Comments on: RSPCA exploits domestic violence; yet again, women = dogs [triggers]

By: tigtog

tigtog — Tue, 05 May 2009 00:30:54 +0000

Apropos of none of the comments published in this thread, there is no such thing as "posting rights" for anybody on a piece of private property i.e. this website. See the Australian Libertarian Society's Comments Policy for clarification.

By: fuckpoliteness

fuckpoliteness — Mon, 04 May 2009 23:45:08 +0000

A: It saddens me, to see so many people so passionate towards hating on this campaign
FP: Poor you.
A: It is drawing a comparison between women and dogs, whilst it is true that it is a negative connotation
FP: Yes…not just a negative connotation, but dehumanising in fact
A: do you believe that the RSPCA views humans as ‘better than’ animals?
FP: Do we care?? Is that our point? Our point is that the RSPCA does not have unfettered right to make use of the suffering of women at the hands of men – a systemic and institutionalised form of violence routinely ignored until it is too late – as a shock tactic in their advertising.
A: The intention of this ad was to raise awareness to the assistance the RSPCA is willing to give to women leaving a dv situation
FP: Uh…no. Wrong. See above comments. Like, read and comprehend and all. It is about the RSPCA teaching kids to respect pets. A laudable aim but not one I feel they have any right to co-opt a depiction of domestic violence in aid of.
A: a good intention, though if one insists on nit-picking and misinterpreting this intention of coarse you will be offended.
FP: Yeah whatever, correctly identify the aim of the ad and you might have a leg to stand on re misinterpretation. And fuck intention when it comes to appropriating in triggering ways the actual suffering of many women to make your point that your new campaign is good, fuck intention when it reduces the violated woman to a prop to make your point.
A: What you all should be happy with is the fact that the campaign brings domestic violence to the forefront of societies consciousness
FP: No…no it doesn’t. It has you watch a woman have the shit kicked out of her to bring cruelty to animals to the forefront of society’s consciousness…women get left behind really as an illustration to make a point. And sorry but you don’t get to tell any of us what we *should* be happy with. Clearly we are not. And perhaps *you* should STFU in trundling onto a feminist website and telling women that they *should* be happy that ads use violence against women to make a point OTHER than violence against women is WRONG.
A: that by toting the adds downsides
FP: Please feel free to speak plainly and not be a total try-hard
A: you only hinder your desire to see an end to domestic violence within this country
FP: Andrew, you are just *SO* *RIGHT*…by objecting to women being thrashed on tele which just blends into the background because the real tragedy is cruelty to animals, by objecting to a graphic depiction of violence against women when it is not about ENDING violence against women, by speaking up and saying that it’s triggering we are so TOTALLY ABOUT missing the goal, and highlighting what you already knew…that we don’t give a fuck about women’s rights! (Lauredhel, he truly DOES have the ‘magick testicles of perspicacity!)
A: When I viewed this add without bias
FP: As obviously only *you* have managed to do
A: I did not compare the woman to a dog
FP: Nor did we Captain Miss the Point – the ad made the analogy at the expense of the women in order to help the dogs. I’m all for dogs not being beaten, it’s disgusting and I get the links, but WOMEN ARE NOT PLOT PROPS.
A: I only felt that the RSPCA was trying to help, a worthy and noble cause
FP: Yes…help raise awareness of cruelty to animals, again, a laudable aim, but DV is not their handy shock tactic to do so
A: don’t you think?
FP: Uh…NO. NO, no, no no no no and no. See above comments

By: P.P.

P.P. — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:54:12 +0000

Oh I see, Andrew. Domestic violence is all OUR fault now because we’re critical of the ad. Seriously, get yourself informed before you open your ignorant mouth on such an issue. Forfucksake.

By: Lauredhel

Lauredhel — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:17:17 +0000

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:09:42 +0000

oh… that was ridicule.

PAY THAT!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:08:08 +0000

These words… ‘mansplaining’… ‘troll-off’… where… are… they… coming from… I just [B] HAVE [/B] to know.

By: Lauredhel

Lauredhel — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:05:29 +0000

It’s nearly time for another Troll-Off, isn’t it?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 04 May 2009 14:51:39 +0000

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to seem to be ridiculing you, aren’t I entitled to an opinion… from your previous statement it would seem that based on my gender I’m not.

Also, you seem very passionate about being very angry, bitter, or… wrong… are you depressed?

Have fun being negative for the rest of your life.
Andrew

By: Lauredhel

Lauredhel — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:27:45 +0000

Well, thanks for mansplaining that to us, Andrew. My teeny little oversensitive feminine brain wasn’t quite coping with the complexities of the situation.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:11:47 +0000

It saddens me, to see so many people so passionate towards hating on this campaign. It is drawing a comparison between women and dogs, whilst it is true that it is a negative connotation, do you believe that the RSPCA views humans as ‘better than’ animals? The intention of this ad was to raise awareness to the assistance the RSPCA is willing to give to women leaving a dv situation, a good intention, though if one insists on nit-picking and misinterpreting this intention of coarse you will be offended.
What you all should be happy with is the fact that the campaign brings domestic violence to the forefront of societies consciousness, that by toting the adds downsides you only hinder your desire to see an end to domestic violence within this country.
When I viewed this add without bias, I did not compare the woman to a dog, I only felt that the RSPCA was trying to help, a worthy and noble cause don’t you think?