OK, a couple of things RE: this GIFset, mostly in response to dnotive's last comment:
First, it’s a Vogue campaign. Vogue, which has a primarily female demographic, is using rhetoric about domestic abuse and violence against women in order to activate women’s emotions and make them think, “Oh, Vogue really cares about women and their issues, they must be a good company, I should give them money.” They didn’t make this film to start a conversation or empower anyone or change behaviors. They made it to make more money.
That’s not to say there are not ethical corporations, or that Vogue’s staff doesn’t actually care about this issue. I’m just always suspicious of for-profits using social justice language in their advertisements- it feels really exploitive to me. This is a really common thing in advertising right now, especially for companies that generally target women, and while it superficially seems like a good thing (yay, girl power, equal representation, defy beauty norms!), I’m not sure it’s actually helpful, because it ends up being so one-sided.
Also, this campaign is for Vogue India. India is in the midst of a pretty serious anti-domestic abuse campaign- as of 2006, almost 40% of married women experienced violence at the hands of a spouse. I’ve seen figures around 70% when including non-married women and non-intimate partner violence. This is a rampant problem in India (as it is in the U.S. and everywhere else), and the country is trying to figure out why these rates are increasing and what to do about it. This ad is targeted at that conversation.
(*Side note- It’s possible that it looks like the rates of violence against women are increasing because more of these incidents are being reported, which is good, but also makes the numbers look way scarier)
(*Side note 2- dnotive- We’ve talked before about how problematic it is that the domestic abuse conversation basically ignores male victims- I would bet that’s even more of an issue in India than it is in the U.S, particularly among cultural groups that have a strong emphasis on “traditional” gender norms.)
There is a conversation going on in feminist circles, at least in the global West, about masculinity and the effect that enforced “masculine” gender norms have on boys and men- not just because of the results these gender norms have on women, but because of the fact that they limit males’ ability to reach self-actualization. Men who spend their lives feeling like they need to lie or hide part of their identity, to mask how they really feel, will never reach their full emotional, intellectual, or personal potential. It’s hard to ignore the impact that these standards of “manliness” have on women, in that men who feel chronically disempowered are more likely to lash out at populations they see as being “weaker”, which often includes women (I think GamerGate falls into this category, but that’s another conversation). But you’re right in that the conversation about validating male emotions should not only be centered around the effect on women. And I promise, it’s really not. That is just one aspect of a much bigger conversation. Most feminists I know would say that boys should be allowed to cry because boys should be allowed to cry. Not just because it means they won’t hit girls.
Although that is a pretty big bonus.
TLDR: Be skeptical of corporate social-justice messages, cultural context is important, and feminists are about equal rights for boys just as much as for girls.
andulkaphoto
germansingergirl
kaledo-art
theartofmadeline
tangentwithtanner
baratheonpilled
