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: I still hope that we can agree to disagree. Im not challenging anyone’s views.
No, of course not. You are merely telling them they are wrong, discounting their experience, informing them of their delsions, spouting bullshit (labor pains/misandry/the obvious cause of the editing), and generally being an asshole.
No reason to not agree to disagree.
Bullshit. One does that when the disagreement is irrelevant. I’m not gonna “agree to disagree” with someone who says slavery was hunky-dory, or that women don’t deserve the vote, or that a living wage is evil.
Because those aren’t trivial things.
You’re claims aren’t trivial either, so you don’t get a pass either.
If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you want to make an argument, then stand behind your claims. Don’t try to pull this passive aggressive bullshit of, “we can disagree amicably”. We can’t. I won’t.
I am not going to let you (or any other idiot) get away with making arguments and allowing them to sit, unrefuted, as if they merited consideration.
I think what you want is just that. To have your drivel sit here, without response (because we are all so “civilised” that we can “agree to disagree”) and so give them the gloss of being to strong to be refuted.
Fuck that noise.
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.
See, that shit right there is what I mean. You aren’t going to “draw conclusions”. You are just going to make unsupported accusations.
Then ask people to “agree to disagree”.
Nope.
Anand,
It might be fun for you to pretend to be above the fray and play devil’s advocate. You know what? That is the perfect example of male privilege right there.
When I discuss misogyny and feminism, I don’t have that luxury. Because I don’t have the privilege of only looking at it as a thought exercise. Because misogyny directly effects and hurts me. For me the topic is personal.
When you come in here using MRA talking points and engaging in what you perceive as friendly debate you are actually being incredibly hurtful. To me and the billions of other human beings who are hurt by various forms of misogyny in their lives.
Intent isn’t everything. I don’t give a fuck if you didn’t intend to offend anyone. You did and you are willfully blind about why you have hurt people here and don’t seem to care. Why would any of us want to be friends with someone like that?
Pecunium, it is pretty obvious to anyone who reads that paragraph that i believe everyone has the ability to breed hatred to similar extends irrespective of gender. Nobody is more misandric or misogynistic merely based on gender.
Are you skipping my apologies for even saying that since i already mentioned that i had no idea it was a word mras used to shame people. I’ve always thought it meant peoplewho go out of their ways to help other people. Im sorry i had no idea about the matter.
Im a supreme information master as i’ve been titled if it means that im just here to learn. Consider me an alien who has no idea about your ways and customs. 😀
@anand
If you actually want to learn, google. This isn’t an educational site.
I’ve always been a supporter of feminism and i really hope that it helps the women still suffering from sexism. Call it male privilage or cowardice, but i dont want to be identified as a feminist. Its a personal choice that i made for myself not to be judged by people just for my affliation with feminism. I have nothing but respect for most feminists. If you can point out anything sexist that i’ve said which can be generally applied to women as a gender, then please point it out for me so that i can apologize for my mistakes. I have different views but never will support sexism or racism in any way whatsoever. I can understand hostility when i make a ignorant comment and every time someone pointed out my mistakes, ive apologised and made a memtal note not repeat it.(see white knight and bitchin).
Anand: Pecunium, it is pretty obvious to anyone who reads that paragraph that i believe everyone has the ability to breed hatred to similar extends irrespective of gender. Nobody is more misandric or misogynistic merely based on gender.
And no one here has said otherwise.
What you deny is that one form of such hatred is more common (to the point of pervasive), accepted, and; by a significant portion of the population, even encouraged.
But you… you are too rational to take that into account. You think the idea of one, is as bad as the idea of the other. So far as it goes, this is true. But this isn’t the world of ideas. This is the world of facts.
The facts are that women are treated worse than men. That men are excused when they perpetrate violence against women. That society abuses women. That society cheats women. That society has such different standards for men and women that it has to be seen as a societal problem.
You don’t want to see that. You think spouting platitudes about “everyone being able to breed hate” has some actual meaning. And you get pissy when people tell you this isn’t relevant.
You, in this thread, have held us to a different standard than you hold yourself. When we give you our experience, you discount it. Why? Because you haven’t seen it with your own eyes.
We (with our experience, varied and collective) tell you that your, “evidence” is inadequate; and tell you of what we have seen with our own eyes (which eyes outnumber yours, and [I will wager] many of us having years which outnumber yours), in many different countries, you say, “That’s not enough.”
So are dishonest, factually, and intellectually (details above, in previous comments).
The superficially correct content of your sentences does nothing to make up for their facile lack of actual information, nor their lack of relevant data. They are useless.
The Sky is Blue. Rain is Wet. Snow is Cold. Summer in the desert has hot days and cold nights.
All of it true. None of it constructive.
And you haven’t limited yourself to that level. You have said untrue things, and then asked us to validate them by agreeing to not argue about them.
That’s asking us to collude in your deceit. I won’t take part in that sort of moral corruption.
Marie, point taken.
