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.
Ah, I see. You’re concerned about male victims of DV and their portrayal in the media, but not to the point of making much of an actual effort to actually change things or make male victims’ lives any better.
You’d rather argue on a misogyny-mocking blog.
400Boyz:
Which would be…?
“It is, if they frame things as if female victims are being helped and male victims belittled.”
They don’t need to frame things that way. It IS that way. Society is more aware of female victims than of male victims of assault. They are also treated differently by society, and male victims are a joke. If that video is mysogynistic then I guess so are these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiRQld9j34
Why don’t you chew on those toys for a while? Only a few women stopped to do anything in the first video. They were probably “eeebil” feminists that would not be down with what Futrelle posted here.
Oh, this is rich. Pray, show me the evidence, Elam fanboy. I’m intrigued.
Meh. The article did not include a link to the study, and in any case, the study was apparently put together by Parity. I would have liked to assess how, exactly, they went about it, considering Parity seems to be another one of those equality movements that focus on men. I’d take this one with a grain of salt.
Anyways, you’re being heteronormative by assuming all those male victims of DV are in a relationship with women.
You did not read anything I just wrote, did you? Figures.
a) I just pointed out that there is no double standard. Male victims are not worse off than female victims. Our patriarchal society treats all victims of DV pretty shittily.
b) It’s my name, don’t wear it out.
c) Ahahahahahaa! Because men are just sooo silenced and ignored by our society, right? *Snicker* Because talking about men’s issues takes sooo much courage, right? *Tee hee hee* Because “feminist dogma” is just sooo absorbed by our society, right? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* *wheeze*
No.
For the nth time, no. No, they are not.
http://kareningalasmith.com/2013/04/29/this-thing-about-male-victims/
400Boyz: Do you know how many times that video has been linked on this thread? And it doesn’t prove what you’re trying to prove:
No, female victims of DV are not treated any better than male victims of DV.
Trying to have this kind of suffering Olympics where male victims of DV have it so much worse than female victims? That’s misogynistic. That’s minimizing domestic violence against women.
You can support male DV victims without tearing down female DV victims.
And with that, I gotta get to work now. Have fun with the chew toys!
@400boyz, please stop yabbering on about points which we have already covered. Go back, read earlier comments and see that all your points have been answered.
Male DV victims are more likely to report, report sooner, report after less serious assaults, are more likely to have their cases prosecuted, are less likely to withdraw as witnesses – as I’ve already said, if this is being taken less seriously than women, please tell me what it means to be taken more seriously.
Oh, I know, that SNL don’t make skits about you. Forget the authorities taking you more seriously, the real problem is SNL. That’s the important thing, right?
Since trollyboy here seems more concerned with painting images of imaginary oppression than reading peoples’ comments, I’m gonna call it a night. Beloved just came home from work and we have barely seen each other in a week. Spending time with her vs. engaging oblivious trolls, hmm…
Bye, y’all!
@400boyzzz,
I do not follow at all celebrities life. But what is a fact is that most popular culture is male dominated (writers, directors…), either in videogames, movies, comic books, tv…so if women beating men is made into comedy, if I were you, it’d take my grievance where it belongs. I personally don’t think any of it is funny. What I can tell you is from being the daughter of the chief of police in a small town. In the vast majority of the cases dad had calls on domestic violence, it was the woman who was the victim. The only case I can remember where the guy was the victim, it was the 16yo son who had enough of his father beating the living hell out of his mom. It was Christmas eve, and my father had no choice to arrest the son. My father was also one of the cops that was not a prejudiced bigot, so another thing he took seriously is domestic violence in the gay male community. I think if the MRAs had real concerns for the DV victims, its definitely an area where more awareness is needed.
That vid posted by woody is mostly bs. Why? Because in the real world, most women are not a credible physical threat to a full grown man unless they have a weapon to even the playing field. Sure they are women abusers, but even in the LGBTQ, the majority of the aggressors are men. In situations where we perceive there is no real danger, we do not react the same way. Watching the guy being bullied, most people will assume that worst comes to worst, the man will just walk away without any serious physical harm when he has enough. From experience, we know that women are far more likely to sustain serious injuries from domestic violence. That’s facts. It does not mean that the behavior is acceptable for any gender. Its just we do not have a compulsion to intervene in people private affair unless we perceive a real risk for somebody’s safety. For example, I got no prejudice in favor of either my cats or dogs, but I will put a stop to cat/dog rough housing when it gets too heated way faster than when the dogs rumble in the jungle. I am just realist about the risks.
