Trocaire TV and Radio Ad

mckibben

What do people think of the fact that the Trocaire lenten ad campaign has been pulled by the Broadcast Commission of Ireland because it's considered too political? That was the campaign where being female biases many people towards abuse, poverty, hunger and so on. I for one thought it was really excellent and it certainly stopped me in my tracks. For the first time in more than 20 years I was actually considering getting a trocaire box and using it! Pity it's been pulled.

aidan_walsh

Does the fact that its been pulled mean you're not going to use a box now?

More people are talking about the campaign now that it has been pulled than there were before it was, anyhow. Whether that will have a lasting effect or not, I'm not sure but in the short term (which is really all they need at Lent) I don't see how its really a bad thing.

dr.bollocko

I just cant understand why it was pulled.
Well, in terms of the legality and its involvement with a political campaign I can understand, but I still think it is the responsibility of the media to portray bias, sexual inequality etc. and hold it up for what it is. The ad did have to deal in generalisations due to its short nature. For example It didnt go into specifics as to which areas the abuse is rife etc. but I dont see how that is an issue. If it stops even one wife from being beaten, mutilated, raped, or murdered, if it gives one girl a chance of an education where it had been denied to her before because of gender, then surely it was worth it? It is true, we have to wonder whether the ad directly helps, but it is highlighting an issue we have to tackle.

Jackie laughlin

My first reaction was astonishment at the ad. Trocaire is Catholic. They have to be taking the piss!

Of course the ad. had to be axed. Political advertising is forbidden in this country. I'm all in favour of arguments and ads. favouring equality. However, suppose that political advertising were allowed, consider who would have the money for advertising and what they would be saying.

Dontico

my understand was that the add was trying to promote UN resolution 1325. which in my opinion is obsurd. i dont see how protecting lillte girls during a conflict is more important than protecting little biys. shouldnt we all treat all genders equally? protect all children?
also i think its silly to hire someone just because of thier gender. ireland shouldnt support UN resolution 1325.

DarkJager

I agree with Dontico. The advert was simply basing itself on discrimination against women, while it turned a blind eye to the same situation with men. Gender equality has finally come about it, and it shouldn;t be pushed out of the way just for a Trocaire advert,

Judt

I think it's a principal thing for the advertising standards agency. If this ad were allowed then political parties would start flooding our TV with political ads, either directly or indirectly, citing this example, and our TV's would be spewed with the kind of crap they see in the US any time an election swings around. It's not pretty, every second ad telling you that Person Y Is Evil, Don't Vote For Him.

The ad looked wrong from the first. It should never have been aired.

Jackie laughlin

It would give advantage to rich political parties and pressure groups. Imagine the Youth Defence ads!

dr.bollocko

If you think that this ad is incorrect because it only mentions gender inequality, and think that we are living in a world with gender equality you are sorely and incredibly mistaken.

r3nu4l

I never saw the advert you were talking about but is this it?
Mods feel free to remove if I'm breaking any rules, I think this would put the discussion in context and allow those who haven't seen it to do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKhBnazwAV4

r3nu4l

Having watched it in full I guess it is the ad everyone is talking about...it's a terrible ad.

Millions of young boys across the world are recruited into child armies and undergo abuse as well. That advert talks about ending gender inequality, yet goes on to ignore the plight faced by millions of boys around the world.

Yes in many countries a girl will not get an education because she is a girl and that is wrong but millions of young boys across the world are forced into child armies or into hard physical labour, working for nothing but food etc.

I heard a documentary on bbc4 a month ago about a South American coffee grower who gets paid by Fair Trade. He said that while his life has improved slightly, it hasn't improved as much as he was told it would by Fair Trade. As a result of the slight increase in money he gets he is now able to send his daughter to school, he can't send his sons because he needs them to do the physical labour on his farm. These boys are suffering because of their gender too.

It seems that Trocaire only care about gender inequality when it is the female gender that is suffering!

seamus

Judt wrote:

I think it's a principal thing for the advertising standards agency.

In fact, there are regulations in place which specifically prohibit the broadcasting of advertisements with political ends. I don't think the ASAI even saw this - it takes their process far longer to have an ad pulled.

The Trocaire ad would be perfectly allowed if there wasn't a link to the petition that they want signed.

That said, the ad is horribly biased and ambiguous. When I first saw it, I thought, "No they're not. Women are treated as equals in this country. WTF is this ad about?". The ad fails to specify the particular cause which Trocaire are trying to support, it just claims that women are being treated as second-class citizens, without qualifying it.

This ad is still running on the radio. Again, it claims there is a non-specific prejudice against girls.

Judt

There's nothing to say the ad should be biased for or against any particular group, or sex etc. That's perfectly fine and the discussion of that issue is a separate one. The discussion relating to the ad is that it was a political thing, and they don't want to open that floodgate.

DadaKopf

Interestingly, Mary Rafferty's column in yesterday's Irish Times very reasonably and forcefully condemned the BCI's decision. Astonishingly, Mary Rafferty is on the BCI.

simu

Jackie laughlin wrote:

My first reaction was astonishment at the ad. Trocaire is Catholic. They have to be taking the piss!

Well, there's a long Catholic tradition of providing education for females so it's not that surprising really.

A question: Why is broadcast advertisement treated differently to non-broadcast in terms of allowing political messages?

It is disappointing that the ad was banned simply because it was political, and not because it had a gender problem. I thought maybe we were going to put a stop to ads that have a dig at men. It seems men's rights haven't come that far yet.

simu

MontgomeryClift wrote:

It is disappointing that the ad was banned simply because it was political, and not because it had a gender problem. I thought maybe we were going to put a stop to ads that have a dig at men. It seems men's rights haven't come that far yet.

You perceive that ad as being a dig at men?!