Anand: Are you skipping my apologies for even saying that since i already mentioned that i had no idea it was a word mras used to shame people.
I don’t really believe you. You say you have read widely, places like AVfM,and other MRA sites; in the interest of knowing what they think.
It strains credulity that so central an idea of the MRM has never been used, and that someone so scientific and rational as yourself didn’t absorb the context.
What Pecunium said. If you read MRA sites you should know that the use that term derisively. It’s MRA 101.
Your apologies are being met with skepticism because they come across as insincere. They are of the “sorry you were offended” non-apology. You haven’t displayed an understanding of why you were offensive.
I don’t know if you read my previous comment because you didn’t respond to it. If not, scroll up and read it. I explained why you were offensive (to me anyway).
Anand: we really don’t need a mealy-mouthed shitstain like you to explain feminism to us. No, we can’t be friends, and no we can’t agree to disagree. You can, however, leave this blog and fuck off forever.
Pecunium, I dont read avfm everyday. -_-
Most of what i read there is extrememly boring or filled with inaccuracies and sometimes sprinkled with misogyny. Its one of the many sites that i visit when i read up on feminism which is one of the many topics that i read up on.
I totally respect your views and i dont intend to argue with your observations or beliefs. Maybe im blind to my own privilage or maybe im right. I’d like to find that out on my own. I will still keep reading this site because i like the content here. Its because i respect everyone’s right to have their opinion. You may be right and i may be wrong. Im not in a debate or anything. I genuinely hope to bring about equality and to do that i have read and understand things clearly. I have to reject what’s wrong and accept what’s right. Maybe i will become a feminist in the future but i want to be sure about it. I hope you understand my situation.
Anand:
A big part of the reason that childbirth is considered especially gruelling and painful is the duration. When you’ve been in labor for twenty-four hours (perfectly normal, especially for a first pregnancy, though generally the early contractions are not as painful), you’re deprived of sleep, possibly hungry, and you may not even be close to delivery.
For my first, I would say I had serious painful contractions for only maybe eight to nine hours, with some pain relief in the last few hours (though you couldn’t prove it by how I felt). That’s nine hours at less than ten minutes apart, at least three much closer than that; didn’t go back to the hospital until about three hours prior to delivery. I don’t want to play Pain Olympics here (but if we do, I call luge!), but how long does the acute pain from ball kickage last?
And of course I don’t think any man should be kicked in the balls unless he wants to be or if it’s in self-defense, but when you compare it to childbirth you ignore the factors that make childbirth peculiarly unpleasant. Kidney stones are probably a closer analogy. They seem to produce that same incapacitation at the peak of pain as labor does.
Want a good example of callousness towards men? When my husband had a kidney stone, I got up and brought him his painkillers because his cries of pain were keeping me awake. Selfish me, just thinking of my own comfort there.
I haven’t watched the video and don’t plan to because it just looks unpleasant and upsetting.
However what I really hate is this idea that people will come rushing to the aid of women being attacked by men in public when literally nothing could be further from the truth.
I know countless women who have been harassed and attacked by men in public and none of them have ever been rescued by strangers stepping in.
I personally had an incident some years ago when a very drunk man was hitting on then 18 year old me in a pub. As I politely tried to deflect him by telling that I (actually did) have a boyfriend, his response was “why not have two?” and he then proceeded to come up behind me and wrap his arms round me and sort of lean his bodyweight on me so I was bent over double, trapped inside the circle of his arms.
I was twisting around trying to escape his grasp and clearly not happy about the situation and I was surrounded by people who I could see watching us. I even made direct eye contact with one man standing nearby with his mates and mouthed “please help me”.
And no-one, no-one stepped in. I was a teenage girl being harassed and assaulted by a man who must have been at least 30 and no-one stepped in.
I managed to wriggle free and get myself away and the bar staff had seen and he was promptly escorted out. But no-one helped me while I was being physically restrained by this man and struggling to get free. No-one even came to ask if I was ok, when I was clearly not.
And there is my friend who because she is very tall for a woman is subjected to a lot of harassment. Once a group of random men decided it would be hilarious to see if they could pick her up, so they did, they grabbed her and sort of half dragged her along the street for a bit. No-one stepped in to help her.
And my friend who was cornered by a strange man on the bus who was trying to talk to her and kept giving her compliments and then suddenly made a series of grabs at her chest which she slapped away and she loudly and repeatedly announced to the crowded public bus that she did not know him and she wanted him to leave her alone. No-one stepped in to help her.
So it is quite frankly bullshit that the world is full of people who will rush in when women are being attacked by men. It is not my experience, nor that of many women I know.