“Ahahahahahaa! Because men are just sooo silenced and ignored by our society, right? *Snicker* Because talking about men’s issues takes sooo much courage, right? *Tee hee hee* Because “feminist dogma” is just sooo absorbed by our society, right? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* *wheeze*”
” I just pointed out that there is no double standard. Male victims are not worse off than female victims. Our patriarchal society treats all victims of DV pretty shittily.”
“No, female victims of DV are not treated any better than male victims of DV.”
It’s not about being treated better but about their situation being taken more seriously. DV against women is not taken lightly, or even worse, as a joking matter, while male DV is. That much is evident.
“You can support male DV victims without tearing down female DV victims.”
That’s not tearing down female DV victims. They are still victims and no one is saying they should not be helped. The double standard against male DV also needs to stop and their situation needs to also be taken seriously, not made fun of or played down.
“That vid posted by woody is mostly bs. Why? Because in the real world, most women are not a credible physical threat to a full grown man unless they have a weapon to even the playing field. ”
So because men have the potential to hit harder, they don’t deserve help? The male actor wasn’t even striking the actress and people were ready to intervene. Are you sure you want to open a can of worms by making special considerations because of male strength?
@400Boyz, thank you. I had not seen that ABC video before. It is very disturbing.
Shut up, Woody.
Shut up, Woody’s strawman building sock.
It is disturbing. But some women did step up, and that’s very brave. They were probably feminists too.
But, some people assume that if you’re a man, you need to endure this kind of thing if it came from a female. Likewise, imagine if a guy who was much smaller and weaker than you did the same thing. If you fucked him up, it’d be self defense. If you did the same to the woman who was attacking you, you’d be in court as a perpetrator. (InB4 the trolls who’ll say I want to fuck women up: I don’t want to fuck anyone up.)
It is a double standard. Futrelle wants to deny it or downplay it, so Futrelle all of a sudden, on this very blog, shows concern for an issue that this blog is allegedly not concerned with
I’m done poking the ant hill. I was hoping to be proved wrong, but you all reacted very predictably.
It’s so cute when the trolls start flattering each other.
Geez Woody masturbate in private, please!
@400Boyz,
Look twerp, anybody that does not take any considerations of physical strength in a physical confrontation has less IQ than a chicken. That’s risk assessment 101 retard. And I don’t even say that as a woman, I say that as an ex-farmer. If I am not aware of comparative advantage of a 240 ram over my 125 pounds, I am just plain stupid. There is a reason why sports like boxing have weight category. Most people will intervene when they see a situation where one aggressor has a clear physical advantage over the other, otherwise they wont. Its not gender related. Now go back in your playpen.
u cannot expect a higher level of discourse from a masshole. oh well.
400Boyz: I ain’t the one calling people names, pecuniun. U mad.
No. I’m not mad. I’m not even that engaged (yet). You are just this side of boring (with a soupçon of predictable tedium), and bog standard.
I do see that you don’t have enough argument to engage with the facts presented, and have resorted to lies by implication. Because, my dear lad, I’ve not called you any names (and have made pains to spell the nym you’ve chosen as you’ve chosen to spell it, a courtesy you’ve not extended to me).
Which tells me you’ve got nothing. Saatchi admitted to committing a crime (though he denies it now, pretending it was just a friendly caress on his part). For this admission he was given less than a slap on the wrist. He was told not to do it again, or something dire might might happen.
Since Jay-Z, the offended party; on whose behalf you pretend this petulant tirade is based, chose not to press charges, and the offense (if any) wasn’t committed in the presence of any officers, there isn’t anything legally which can be done against Solange.
Now… if you want to argue the law should be changed, and cops ought to be able to arrest people for misdemeanor assaults they didn’t witness, feel free to make that case.
But I don’t think you really want that. You want to pretend this is some sort of Sharon Osbourne/Lorena Bobbit moment, and that feminists are champing at the bit to punish men for things the didn’t do, while forgiving women for things they did.
