Not according to script

This two-minute British import is an eye-opening message on domestic violence.

Good on award-winning actor Keira Knightley and director Joe Wright (Atonement, Pride and Prejudice) for making it.

According to the organization behind it,

Women stay in abusive relationships for lots of reasons ranging from love to terror. They may be afraid of further abuse if they try to leave or get help. They may be worried about money to support themselves and their children. They may be worried about losing their home or possessions and worry that their children may be taken away from them. They may be afraid of being alone, especially if they have to move away from friends and family. There may be feelings of guilt or shame which prevent her from leaving. They may have few friends or family and feel they have nowhere to go. They may not want to move the children away from their school. They may also believe that their partner is going to change in the future.

It's not as easy to get out as some people think.

If only we'd see something as graphic and forthright on North American screens.

(Tip of the red hat to Facebook friend and Humber college prof Francesca Dobbyn for the link.)

Comments

[...pat.]

There is one ad that shows up from time to time. It's got a woman with a face covered with scars (looks like it's been slashed repeatedly with a knife) looking in the mirror while she's remembering all the insults her husband has hurled at her: the ad's about mental and emotional domestic abuse. I remember that one, and think it was Canadian.

[jb]

You forgot about pets. It`s a bigger factor than people realise in stopping women from leaving abusive partners. Women´s shelters don´t accept pets, and even family are often unwilling to take in a woman with pets. The guilt involved in leaving an innocent animal with an abuser, who probably abuses the animals too, is added to the pain of losing a beloved pet when a woman most needs it. Been there, done that, know what I´m talking about, before anyone starts ranting.

[neko]

JB, I'm totally with you.

I (luckily) have no actual experience with this, but when confronted with the idea of "what would I do if he hit me" (which this video confronts me with very well) my brain freezes under two instant and conflicting thoughts: 'Leave' and 'What about the cat?'.

I don't know if anyone has ever looked into the numbers, but you must be right.

[Adam]

I'd imagine it would be an apt time to have some intriguing ads displayed on TV and in movie theatres about DV, seeing how the economic struggles have caused a lot of stress lately...stress that will likely carry over to relationships which could turn into a larger ratio of DV cases than normal over the next year or two, easy.

I'd be happy if I saw this ad here in Canada, because any awareness is good awareness, although I'd prefer a partner commercial reflecting the oppsite side of the spectrum, because it's incredibly rare that any light is shone on DV inflicted on men by women. An ad campaign like that would go a long way towards making the entire issue of domestic violence a more serious matter, methinks.

[Beijing York]

Good point JB. I would be very reluctant to leave behind a pet in such a situation. I think it's wrong that shelters don't allow women to seek refuge with their pets as well as their children.

[Antonia]

It's a serious issue.

''In its most recent study of women living in shelters, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) found:

''61 per cent had pets harmed and/or killed by an abusive partner.

''48 per cent said they delayed leaving an abusive situation for fear of abandoning pets.

''For four years, veterinarians participating in the SafePet program have volunteered to provide food, shelter and medical care for furry and feathered friends at risk. ''

But the Toronto Humane Society has a program, and there are some solutions in some areas.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/265028

[...pat.]

Today's Star, article http://www.thestar.com/GTA/Crime/article/615050

Peel Crown prosecutor N.J. Bridge today asked Lemon to sentence him to 10 years in prison. The maximum sentence for aggravated assault is 14 years.

"The most aggravating part is that her child was injured. She was not the intended victim but she is a true victim," Bridge said. "She tried to stop him. Despite this, he didn't care one bit about his little girl..."

Yah, because it doesn't matter at all that the husband damn near killed his wife.

[Antonia]

OMG, what a horrible story.

He blames her for his stabbing her after she tried to stop him from killing himself???????????????????????????????

Oh what do our men's rights readers have to say?

[Paul]

Antonia, I want to ensure I understand your reading of this, from a few standpoints:

Are you saying that you think his case somehow reflects on some kind of "men's rights" position? Has this been championed by any so-called "men's rights" champions?

Is a "men's rights" type someone who is critical of feminism, to you, or is it someone like MRN who takes the feminist model of one-sided advocacy and turns it on its ear? Or something else?

What is it about this case that makes you think it would appeal to "men's rights" types - however you define that?

[Antonia]

Hunh? You infer way too much here.

My point, such as it was a point, was that, whenever men are punished ''unfairly,'' the MRAs are all over me (and you don't see the comments that don't get past the mods, remember.)

[Paul]

''In its most recent study ***of women living in shelters***, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) found:
---------

This is precisely the manner in which many of the "violence studies" that explain how violent men are, are the lproduct of either lazy statisticians or, more likely - advocates who twist data selectively to mislead an audience that is satisfied with half an answer.

The casual reader is left with a subtext that continues to support the notion that men and women do not initiate violence in equal amounts (contrary to the 14 or so violence studies that asked the same questions to both genders - of 120 or so conducted).

The alert reader understands that this was only a survey of women living in abuse shelters (there aren't any for men, though the one in Chicago was overfilled within a week before the feminist lobby there shut it down to divert funds to women's shelters, threatening a political debacle).

The casual reader misses that though, and ends up with a subtle reinforcement of just how tough women have it (don't men also have pets, children?) Even if you don't buy that a woman could ever hurt a man - women do abuse more children than men, and are just as susceptible to mood disorders and substance abuse - which are often factors in abuse situations.

Which, btw, I note is missing in that spot, instead favouring the old unprovoked assault of a woman by a man. Visceral, impactful, but ultimately cliche and unilluminating on the whole patient here. While those situations occur a full third of the time - that's not the way most of them occur. The brutality of the ad is disconnected from any context, such that it is a disconnect from the majority of abuse cases where either partner or both partners fails to control anger, and where other factors may be involved (it rarely happens out of the blue, as depicted). I think that if you wanted to really reach people where they live, then you need to craft a message where an abuser actually sees him or herself in that role, and doesn't like what they see. This moustachio twirling character is a caricature of brutality, but isn't especially good at saying anything other than hitting your girlfriend is bad. The stat at the end is intended as strong support, but when you compare it to, say, the number of women who die each year of the flu, the impact is diminished considerably (at least, on a societal scale - as a *social* problem, as opposed to an individual tragedy).

My point in this, as always, is not to say "poor men" or "poor women" but rather to reveal that we are bailing out only half the canoe, and this continued focus on painting men and masculinity as the agent to be changed here, rather than violent behavior, is only taking us farther from advocating effectively for the issue.

[Paul]

"My point, such as it was a point, was that, whenever men are punished ''unfairly,'' the MRAs are all over me (and you don't see the comments that don't get past the mods, remember.) "
---
If you see fit to leave out the demented, contentless vitriol in the comments, then why link to such a freakish case and then comment in such a way as if it is reflective of either men's rights types, or of criticism of feminism.

If I suggest that DV rates are equivalent by gender, I would like you to see my comments as a criticism of the feminist rhetorical formula that constructs the DV dialogue around the notion of male violence against women. I sometimes think you view it as a "oh, poor men" argument, when it's really a criticism of an entire advocacy strategy that is so focused on demonizing that it just misses the point completely.

Maybe I'm just being overly sensetive - and you are just goosing the whackos who I don't see (though some get through).