Hate speech against men in Dallas
Glenn Sacks has information on some very disturbing hate speech against husbands, fathers and even boys on the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) buses.
Update: The Associated Press picks up the story. Thanks to all of you who called, emailed and wrote in to protest.
Update: The Associated Press picks up the story. Thanks to all of you who called, emailed and wrote in to protest.
posted by Helen at 5:38 AM
38 Comments:
As I clicked over to Sacks' blog, I was prepared to be annoyed by yet another "father is too dumb to open a can of soup" TV commercial, but also prepared to come back here and tell you that the phrase "hate speech" was over the top.
...but ... yow!
That's pretty extreme.
For some reason, leftists love to disaggregate crime statistics in order to "raise awareness". ...and yet, I imagine that most of them would agree with me that it would be in terribly poor taste, and extremely counter productive, to have a picture of a black man with the caption "blacks commit rape at 3.2 times the rate of whites, and murder at 6.8 times the rate of whites"
(source: http://tjic.com/?p=1709).
The result would be unfair discrimination against the 99.9% of people who commit no crimes.
INDIVIDUALS commit crimes, and lumping the vast majority of good people in with a few criminals is destructive to the social fabric.
I wonder what the reaction would be if the following were the ads instead:
Little boy: One day my wife will cheat on me, take the house, take my kids, take half my paycheck, and basically ass rape me in the divorce court.
Little girl: One day, I'll cheat on my husband then pull a flee-and-fleece.
I'm sure the left wing (err, civil rights) groups will be all about freedom then.
Statistically, women kill twice the children that men do. This is not an abortion statistic. While men are more likely to sexually abuse a child, women are more likely to kill the child. I won't hold my breath for those bus ads.
Trey
I have to say, that's about the most overtly bigoted ad I've ever seen.
Between crap like this and the Presidential election (and, oh yes, the 20 year old female college intern who simultaneously (1) insists that she wants to be valued for her intelligence and (2) insists on wearing an assortment of very tight tops than emphasize her very nice figure), I think my blood pressure is starting to up. I need a vacation from the news media, computers and the human race in general.
Yawn
The sun came up.
Somebody did something hateful to males.
What's next? Beer comes in bottles?
Where's the poster that shows a little boy and says, "One day my wife will shoot me in the back with a shotgun, get off scott free and people will buy her a car and a house?"
Well, these ads are the most offensive in-your-face examples of misandry I've ever seen on the side of a bus. But they're nothing compared to going on a date with the modern American girl.
Talk about constantly being offensive, questioning everything you say or do, condescending to your very existence out of some false sense of superiority.
If she were half as smart as she pretends to be, one would think that at some point it would occur to her that it's her attitude, more than anything else, that is depriving her of the progress she feels entitled to.
I mean, seriously. At some point one would think that she would realize that it's her attitude that makes her not worth 50%, much less presumptive paternity. Not to any real man.
A woman has a very clear choice. She can either be an asset to her husband or a liability.
Sadly, the modern American girl chooses to be a liability, out of some misguided sense of liberation.
Oh, well. She can buy her own house, where she can sit at home alone and complain about men.
I'd rather have the money.
The telling comment was from Family Place Executive Director Paige Flink: "I hope you are offended."
BobH.
You know, I think a lot of us could use a vacation about now. With all the negative media and just plain crap out there, it is getting tiring. These bus ads are so "in your face" though that it is worth trying to get them removed. It's ridiculous.
I have known Paige Flink for a number of years and she has worked very hard to take care of battered, broken arms and teeth women and their children. The Family Place offers a safe haven for some truly sad women and children, way beyond the normal domestic fighting.
I don't agree with her advertising choice but I do understand where she is coming from. The Family Place has had sucess in taking care of really bad situations.
And yes I know about the plight of fathers and experienced it myself when I left a 24 year marriage and ended up with custody of my 12 year old daughter and little else.
Family stuff is hard no matter who you are and we live in a society which seems undermine the values we need to treasure.
OldTexan,
The Family Place can do good work without placing ads that denigrate and treat all men and boys as abusers. They can also make accurate statements about domestic violence. Many studies show women engage in as much or more domestic violence than men. Why use propaganda to get your message across if you are truly a decent place? If this organization cares only about women but not a wit about the men and boys in our society they are hurting with their outrageous, hateful message, then they can hardly be as noble as they think (or you think) they are.
1. DART is apparently Dallas Area Rapid Transit-- if it is a city owned/run entity and not privately run, it would seem wide open to a law suit of some type...
2.Hilarious report from FOX--- it was not about viciously dehumanizing men-- but apparently about "using children" inappropraitely~!
