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.
anand, no
here’s your first comment, with some boring stuff cut out of the midle.
“it’s obvious the video editors only put in the relevant parts of the video” No one knows that BECAUSE they edited it and chopped it. They were trying to use it to make a point, but if it jumps around and not all of it’s there, you can’t really know whether its true or not
“i bet $100 there was not a single person laughing at a women being beat up by a man”. I wish i lived in your universe. Fucking assholes laugh at women getting beat up all the time. i’ve seen “man the bitch deserved it” or whatever in relation of domestic violence. So maybe I can have those hundred dollars now, hmm?
“most people would laugh at a man being beaten to a pulp by a woman or maybe i’m just surrounded by terrible people” maybe you are. it’s probably due to your boring, what-about-teh-menz personality. I recommend both a friend and a personality transplant.
“There is a double standard that exists in society and
no ones doing a shit about itI am not doing anything. me. i’d rather post on feminists sites and derail with my what about teh menz and defensiveness of fake videos than do antyhing. me in particular.”ftfy
“Feminsts beat the patriachy unicorn” so i take it you don’t think it’s real? Must be affected so little by it that all you can see is the minimal harm the patriarchy causes men, and not the massive harm it causes women. There’ s a quote I remember from somewhere “The patriarchy is like a gun that men wield. And sometimes it backfires and it hurts. But not as much as getting hit by the bullet”.
tl;dr stop shooting us and maybe you’ll stop feeling that backfire.
sorry you are just being so obtuse, so refusing to quantify what you mean, i’m guessing because if you came out an said it, people would see exactly how shit it is. So you hide behind like “oh well maybe this is true” blah blah “i’ve seen youtube vidoes” blah bla “It’s all bad but i still want to focus on men and act like they have it *worse* than women” “blah blah patriarchy doesn’t exist.”
it’s just your language is making me very uncomfortable because it seems to me like you want to be able to say horrible shit, but without saying it directly so people can’t exactly put their finger on why it’s horrible.
anyway, i guess that was a point to say that, anand, your first comment in this thread has been nothing but obfusciating and trying to twist the facts, and you’ve kept going each subsequent comment you’ve posted. So no we can’t ‘agree to disagree’.
We did have a discussion a few months ago about whether to use an asterisk after trans — Ally said she doesn’t use one, and had a whole background on its use or non-use that was, as usual, coherent and educational, and I can’t remember it at all. My brain is swiss cheese.
Yes. Yes, there is. Alongside cuckolding and ‘a dystopian future where men are only used for breeding’, it’s a pretty good indicator that some of the MRAs and trolls confuse the real world with fetish porn.
Lets not. We’re not friends. Using a smiley face doesn’t make you look like any less of an asshole.
The purpose of this site is mocking misogyny. Why every single troll needs that pointed out when it is written as clear as day on the front page is beyond me.
If you make the claim that misandry is a systemic problem in our culture that is equivalent to misogyny you are effectively siding with the MRAs whether you admit to being one or not. That is not an attitude that we take kindly to here. I feel no particular need to be nice to people that wish to erase any form of oppression and nobody else around here does either.
If you’re looking to get hugs and cookies simply for claiming not to be an MRA (all the while using all the anti-feminist talking points) you have come to the wrong place.
So I looked at it again and something I did notice this time was that when the woman grabs the man…people don’t react at all. There’s a guy sitting eating his lunch, this is going off right beside him; and he’s not even flinching. Actors?
Also, the reaction shots: the eye lines are a mess. We have no connection for what the people are actually looking at. No sense of distance, time etc. I could easy go out and make a advert about how women find pianos falling on men hysterical using this type of videomaking.
I’ve never thought of the word ‘bitchin’. I guess it just naturally came out because ive heard a lot of women and men use it in real life. I think I’ll be careful about using it next time. Thanks for pointing it out.
I specifically said that pain of childbirth lasts much longer(assuming no permenant damage to testicles). I just wanted to give a general idea of the pain the results from being kicked in the balls. Its an analogy for the intensity of the pain and nothing else(not duration).
If you dont like me here then you can ask david to ban me. Im not a troll mainly because im not hiding behind a handle nor is it the first time im here. Im a regular reader here because i like to read. I also read avfm, jb, jezebel and many others. Im a fan of david because his views help me question my own views and outlook on sexism. Im not sure why feminists think im an MRA and MRAs think im a feminist. Im just a common guy who reads up on many topics including feminism. I genuinely hope that we can be friends or atleast not throw insults at each other. A good day to all fellow readers.
@anand
Yeah thats not gonna happen.
You read Avfm? This is why people think you’re an ass. Duh. That website is full of misogyny and skewed and false statistics.
We will not be friends if you continue to suggest feminism and ‘mens rights’ (as in the toxic bullmess peddled by avfm) are 2 sides of the same coin.
Perhaps answering this simple question will help in our understanding of you:
What does ‘feminism’ mean?
Also fyi, there is no analogy for child birth. Why do you need there to be?
Suzy, I dont believe everything i read there. I always take it with a grai of salt. Avfm is just one of the websites that i read. I do find some of the articles misguided and somewhat misogynistic. I’ve also read Mein Kampf, but that dosent make me a nazi.
