I’ve never seen an "end violence against men" "end violence against the elderly" "end violence against the sick" or even an "end violence against children" ad.

Why is violence against women more important?
Why don’t we try to end violence against everyone?
Jessica, I’ve seen one ad against elder NEGLECT, not violence, and one ad about verbal child abuse.

HUNDREDS of ads against any kind of abuse against women.

Not a single one against men.

The feminist will it to be, and the politicians pandering for the female vote (they think)make it so.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/French-Riot-Police-Video-Shows-Immigrant-Woman-With-Baby-Dragged-Along-The-Ground-In-Paris/Article/201008115674943?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15674943_French_Riot_Police_Video_Shows_Immigrant_Woman_With_Baby_Dragged_Along_The_Ground_In_Paris

I normally try to stay away from questions posted in other countries boards, but this is a question that needs the blunt truth to explain a life event.

I have said in some of my answers why do adult protesters take/use their child/ren at these events or stand offs. The truth for me is for the most part, emotional response and the feeling of with a child we are better protected from any violence.
I have seen children present at abortion rallies, immigration protests, smoking issues and workers (union) strikes. Why? They are children who should be out at play and watching planes go by and serving tea to their imaginary friends, children who should be awed by dragonflies in the day and fireflies at night but there they are with signs questioning "why is my daddy not working", "would you have aborted me"and "do I look illegal to you".

Anytime children are placed in a "protest" situation the chances of their being treated and hauled off are just as good as the adult’s that brought them. In this case squatters in an encampment were being evicted, no matter how strongly these immigrants (the descriptive phrase of illegal was not used in the article) feel that they were in the right an eviction can only legally be done after certain legalities have been met.

There are men present and there more than likely were men dragged away too, but this video is shot by "a member of a housing-rights organisation" and what is posted is in all likely hood an edited version.
Wouldn’t a housing rights organization be after the most emotional footage, it would not surprise me to find out later that someone told them to have babies in arms. One thing is clearly seen, for all the riot gear that was been worn, batons, gas and beatings were not the orders of the day. The only move the police made was to drag away protesters, babies in arms or not.

Since Joel W had to ask, "where are the babies" I ask in return why didn’t you watch the video? No one in the version of the video that is posted, ever showed a notion for "violence" towards the police present. If your answer is one of non concern then just say what you saw means nothing to you.
My gut feeling is it means nothing because you think them and see them as illegal immigrants or if you like the term illegal aliens better then that is what you see them as either way to you it equates to being nothing more than worthless illegals.

In a simple answer to the header question "How can violence against women and babies ever be justified ?? My plain truthful ugly answer would be in the mist of a battle field. If it opposes you kill it, if it threatens you kill it, if you do not know it’s intent, kill it and always cry later.
I can not change what disgusts you but know this from what I saw in the video the law enforcement officers present did a great job in a shitty situation try to not hold them so solely responsible.

Best day greetings from my side of the world.

So you can clearly see why awareness of violence against men should be priority number one.

He gently subdues her?

I don’t trust the word "gently" anymore. I don’t think I need to explain myself.

The short answer is that it would take a very long time to give a comprehensive answer to that question.

It wasn’t always the case, and is not always the case now, that violence against women is seen as taboo. I hate to use them as an example, but look at the Muslim world. They have television shows where "Islamic scholars" explain, in a very considered way, the proper way to beat one’s wife, don’t they?

And there are shows where it was made clear from the outset that the society is egalitarian in all respects, and in those shows, they tend not to pull their punches. For example, in the remake of Battlestar Galactica, fairly early on in the first season, Starbuck and Apollo get into an argument and she punches him in the face. Without missing a beat, he punches her right back, and the show goes on with no one blinking an eyelash. In that show, violence is handled pretty evenly.

The same is true with the movie Starship Troopers. In that movie, it’s the male lead who’s emotionally uncertain and available, and the female who comes off as more distant and unconcerned. Women are portrayed as being just as sexually predacious as men, and they are subjected to the same violence and death as men with no dramatic distinction made.

So, the situation isn’t quite as concrete as you’re making it out to be, but there are several reasons why violence against men is generally seen as more acceptable than violence against women.

As I mentioned before, violence against women has not always been taboo. In fact, Western society has a very long history of abusing women, and you need not even look back fifty years to find them being portrayed in all sorts of derogatory, stereotypical ways, where it’s suggested violence against them is acceptable or even funny ("one of these days, Alice! Bang! Zoom! Straight to the moon!").

That very history of abuse is one of the reasons why the taboo against portraying violence is stronger where women are concerned. Society was largely ignoring or covering up the issue until about the 1960s and moreover the 1970s, when women began to really confront social injustice and put what was being done into the public eye so it could no longer be ignored.

If you haven’t noticed, any time a societal abuse or shortcoming is revealed and put under scrutiny, our reaction is often one of shame and guilt, and society often moves relatively quickly from a position where they have been too lax about allowing a particular abuse to trying to show an overabundance of caution and sympathy. In the wake of the Civil Rights movement, people tried to ensure everyone understood they weren’t racist against Black people. In the wake of the feminist movement in the latter half of the 20th century, it was violence against women. Today, it’s becoming violence and discrimination against gays. What will be next? Who knows?

Also, you have to consider that while women have been improving their social status (and rightfully so), men really haven’t had the chance to address how society has been giving them short shrift quite as much. There has been some progress made on the parental rights front, but when it comes to violence against men, a lot of different social attitudes come into play that make it permissible to show them being harmed.

First, they are the more violent sex, regardless of social values. That’s just the reality of the situation, and we know it, so violence among males is more normative. We therefore are less shocked by it.

Second, the masculine values we tend to cling to suggests it is a sign of weakness in males to complain about such things. Part of being a man is being tough, so you’re supposed to be able to suck it up, ya wussy. That makes males reticent to bring up the issue, for fear of appearing weak and being ridiculed… and they really don’t want women to bring it up, because it would look so much worse if it seemed like men had to rely on women to protect them. So, the issue remains sidelined.

Finally, as much as we don’t want to admit it as a society, we consider males more expendable than females. When push comes to shove, men are expected to put themselves in harm’s way to protect a female, and even die to protect them. It’s men who are expected to do the dangerous jobs (which is why they suffer nearly 90% of on-the-job fatalities). It’s men who were expected to be police, who were expected to be soldiers, who still are expected to be our primary source of combat troops. Women are not expected to do the same for men, because we understand that in the end, we need all the females we can get, but we only really need a few good men to take care of them.

So, as much as they may have traditionally had it better in most every other area of life, it isn’t as big a deal to us when they’re hurt or killed.

Thanks
This is for SCHOOL. I’m not a feminist.

Domestic violence wasn’t reported in national crime statistics until very recently. Try the FBI violence data base or the U.S. department of justice, they might go back 20 or 30 years. As far as i know, the only federal legislation is V.A.W.A. otherwise you’ll have to sort it out state by state… provided you reside in the states.

Isn’t violence against ANYONE wrong?

I can’t be a part of a campaign that discriminates.

Yes, violence against anyone is wrong, but men make the majority of day to day crime, simple and true, and in the same matter, why are only certain violent crimes called "hate crimes" when, in reality, all violent crimes are obviously hate crimes.

It is another example of the American contradiction that makes it is hard being apart of a society that continues to self segregate, and glamorize various ill fated lifestyles, just as long as its making money. Right?