's #ViolenceIsViolence video a fraud?

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.

vv1bench

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.

vv2bench

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.

vv5benchtrash

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.

vvmuted

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.

vvbright

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.

vvnervousblonde

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.

936 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pecunium
10 years ago

That’s what I thought, so why this concern-trolling post about mankind’s video? What does the video have to do with mocking misogyny?

400Boyz: U mad bro? You don’t need to read.

pecunium
10 years ago

Off to eat some choccies, get some coffee, and buy stuff for supper. Try to leave me a few scraps.

400Boyz
400Boyz
10 years ago

Sure, I can buy that. So again, what does mankind’s video have to do with the purpose of this blog? Is the assertion now that mankind’s video is misogynistic?

“Domestic violence against men is a real and serious problem. But you can’t fight it effectively with smoke and mirrors.”

This blog is not concerned with domestic violence against men, so why be concerned now about how the video affects domestic violence against men?

My guess is that your’e right. This blog is not concerned about that. It’s more concerned with casting doubt on whether there is a double standard:

“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.”

Toolbox
Toolbox
10 years ago

I love how they try to twist it that we’re making fun of abuse, rather than the disingenuous minds behind the video.

Oh, and it’s totally misandry when a man is treated more severely for a much more brutal assault.

sparky
sparky
10 years ago

AllyS, y u mad sis? you don’t need to read.

Disingenuous troll. Can’t you come up with anything better? Some new schtick that’s not boring?

So why are you so caught up in a blog post pointing out how a deceptively edited video is deceptive?

400Boyz
400Boyz
10 years ago

“But that’s perfectly ok, because it’s “on his record.””

Never said it was perfectly OK. I said that at least someone tried to do something, and no one tried to make light of it. Where’s the comedy sketch making fun of Rihanna getting hit or Saatchi’s victim being choked?

I ain’t the one calling people names, pecuniun. U mad.

So, now the video is misogynistic? U definitely mad.

Anarchonist
10 years ago

@400Boyz: It’s not concern-trolling. When you make a fake video presenting men as greater victims of domestic violence than women and passing it as real hidden camera footage, you’re minimizing the much larger problem of DV, where women are the victims. You’re trying to paint a false picture of a society where women get justice and men do not. You’re making it seem as if female victims have an unfair advantage. You’re trying to minimize the reality of female victims of DV in favor of the much smaller group of male victims who, though victims as well, do not face unfair treatment compared to female victims.

If you lie to divert attention from female victims, you’re being a misogynist.

400Boyz
400Boyz
10 years ago

I wasn’t the one calling others names. If it really makes them that mad, they can stop reading, dishonest troll.

sparky
sparky
10 years ago

400Boyz: We ain’t mad, gumdrop. We’re playing with a chew toy.

Who’s behaving completely predictably.

So, who here has defended that SNL skit you’re so pissed off at?

And if you’re pissed off at SNL skit, why don’t you, I don’t, write a letter? Stage a protest or a boycott?

400Boyz
400Boyz
10 years ago

That the video shows that there is a double standard does not minimize the violence women face, nor does it present men as greater victims. If you didn’t get the message that, “Hey, it can happen to men too, and *you should intervene too*”, then you’re viewing it as a zero sum game.

“If you lie to divert attention from female victims, you’re being a misogynist.”

Bringing awareness to the problem of male violence is not diverting attention from female victims.

sparky
sparky
10 years ago

And, I’d just like to point this out: 400Boyz accuses David of “tone trolling” for pointing out that dishonestly edited video is dishonest. Then complains that being called “fucking tedious trollboy” by Ally is “name calling.”

400Boyz
400Boyz
10 years ago

“400Boyz: We ain’t mad, gumdrop. We’re playing with a chew toy.”

Oh, u are predictably mad.

“So, who here has defended that SNL skit you’re so pissed off at?”

I never said anyone did. I’m talking about the fact that you would never see that if the roles were reversed– which means the “fake” video is accurate.

“And if you’re pissed off at SNL skit, why don’t you, I don’t, write a letter? Stage a protest or a boycott?”

