Curmudgeonous thoughts: Violence and Gender

[erudito]

I have ambivalent feelings about the current Commonwealth government ad campaign about violence against women. I am not all that keen on compulsorily taking people’s money to preach at them. I am also sceptical about whenever such campaigns have useful effects. A few years ago, the EU ran an anti-racism campaign. The follow-up surveys indicated

Comments

[hasimir]

When I was attacked in March of 1996 I was in the company of two girls and two other guys and the two thugs went for me first and then longi as he tried to leap to my defense. Only once we were down did the primary offender have a stand off with one of the girls. Fortunately he only threatened her verbally.

As for the motives of the campaign, my money is on proving to the longer-lived portion of the electorate that the current Government values them. Simple mathematics: it's better to win the votes of those people who are statistically more likely to keep voting.

Elegant simplicity

[erudito]

statistically more likely to keep voting.

A hypothesis with elegant simplicity going for it.

Regarding yours and longi's unpleasant experience, males are both disproportionately perpetrators and defenders.

You are not alone.

[tyggerjai]

Megan and I both pretty much responded with "What, so Australia doesn't say no to violence against men? Or does it just not happen?"

Feh.

sol.
.

Re: You are not alone.

[erudito]

Quite

(It's nice to feel not alone.)

Re: You are not alone.

[tyggerjai]

Presumably violence against men is in fact a Great Australian Tradition, enshrined in our various sporting rituals, among other things.

By the way - there's no such word as curmudgeonous.
I think you mean "Curmudgeonly".

sol.
.

Re: You are not alone.

[erudito]

Ah, but that is ritualised catharsis -- legal volunteers and all.

I like the idea of coining a word :)

But, actually, I like using 'curmudgeonly' more. Sort of like cuddly. But not :)

Government Campaigns.

[catsidhe]

Yes, It Is Good that the pollies took this campaign off line for six months for retooling. The previous concept: Violence against Women -- Australia says 'eh, maybe, whatever.' just didn't have the same ring.

This is just a motherhood campaign. Much of the meat of the original was going to be on the website, now it's just another hotline. And, as you have said, it makes it look like either there is no violence against men, or that it is all right that there is.

Then there are those Gods-damned 'Medicare' ads.
"I want to talk to you about our Safety Net."
"Are there more Hospital Beds?"
"No, but we have this Safety Net."
"Will I be able to sleep in this Safety Net when I can't get a hospital bed?"
"No, but it's a very nice Safety Net..."
"Will I be paying more or less for the medication I need to live?"
"More. But you'd be paying the same under Labor. They support our Shiny New Safety Net."

Labor and Liberal: together bringing you the US's welfare system.

Re: Government Campaigns.

[erudito]

I remember how Liberals used to complain bitterly about the Hawke-Keating governments 'public service' announcements.

As for welfare systems, all the developed countries will go down some version of the US path. The question is whether they do it before or after bankruptcy. (Moving from 22 taxpayers per working-age recipient to 5 taxpayers per working-age recipient is not a sustainable trend.)

Re: Government Campaigns.

[catsidhe]

Don't get me wrong: 'Lookit what we did' from either side are abominations in the sight of God and Man, and fully deserve a thorough smiting. 'Job Ready, so Unemployment Isn't That Bad' was insulting, and wrong. 'Medicare Cures Cancer, So You Won't Need Those Hospital Beds Anyway' is also insulting, and wrong.

And as for the inevitibility (and sustainability) of the US style Welfare 'system', I note that you didn't say whether or not this trend is a good thing. I for one am dreading the appearance of mentally ill people kicked out of hospital to survive as best they can in the Real World -- oh, hang on, they are, and have been for years (to my personal knowledge and experience) -- or Critical Care being denied because of the lack of sufficient insurance. (Thankfully not here -- yet.) The Welfare System is more than just the Dole and the Pension

Re: Government Campaigns.

[erudito]

My point about campaiggns was a boring one about political Party's hypocrisy, aimed at the Liberals.

The 'de-institutionalisation' was actually a change in Fashionable Compassion, not cost-cutting as such. I think it is generally agreed it went way too far.

The lack of coverage in American health care is greatly exaggerated. If you're on welfare, you're covered by Medicaid. If you're old, you're covered by Medicare. If you're in conventional employment, you're covered by your employer's plan. That actually doesn't leave a lot of the population and those that it does are often in transition between the above cases.

There is a difference between govt funding and govt provision. I am generally far more dubious about the latter than the former.

There is not very much which has to be provided by coercive power (i.e. govt) and it is generally better not to have the regulator also be a producer.

[unsworn_nomore]

If we're going to spend this much money to try to stamp out violence against women - surely we could just spend it against violence in general? I mean, if the level of violence goes down, everybody benefits, right? And surely to even the most elderly sexist patronising git bastard in Parliament, everyone would include women. Or at least some of them...

My gaster is flabbered.

Quite

[erudito]

And I have nothing to add

Violence Go Down

[thomaskruger281]

Whoa!

Your right! If the violence go down, everybody will benefits! You will no worry no more. It will lessens the crime, injuries and everything bad. You can save your medical insurance, money and you will be calm and secure.