3. The shelter is just trying to get media attention to increase funding/donations.
4. The clueless misandrist who runs the shelter for women-- thinks the only criteria for advertising is "starting a conversation", its "designed to shock". Hmm-- wonder if ther DART system would run ads from a PRO-LIFE group featuring the bodies of aborted fetuses.... but bet the shelter is massively subsidized by the state/city... ( hmmm, another basis for a law suit)
5. And the shelter director or whatever doesn't think the shock value lies in hate speech directed against men-- but in "showing" that children are the victims of male violence by using images of children... and none of the women in the street saw the ads as anti-male either.
Women are just hopeless-- they are just incapable of empathy for men or understanding abstract moral principles-- and they demonstrate that empirically everytime they are interviewed... I bet only 1 in 10 women would even think this is derogatory to men... because most women think attacking men is just fine. Ask them.
6.
Could any other segment /group in society be viciosuly stereotyped-- apparently on a state-owned transit system ?
Its Montgomery, 1954-- men-- a bus boycott... hmmm... doubt men have the economic clout to hurt business... and men would never unite for men
ANd it goes on
OLDTEXAN
I know what you mean
Bombing an empty abortion clinic is wrong , "but I know where they are coming from"
Then again, "OldTexan" apparently just now signed up with Blogger to comment here -- apparently I was the first to check the profile, which reads "Since October 2008".
Is it just me, or does anyone else smell astroturf?
I also note that it's just "The Family Place", not "The Family Place Where 'Family' Actually Means Only Women and Children Exclusively".
So not unless and until Page Flink and the oh-so-many like her start opening their doors to male victims of domestic violence will I start taking the claims of people like 'OldTexan' seriously.
And regardless of whether that ever happens -- which I strongly doubt it will -- the ads themselves are now and forever will be direct evidence that Page Flink and the rest of those responsible are gender bigots, misandrists, female chauvanism elitists, hatemongers, conflict provocateurs, and so forth and so on.
Because it simply does not matter how much 'good' they are supposed to have accomplished otherwise; YOU HAVE TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY SCREWED UP IN THE HEAD AND HEART TO CREATE AND DISSEMINATE THAT KIND OF HATE SPEECH IN THE FIRST PLACE.
We understand where Page Flink is coming from, all right -- and we understand it a lot better than 'OldTexan' and similar types do, whether they be merely incompetent, willfully ignorant, or actively deceitful.
In short, your pathetic attempts at making insinuatively equivocating distractive excuses for the HATE SPEECH of Page Flink and The Family Place Where 'Family' Actually Means Only Women and Children Exclusively are composed entirely, completely and utterly of FAIL.
We see right through you, and you don't fool us -- not one little bit.
Dr. Smith,
The following e-mail was sent this afternoon to Mr. Glenn Sacks. Since you’ve picked up his original post, I thought it appropriate to share with you. Regards, Morgan Lyons
Dear Mr. Sacks,
I’m writing to provide additional information about the ads running on 45 DART buses. These ads began running on October 1. They were produced and paid for by the Family Place, a long-standing family services agency based in Dallas. DART had no involvement in the creation of the ad campaign. The ads were reviewed by DART staff when they were first presented to us by our bus ad sales contractor. Staff determined the ads were not inconsistent with community standards. The Family Place paid approximately $25,000 to purchase bus side advertising on 45 buses and 300 bus interiors. The ads are scheduled to come down November 30 when the ad contract expires.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Regards,
Morgan Lyons
Director, Media Relations
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Morgan,
Thanks very much for letting us know about the email. However, In my opinion, the ads will be up 61 days too long. In addition, if community standards there are such that they believe young men and their fathers should be portrayed as abusers, I would say that your community standards could use some improvement.
How about this for an add:
"A man convicted of inappropriately fondling a child is 25 times more likely to be put in prison than a woman convicted of killing or maiming a child." Source: Lawrence A. Greenfield, Child Victimizers, p. 1.
Morgan Lyons
Thanks for providing the facts.
Consider yourself contacted to provide answers to these questions --
Its quite irrelevant that DART had no part in the creation of these ads--
You explicitly ratified them by agreeing to PUBLISH them on 40 city-owned and operated bus exteriors and within 300 bus interiors.
1. This "long standing family service agency" whose ads you ratified by publishing them on state-owned and operated vehicles
a.does it serve men?
does it discriminate against men and boys? to operationalize that question, how many men have been served there in the past year?
b.does it receive state funding?
c.is state money being used to purchase these ads to be PUBLISHED on state-owned and operated buses, for which men are a "captive audience", as they can hardly be expected to stop using these buses because of their offensive content ?