I like (no I don’t) that Anand is refusing to address my point about why devil’s advocacy is hurtful and is now exclusively addressing and listening to the commenter who is a man.
to Anand: I think eventually both incidents will ended up with 911 call. And you proved it yourself, eventually an “old lady” in your story did it. Many people just would do it eventually because of noise and disturbance that the fight cause. The reaction depends on how much the victim looks like she is in danger. Usually guys are stronger, statistically, although it doesn’t mean that there could be a women that is stronger than average guy. In the video guy is a little taller although he is close to girl’s size. Time frame is important. It could take a little longer for the bystanders to realize that the guy is in danger. The key word is “in danger”. Bystanders didn’t call police immediately during the first incident as well. That is what MRA doesn’t understand. They refuse to understand that society protects … not men, not women, it protects the victim, the person who look like he/she is in danger. Secondary society protect other person’s right to relax without hearing noise from somebody’s fight. For majority of people fights like that are not entertaining.
Same way MRA is talking about how men are treated unfair during a divorce. Wife gets kids, alimony and child support. I was talking with a guy that complained about all that and in the same time told that he never would marry a woman that has a career. Of cause he mentioned that the law in California is the worst. But in reality in California law protects the spouse that is weaker, that makes less money. Husband will get alimony if he makes less than wife. The law doesn’t give custody to a wife, the law gives custody to a spouse that is taking care of kids. Brining money could be done distantly, kids stay with a spouse that did the most work at home for kids. A stay at home dad most likely would get custody. Still statistically there are more stay at home moms than stay at home dads. MRA shows the statistics and claims that the law protects women. No, it makes a decision regardless gender. The decision is based only on the interests of kids and protects the part that is financially weaker.
MRA always forgets that “Correlation does not imply causation” .
We can talk about our direct experiences until we’re blue in the face. The supreme information lord (or whatever it was I called him) will only accept the mighty science of youtube videos.
Lol
Hisorophilia,
Sadly, just about any woman can make a similar. I’m lucky enough to have never been beaten up, but I’ve been harassed and groped in crowded public spaces more times than I can count and only once has anybody helped. I was on the bus sitting alone in the window seat and a man across the aisle was staring at me and saying “oh yeah” over and over again. Another man offered to sit next to me to keep a buffer between me and the pervy guy.
But that was the only time something like that happened and that particular incident was one of the milder forms of harassment I experienced because he didn’t get in my personal space.
It’s really gross that I even have to count myself lucky that I’ve never been beaten and never been raped because those things are so common.
Weirwoodtreehugger, i actually typed in a response but after reading hellkell’s comment, I decided to move on rather than hear more offensive shit. I really understand your position and why you think i am sexist. I wish i could prove to you that im not but i apparently cant through this medium. I will only be called more names and then be insulted by everyone who disagrees with me. I understand this is a mockery site and you mock people. Thats exactly why i decided to move on rather than write down another reply. I dont usually respond to people who call me names just for the sake of insulting me. I respect your opinion and i have read your comment. Im not replying not because you are a woman but merely because i dont want to be insulted. No hard feelings.
Uh oh!
Cat,
I do agree with your view about victims and men being stronger than women. I wish they tried the same experiment giving the woman a weapon like a baseball bat or something to see the reaction. Maybe your theory is correct. I’ve just pointed out the difference in the way people treat men and women when it comes to abuse. I do agree with your Comment. The difference in size and strength may have played a huge part in the existence of this double standard. I just pointed out that its wrong and its about time we start treating both genders as equally capable of violence. Weapons dont really care about anyone’s gender. That’s what i was tring to say. Thanks for your reply. 🙂
Historophilia
I’m so sorry to hear that 🙁 I don’t know if this will help but here is an internet hug from me to you and all your friends
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66/xX4everLostSoulXx/Pon%20and%20Zi/71c58a42.jpg?t=1242265007#cute%20hugs
Oh Moobz… Just stop. Just back away from this one. Given your history with commenting on male rape and abuse, you need to stop digging yourself deeper.
Oh look, we’ve devolved to the poor poor me stage. Look dude, you come in here, spout things that sound like MRA talking points, say flat out you consider heir views when forming opinions on feminism, offer notpologies and want to agree to disagree?
It’s like agreeing to disagree with anti-vaxxers or conspiracy theorists (with potentially harmful views) or bigots (besides the misogynist ones you want to agree to disagree about that is). Not happening. Their views are not valid ones to be given equal weight — vaccines have been proven safe and effective, AVfM frequently features blatantly violent misogyny. No goddamned reason to give either view the weight you’d give scientific journals, studies of human experience, or anything else involving a whiff of science.
Things we can agree to disagree on: whether mangos are yummy or gross. Things we can not agree to disagree on: whether people who outright state they hate women, and feminists in particular, and wish violence upon them have potentially worthwhile views on feminism.
WWTH
More hugs!
http://cuddlycomments.com/view/36461
Weirwoodtreehugger,
“Intent isn’t everything. I don’t give a fuck if you didn’t intend to offend anyone. You did and you are willfully blind about why you have hurt people here and don’t seem to care.”
SO true. The ol’ “That wasn’t my intention!” chestnut is another favorite of those willfully blind to their privilege. The oppressed don’t have the luxury of assuming goodwill on the part of their oppressors.