Ain’t the case. We don’t think this is a big deal because (for whatever reason) Jay-Z doesn’t think it’s a big deal. Now, if he’d wanted to press charges, and been told, “No, you need to try and work it out,” I’d be upset.
The same way I’m upset when that gets said to women who try to press charges. But you don’t care about that either. You want to pretend that the balance of violence is equal. That women strike, and injure, men at the same rates men strike and injure women. That, mon cher is bullshit. It’s a convenient canard, one that this video you are defending perpetrates. That perpetration is the inherent misogyny in it.
That, to make their point, they also needed to lie. Perhaps they didn’t have the money to do it on a different day: Oh wait… they did shoot on more than one day, so that isn’t the case.
The CHOSE to misrepresent one fact. Which calls into question all the other facts they present. Just as you’ve been doing with Solange/Jay-z and Saatchi.
Last comment for real.
“Look twerp, anybody that does not take any considerations of physical strength in a physical confrontation has less IQ than a chicken. That’s risk assessment 101 retard. And I don’t even say that as a woman, I say that as an ex-farmer. If I am not aware of comparative advantage of a 240 ram over my 125 pounds, I am just plain stupid. There is a reason why sports like boxing have weight category. Most people will intervene when they see a situation where one aggressor has a clear physical advantage over the other, otherwise they wont. Its not gender related. Now go back in your playpen.”
First of all, thanks for the name calling, asshole.
Second of all, don’t muddle the arguments. I mentioned self defense and facing charges in court. Small guy hits big guy and gets fucked up in return, big guy won’t end up in court. Reverse the roles, and we’re likely talking big guy getting fucked up by surrounding males, and possibly ending in court.
400Boyz: You asked if I’d written a letter or staged a protest. I wrote a letter. I’m not an activist.
So you care, but not enough to do anything. The actual work you leave to others.
Nice to see how strongly you hold your convictions about the horror of the double standards.
Are you sure you want to open a can of worms by making special considerations because of male strength?
I see you’re ability to assess the wisdom of engaging in a fight is on a par with your other analytic skills.
I’m a pretty fighter. In hand to hand brawling I hold my own. I’m willing to entertain fights with people who outmass me; because I know what I can do.
BUT, I’m not sanguine about it. Things happen. If the opponent has a weapon (be it a club, knife, beer glass, handful of dirt, cup of coffee) my advantages (smaller stature, willingness to inflict grave bodily harm, experience) can all be negated. If my antagonist also has skill in fighting I sure as hell need to take their size/speed into account (and for some sorts of fighting even if they don’t have training their sheer mass is a problem).
So to say, “Oh, we can’t make considerations of “male” strength into account is to be a disingenuous sack of shit (there, now I’ve called you name).
“Which tells me you’ve got nothing. Saatchi admitted to committing a crime (though he denies it now, pretending it was just a friendly caress on his part). For this admission he was given less than a slap on the wrist. He was told not to do it again, or something dire might might happen.
Since Jay-Z, the offended party; on whose behalf you pretend this petulant tirade is based, chose not to press charges, and the offense (if any) wasn’t committed in the presence of any officers, there isn’t anything legally which can be done against Solange.”
yeah, but you conveniently ignore that the police in the case of Saatchi rightly tried to do something based on a picture that was leaked. Nowhere did I see in the articles that his wife tried to press charges.
Saatchi’s “admission” was the act of accepting the caution rap:
“By accepting a caution, Mr Saatchi admitted he had assaulted his wife, but he had earlier played down the attack, claiming that the pictures taken outside a fashionable London restaurant merely showed the couple having a “playful tiff”.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-charles-saatchi-admitted-assaulting-nigella-20130619-2ohmt.html#ixzz35sgI4uyf
yeah, he got less than a slap in the wrist by law enforcement, and Solange didn’t even get a talking to. His wife’s situation was taken seriously as it should have, while Jay Z’s got a mass smirk.
So, yeah, I quit. There’s no double standard, and it’s misogynistic to even think there is one. Have fun in your ant hill.
That’s three flounce posts in a row.
Don’t forget to stick the flounce! (the best way to stick the flounce is to never datken the comment section again, btw)