Who says I haven’t?

bunnybunny
10 years ago

Bringing awareness to the problem of male violence is not diverting attention from female victims.

Wow, either your reading comprehension is terrible or you’re avoiding the question. I’m guessing a mix of both.

400Boyz
400Boyz
10 years ago

Futrelle is concern trolling. The blog isn’t concerned with male victims, except when, you know, it needs to show concern as part of denying or playing down the existence of a double standard.

duckbunny
10 years ago

I guess trollsy got bored of his gaming-and-masturbation philosophy being moderated.

sparky
sparky
10 years ago

“And if you’re pissed off at SNL skit, why don’t you, I don’t, write a letter? Stage a protest or a boycott?”

Who says I haven’t?

Wonderful! So you have a petition or something to sign, right? You have a list of sponsors to boycott, right? When is/was your protest, and how are you/did you get the word out?

400Boyz
400Boyz
10 years ago

What question have I avoided, doc?

400Boyz
400Boyz
10 years ago

You asked if I’d written a letter or staged a protest. I wrote a letter. I’m not an activist.

Woody
Woody
10 years ago

“When you make a fake video presenting men as greater victims of domestic violence than women and passing it as real hidden camera footage, you’re minimizing the much larger problem of DV”

Who the hell are you to assert that this is a fake video? First, what does “fake” mean here? Second, that is not supportable by the evidence.

sparky
sparky
10 years ago

400Boyz:

And I’m guessing you didn’t read anything Anarchonist wrote, because ze hit the nail pretty squarely on the head here:

@400Boyz: It’s not concern-trolling. When you make a fake video presenting men as greater victims of domestic violence than women and passing it as real hidden camera footage, you’re minimizing the much larger problem of DV, where women are the victims. You’re trying to paint a false picture of a society where women get justice and men do not. You’re making it seem as if female victims have an unfair advantage. You’re trying to minimize the reality of female victims of DV in favor of the much smaller group of male victims who, though victims as well, do not face unfair treatment compared to female victims.

“400Boyz: We ain’t mad, gumdrop. We’re playing with a chew toy.”

Oh, u are predictably mad.

Eh. You can believe whatever you want to believe. But you ain’t seen me mad, gumdrop.

sparky
sparky
10 years ago

Woody, it’s really cute when you try to get all debate-y and stuff, but you obviously haven’t read the article or any of the comments and you’re obviously out of your league here.

You might want to sit this one out, buddy.

400Boyz
400Boyz
10 years ago

By the way, 40% of victims are male.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

And the double standard is a fact. Pointing that out is not misogynistic, anarchonist. The sky won’t fall just because someone dared to say it is a problem.

Anarchonist
10 years ago

Bringing awareness to the problem of male violence is not diverting attention from female victims.

It is, if they frame things as if female victims are being helped and male victims belittled. They edited the video, making it seem like people are laughing at the male victim while helping the female victim. How else can you explain that piece of dishonesty, except by the makers of the video wanting to present female on male DV as a much bigger issue than male on female DV? Given that the majority of DV is the latter, this is hugely problematic.

Here’s the thing, as pointed out by many people on this thread (since you haven’t bothered to read the comments): If you want to bring attention to male victims, you make a video about them and them only. Don’t make up shit, just bring attention to the fact that male victims exist, and belittling them like our macho culture does is fucking insulting.

What you don’t do is compare two sets of victims and make it seem like the smaller (but not less important) group is in the greater danger here. What good would that do, if you care about victims? Including a dishonest comparison with female victims makes it seem like you think female victims are nowhere near as big a deal as male victims. That’s misogynistic.

And seriously, stop appropriating social justice language. It makes you annoying.

I’m having trouble with my thoughts today. I wish I was on meds, it would make responding to trollyboy infinitely more fun.

400Boyz
400Boyz
10 years ago

“Eh. You can believe whatever you want to believe. But you ain’t seen me mad, gumdrop.”

I’m just going by the evidence, bonbon.

duckbunny
10 years ago

Not good at reading human emotions, this one.

1 31 32 33 34 35 38