These questions can appropriately be addressed to you since you have chosen to PUBLISH these ads on and in state-owned vehicles, where men must witness the ads brandished on passing state-owned vehicles and must be subjected involuntarily to their sexist and offensive content as passengers.
2.Your "bus ads sales contractor" reviewed these ads and found they did not violate "community standards"
a. Please define community standards and how these ads fit within the confines of that definition.
b. Please provide the qualifications of this person to decide what community standards are and how she made that determination.
c. What are the criteia she used in this evaluation and are they content-neutral?
SInce the ads have caused an up-roar, perhaps you might reconsider your ad sales contracters' opinion that the ads do not violate "community standards".
3. Please explain the DART system to us
a. Are the vehicles city/state-owned and operated by state employees, who also are involuntarily exposed to their sexist and offensive content as a conditon of employment.
b. Please provide other examples of ads published by DART
c. Is DART wholly state/city owned, funded and operated?
Here is Mr. Lyons email if anyone would care to send a reply:
mlyons@dart.org
lovemelikeareptile -
AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please let us know if you receive a reply.
The implication that men are the only ones to engage in abuse is atrocious.
Absolutely unreal. As a prior poster said, I expected some "man as clown/idiot" stuff, nothing nearly as extreme as those two ads.
Dr Helen had a post a while back that asked "Where had all the Vikings gone?". Well, I've spent the last 8 months working in Goteborg and my contract is ending in a couple weeks. I am absolutely DREADING dealing with American women for the next few months after my time in Sweden and my travels thru Europe. Yeah they're socialists here, but dammit at least the (exceptionally beautiful :D ) women here don't treat you with thinly-veiled contempt for being a dude like a large percentage of American women.
The attitude of the modern American woman is an anomally it seems, thank God. No wonder with garbage like this ad campaign.
No, the ads don't violate Dallas community standards. That's why I'm so happy I moved out of Dallas County.
My husband used to work for DART and is not the least surprised to read this story.
Helen,
Thank you for posting this. This is now gaining quite a bit of MSM attention. Hopefully this can bring about a serious national discussion on the issues.
I encourage all here to please join those of us that have already, to go to Glenn's site and submit the letter available there to send to DART.
Again, thank you for posting this on your site.
All the best.
If DART says these ads meet their standards I would be very interested in seeing what ads don't meet their standards. They must be really f*cked up.
@dick said... "If DART says these ads meet their standards I would be very interested in seeing what ads don't meet their standards. They must be really f*cked up."
Not necessarily. They can label some smut and slander "freedom of speech" and get away with it. But something perfectly reasonable can be twisted and labeled "hate speech" and get nixed.
It'd be good to consider some context: Texas has one of the highest domestic homicide rates in the nation. And despite your anecdotal evidence of males are just as victimized as females, you need to check your facts.
According to the DOJ, males killed by intimates has dropped drastically since 1975 (75%). Female domestic homicides have seen no such decrease and have been flat since 2000.
ONE THIRD of female murder victims were killed by an intimate. In fact, that rate of female murder by an intimate has been on the rise in recent years. In contrast, only 3% of male murder victims are killed by intimates.
(Interestingly enough, male intimate murder has fallen 75% even though probably the overwhelming major of ads and media attention focused on violence against women.)
The facts are that women are far, far more likely than men to be killed by spouses and boy/girlfriends.
Besides, if you want to talk about offensive ads on Dallas billboards and transportation, let's start with the soft porn strip club ads that I have to explain to my 6 year old daughter when she sees them on I-35.
Gb - Then should you not see ads showing a little girl stating that "when I grow up I will drown my children"? Women are far likelier to harm/murder thier children (not even counting abortion), then men are.
And while texas may have that, women are just as likely to initiate violence.
There were 2 things that those at glenn's site had a problem with.
1. The ads only reference that men are the abusers, even though national studies refute that. It is about 50/50.
2. The ads both use the term "Will". That has predetermined that men are abusers. Not that they may become abuseres.
Funny, I thought the presumption was "Innocent until proven guilty". That is what is supposed to set our justice(hah) system apart from others in the world.
Personally, it offends the hell out of me to be labeled an abuser simply because I'm a man.
But I guess Gender bigotry is acceptable, as long as it is directed at men.
Where are these 50/50 statistics? I've referred to the DOJ for their latest stats, and they don't come close to supporting that claim.
I'm amazed at the interpretations of the ad, that it is an attack on all men. It shows one girl and one boy. I guess men who kill their wives just spontaneously generate as full-grown men.