Avfm is not something to be taken with a grain of salt. It’s something you should be absolutely disgusted by. Please don’t internalize their language as you’ve already shown us. It’s toxic. Here’s a not so bad article you could read
http://time.com/134152/the-toxic-appeal-of-the-mens-rights-movement/
Seconding that I have no desire to be friends with someone who compares feminism to a bigoted hate group.
Anand, this site is for mocking misogyny. How many times do we have to say that? This isn’t a site to debate the existence of patriarchy (or kyriarchy for that matter). This isn’t a site to debate whether or not women are humans who should have the same rights and the same respect as men. Anyone trying to have that debate will be mocked. Deal with it or leave.
Are you not capable of leaving on your own?
I’mma go get my opinions on resistance to the British Raj by reading mostly British accounts of it. Should be fine as long as I take it with a grain of salt, right?
No, but if you make a habit of visiting Nazi web sites and use their buzzwords on Jewish blogs, people might get a tad confused.
Daintydoughal, i believe that feminism means or atleast i hope that it still means equality between the sexes. But not every feminist understands feminism. There are people who self identify as feminists who hate men. Whether they are the majority or minority is up for debate. I have no intention of drawing conclusions. I will stay out of that part of the debate.
I really dont think that feminism and MRM are two sides of the same coin. I consider them different in many ways and i try not to connect them because that gets people on both sides to be defensive as you are right now. I dont follow any ideology because i like to learn more about sexism and its implications on both genders without getting into the activism part. I do more research than activism.
I still hope that we can agree to disagree. Im not challenging anyone’s views. I just want to know more about feminism and its activism. I have no intention of changing your minds or saying anything offensive. If there is anything offensive in my posts, you can call me out and i will promptly apologize. I subscribe to different views and lets leave it at that. I repect your opinion and i genuinly hope everyone here will extend the same courtesy. Cheers.
Anand is the supreme information master. Reading horrible things and not caring one way or the other is just the way those supreme information masters roll. Only science for Anand please.
Once upon a time (like 5 or 6 years ago), trans people used the asterisk like a boolean operator, so that the prefix “trans” was inclusive of transsexual, transgender, and other identities starting with “trans”. I haven’t seen it used since I left LJ two or three years ago. From what Ally said, it’s since been co-opted by transphobes who use it in more of a footnote sense (as in “they say they’re trans but I don’t believe trans is a thing”), while the trans discourse has moved toward skipping the asterisk and just using the erstwhile prefix as a word unto itself.
Haha, wow, I actually wrote that before I saw Anands post but it still fits perfectly!
Thank you for the info on asterisks, I really meant do you use them on ‘male’ ‘female’, but I guess not. And I hate to keep going on about it like I’m making a big deal over nothing. I just don’t want to step on toes. Sorry.
@anand
Please, mansplain more about feminists to me.
Also, anand, the fact that the best thing you can say about your behavior is ‘literally not banned yet’ is not a good thing.
Anand: Emilygoddess, I personally have never seen this in real life so il take that story with a pinch of salt. But i do agree that there may be some shitheads out there who do this, thing is that they are’nt ‘men’.
So generous of you to concede that someone else might be telling the truth (but with a grain of salt) because you, in your perspicacious peregrinations haven’t seen it.
Such a “knight” you are. A friend to women everywhere.
Esp because Also, i dont automatically believe everything that people write on the internet. So id like to keep my worldview limited to science and my experiences.
Which is why you cite youtube?
Also… you don’t get to decide who the “men” are.
kicking them in the balls(somewhat comparable to childbirth pain and potentially fatal leading to death or infertility
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say this is pretty much bullshit.
1: You can’t make a direct comparison.
2: I’ve been present at three deliveries.
3: I’ve been kicked/hit in the balls, more than once.
4: I’ve had two bouts of kidney stones.
Based on my observations of the deliveries, my personal experience with being kicked in the balls, the pain of kidney stones; and the comments of women who have had both kidney stones and children: being kicked in the balls is nothing like labor.
As to the infertility, yes, trauma to the gonads can cause it. No, testicles are not so fragile that a shot to the nuts if likely to lead to it. They are exposed. If we don’t wear trousers they are more exposed. Lots of guys have taken some pretty heavy hits to the ‘nads, and almost none of them are infertile as a result.
Of course the women who get hit in the gut when the are pregnant… they often lose the baby, and sometimes end up infertile. And when that happens it’s almost always a very specifically targeted attack.
Unlike a kick to the groin.
Anand: I believe that more men are openly misandric towards other men than woman. But the key word is ‘openly’, i believe people regardless of gender can be misandric or misogynistic. I dont buy into the ‘women suck, men rule’ mentality that some MRAs have.
So you think (based on all that science), that women are more “misandric”, than men. But you aren’t at all biasd. You don’t buy into the “women are more evil than men” thing of those “bad” MRAs. You are different.
I’ll take that under advisement, of course, like you, I don’t believe everything people write about themselves.
Lets just agree to disagree and move on.
Nope. Not gonna happen. You don’t get to say things which are stupidly wrong and then pretend it’s as if you like jalapeño peppers in your salsa, and I like guajillo. These are things which matter (yes, even the “White Knight” shit). They are things which hurt people. You don’t get to be nasty, and then tell people to “just get over it.”
You want to move on? Fine. No one is stopping you. You want others to move on, make amends.
You’re welcome, blockquote mammoth.