What we're seeing are people who want to be offended by something, anything. The point of the ad, of using children and speaking of their futures, is to educate people that preventing domesticate homicide starts with how we raise our children. It's that simple. Are we raising our children to respect others, to respect women and men as people and not objects?
I can't believe that people are actually so dense as to miss this point.
People are getting offended because they're taking some hypersensitive male perspective--"Oh, that ad says my son will kill his wife." From the female perspective, if she is murdered, it is likely to be at the hand of her boyfriend or husband. Again, I refer to the DOJ stat that 1/3 of murdered women are killed by husbands and boyfriends.
To those who are offended by this ad, I take it that you also firmly opposed to and offended by profiling to catch criminals.
"Apparently at the time of this writing the most recent large scale study (11,000 men and women)
is one conducted primarily by Harvard researchers and published in the American Journal of Public
Health in 2007:
Almost 25% of the people surveyed — 28% of women and 19% of men — said there was some violence in
their relationship. Women admitted perpetrating more violence (25% versus 11%) as well as being
victimized more by violence (19% versus 16%) than men did. According to both men and women, 50% of
this violence was reciprocal, that is, involved both parties, and in those cases the woman was more
likely to have been the first to strike.
Violence was more frequent when both partners were involved, and so was injury — to either partner.
In these relationships, men were more likely than women to inflict injury (29% versus 19%). When the
violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70% of the time.
Men were more likely to be injured in reciprocally violent relationships (25%) than were women when
the violence was one-sided (20%)."
Link: http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d
http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n
http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/Intimate_Partner.pdf
I hope all the links will get through.
Gary - Are we raising our children to respect others, to respect women and men as people and not objects?
That is exactly the point...how does this show any respect to men at all? All it states on the 2 ads is that men are killers and abusers. And paints women as nothing but victims.
Gary - To those who are offended by this ad, I take it that you also firmly opposed to and offended by profiling to catch criminals.
Strawman argument....They use profiling for those who have already comitted crimes.
These ads are being used to say that it is already predetermined that the girl will be killed by her husband, and the boy will abuse his wife. That is disgusting.
If I ran an ad that stated that black men are more likely to mug a white person, than a white person a black, while factually correct, I would be charged with a hate crime.
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mf.pdf
But in spouse murders, women represented 41% of killers. In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55%
of killers.
Among black marital partners, wives
were just about as likely to kill their husbands as husbands were to kill their wives: 47% of the victims of a spouse were husbands and 53% were wives.
And yet the ads only show men. Hypocritical, misandrist and disgusting are just a few of the words that come to mind.
I don't want to take this discussion into the weeds, but since several have claimed that women are more likely to murder their children, I wanted to refer to the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect:
"in 1994 the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a report Murder in Families,which identified mothers as the most frequent killers of children (Dawson & Langan, 1994). The DOJ data appear to reflect who is prosecuted and convicted. However, this information was misconstrued by television networks and major newspapers, and was cited as proof of a looming "mother" problem. As we have made clear, it has been shown by several new studies that go beyond prosecution and conviction figures that fathers and other male caretakers account for significantly more abuse and neglect deaths than mothers or other female caretakers. Yet this information is not reaching those who should hear it."
That corresponds with statistics of abuse against juveniles.
That said, I have no problem with an equally blunt ad about parents and child abuse.
But use facts and not some hearsay about facts.
And please understand, all we are aksing for is honesty and equality. By running these ads, it feeds the public perception that men are the only people who kill and abuse.
Yes, there are men that are abusive and kill. But there are women that do the same thing.
Honest public discourse is needed, that looks at the entire problem, not just one side.
Damn. They should have contacted my wife when creating these ads. She could have provided them with some more realistic outrages committed by her husband:
(Next to photograph of little boy):
"When I grow up, I will leave the toilet seat up half the time. Sometimes, I won't even flush."
"When I grow up, I'll procrastinate all weekend about doing my household chores."
"When I grow up, I'll spend my fall Saturday afternoons watching football instead of going shopping with my wife."
"When I grow up, I'll say 'Hello' to a another woman standing beside me in an elevator, instead of shunning her for being the man-stealing little whore she really is."
Men are pigs.
Who concocted this campaign? Erica Jong?!
GB - take another look at the statistics on the DoJ page you cite...
The overall number of homicides by intimates is very small. Even one is too high, obviously, but based on the first chart on that page, there were around 1,100 women killed by an intimate, and about 400 men. That's out of a populaton of 300 million. Yes, based on that, women are more likely than men to be killed by an intimate, but we're talking about 1 murder per 100,000 people.
You also misinterpert or misunderstand the statistic that 1/3 of women murdered are killed by an intimate and only 3% of men murdered are killed by an intimate. Think about it.
Those 1,100 women killed by intimates represent 1/3 of all women murdered - so that means that around 3,300 women were murdered in 2005.
The 400 men killed by intimates represent 3% of all men murdered - so that means about 13,300 men were murdered in 2005.
So, men are about 4 times more likely to be murdered than women are, on average.
Maybe we could get the overall murder rate against men down to where it is for women, and THEN we can start running the ads about domestic homicide.
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
航海王h短片分享彩虹頻道免費a短片成人做愛影片丁字褲性感影片性愛自拍貼圖區免費性愛影片下載免費影片線上直播台灣a片王洪爺 影片下載區美國a片下載免費a片影片下載台灣美女寫真貼圖區免費a片線上觀看卡通美女短片免費試看色色小遊戲ut蟲蟲聊天室嘟嘟色情貼圖區69成人聊天室免費線上成人影片007色情貼圖網米克成人情色論壇色情動漫貼片論壇微風成人交友論壇免費av18禁383成人影城伊莉成人討論區歐美模特兒寫真歐美a免費線上看85cc成人片免費色咪咪影片網櫻井莉亞 三點全露寫真集2009真情寫真日本偷拍自拍圖片999成人性站成人電影下載網色情電影分享區洪爺色情電影免費色情電影觀賞色情卡通電影免費下載色情電影免費下載免費下載色情電影免費成人片觀賞免費色情電影下載台灣論壇好玩遊戲區微風論壇短片區台灣論壇遊戲區線上成人影片草莓論壇小老鼠分享論壇eney伊莉論壇ok論壇dcp2p論壇搜樂論壇台灣論壇女生遊戲ktzone論壇台灣18成年人網UT援交友聊天室豆豆交友聊天室嘟嘟成人聊天室新6k聊天室新豆豆聊天室視訊美女34c成人貼圖區嘟嘟成年人網成人聊天室同學會影音聊天室ut影音視訊聊天室13077080中部人聊天室080 聊天室絕色影城絕色成人影城寫真女郎影片兔女郎貼影區小幻好玩遊戲meetic聊天室交友免費美女小遊戲美女遊戲下載洪爺無碼VCD下載洪爺成人影片性愛影片下載性趣十足美人光碟飯島愛影片直播小魔女自拍貼圖天堂援交友留言聊天室卡通18美少女圖成人卡通頻道taiwankiss文學區色情小說網性愛情小說情色網路小說成人愛情小說傳播妹援交偷拍影片男人色色網遊戲天堂萍水相逢gba遊戲成人無碼光碟萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區台灣kiss櫻井美春 a片下載s383情色大網咖美女聊天室免費情色漫畫洪爺情色論壇洪爺的家嘟嘟成年網免費豆豆聊天室豆豆聊天客棧情色小站免費色情貼圖少年阿賓色情小說洪爺的色情網站色情卡通漫畫kiss文學區台灣色情文學小說免費色情小說成人色情文學免費成人色情小說成人色情圖片視訊交友高雄網成人色情小說網成人色情影片網站色情卡通圖片日本成人色情卡通漫畫圖片
成人小老鼠色情論壇成人圖片區微風成人論壇成人交友視訊momokoko東東成人論壇成人情色論壇小老鼠成人論壇成人影音dudu成人論壇禁地成人論壇伊莉成人論壇av成人網999成人情色論壇免費A片免費視訊-童顏巨乳成人短片論壇383成人論壇85cc成人論壇18成人影片網777成人論壇69成人論壇嘟嘟成人論壇色情漫畫 分享區色情小說分享成人文章論壇JP成人論壇777成人區成人影片論壇後宮電影院 情色區後宮成人影城18成人論壇成人卡通論壇成人文學論壇成人小說論壇情色成人論壇成人動畫論壇咆哮小老鼠成人論壇一葉晴成人論壇嘟嘟成人貼圖馬子情色論壇米克情色論壇台灣論壇情色文學4u成人論壇成人卡通影片666成人台灣成人網383成人影音城18成人avooo成人遊戲嘟嘟成人成人漫畫
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
情色影片情色貼片美女視訊18禁地少女遊戲巨乳童顏巨乳玩美女人影音秀視訊美女情色視訊bt論壇色情自拍s101成人大喇叭免費視訊視訊聊天kk777視訊俱樂部18禁成人網ut影音視訊聊天室13077ut男同志聊天室免費視訊聊天aio交友愛情館免費視訊辣妹脫衣秀視訊交友90739視訊交友網
Post a Comment
<< Home