Yes, but very subtly. It's kind of a guilt thing. "Look at these poor babies: Damned for being female." Well I'm sorry for being born male, like.

Dontico

MontgomeryClift wrote:

Yes, but very subtly. It's kind of a guilt thing. "Look at these poor babies: Damned for being female." Well I'm sorry for being born male, like.

the 20th centuary saw equality for women. hopefully the 21st will see equality for men.

simu

MontgomeryClift wrote:

Yes, but very subtly. It's kind of a guilt thing. "Look at these poor babies: Damned for being female." Well I'm sorry for being born male, like.

Uh, right. That's more to do with your own mind than the ad. The idea isn't that you feel guilt - more outrage.

gandalf

Is really a thread for Politics or Humanities ?

simu

simu wrote:

Uh, right. That's more to do with your own mind than the ad. The idea isn't that you feel guilt - more outrage.

(Oh, dear! I used the first person singular for effect. One can be a bit too subtle for some.)

Not at all. This inequality is supposed to be forced, right? Female babies don't discriminate against themselves! So forced by whom? By women? Maybe, and it's possible for women to help maintain this inequality for female babies. It can happen.

But be real: The implication is that in most if not all cases this universal inquality for women is a result of discrimination and abuse by men. So the ad claims, without saying so explicitly.

simu

Save the literary flourishes for your great novel tbh.

What's the obsession with blame? I interpreted the ad as saying "this situation sucks - lets do something about it". not some kind of male guilt trip. It's kinda sad if not peverse that people are seeing an ad that aims to highlight injustice as an attack on those who have been lucky enough to be born in a fairer society.

The causes of inequality are so long and complex - there's no point blaming individual men and women that perpetuate it. It makes more sense to try and break the cycle and incidentally, what's good for women is good for men too - a mother's level of education has huge implications for her offspring both male and female.

simu

simu wrote:

Save the literary flourishes for your great novel tbh.

You don't seem capable of being civil when replying. So I read no further than that.

PixelTrawler

This was on tv yesterday - I can't recall the station, thought it was pulled?

DadaKopf

MontgomeryClift wrote:

You don't seem capable of being civil when replying. So I read no further than that.

Regardless, simu made a good point. Men frequently go on the defensive and play the blame game when women, and men, call for greater equality of the sexes.

The point being: this situation sucks, we're all in it together, we all have to work to fix the sucky situation.

Understanding the causes and effects of inequality are vital to fixing the situation. Blaming people is counterproductive.

DadaKopf

DadaKopf wrote:

Understanding the causes and effects of inequality are vital to fixing the situation. Blaming people is counterproductive.

Exactly right on both counts. The ad did nothing to further the understanding of cause and effect, while issuing a vague blame the ownership of which was open to interpretation. That's why the ad was a bad idea.

DadaKopf

MontgomeryClift wrote:

Exactly right on both counts. The ad did nothing to further the understanding of cause and effect, while issuing a vague blame the ownership of which was open to interpretation. That's why the ad was a bad idea.

What exactly is your reasoning for this? Scene-by-scene, line-by-line?

Dontico

DadaKopf wrote:

The point being: this situation sucks, we're all in it together, we all have to work to fix the sucky situation.

what rights men have in ireland that women dont?
answer none. at the moment we are the ones not being treated equally. when thats fixed, we may look at our european comrades to see whats needed to be done. outside europe we can do very little.

DadaKopf

Ireland's doing pretty well on gender parity, globally speaking. But this thread isn't about Ireland. It's about the links between gender and underdevelopment. There are lots of other threads where you can vent your spleen about Ireland.

redspider

I was surprsied that this ad was pulled for being political. It is a very subjective and narrow interpretation of BCI's rules, which may be appealed, and indeed many ads of this nature could be perceived as political, eg: Concern. Sightsavers, etc! Even Cura? Are charity ads banned therefore?

> Political advertising is forbidden in this country

Since when? There are posters up all the time, there are political discussions on daily on TV, on the Radio, on the web, in print, from party X, Y, Z highlighting their viewpoint, and even getting to do so for free, never mind having to pay to get their message across. If a Trocaire person would have been interviewed say on RTE's six-one news about the launch of the campaign, would that have been political?

The reasoning behind the pull seemingly was in relation to a UN resolution, but this is not highlighted in the ad unless I havent seen it in the small print or watched it closely enough and certainly its not the main thrust of the message. Also, since when did Trocaire become a political organisation, and I dont think they could be labelled as quasi-politiical unless someone can indicate which way they want people to vote. FF? PD? FG? hmmmm

As others have mentioned, whilst the plight of women and females is deplorable in many countries around the world, it is recognised that there is gender inequality, but there are many cases of deplorable acts against young males too. Collecting for one gender only is slightly too much "positive action" in my opinion.

Also, statistics will always have one gender or the other out of favour on a certain aspect. For example, males in Ireland are likely to die earlier than females. Ladies, do a collection for us please to buy us a few pints while we are still alive? Thanks. Inequality cannot be completely 100% eradicated.

Certainly the pulling of the ad has at least highlighted the issue and perhaps may help in bringing in more money for the campaign.

I think there is another bigger issue which this country hasnt yet addressed. These Trocaire boxes were distributed mainly via kids in schools. Catholic schools with public funding. Isnt it about time that State and Religion links were broken once and for all, especially in education? All publicly funded schools should be multi-denominational.

Redspider

Zombrex

MontgomeryClift wrote:

Exactly right on both counts. The ad did nothing to further the understanding of cause and effect, while issuing a vague blame the ownership of which was open to interpretation. That's why the ad was a bad idea.

Er, how did you get that out of this ad? It sounds like you are being a bit overly sensitive.

The purpose of the ad was to highlight the fact that women are far far more likely to suffer during a conflict across the world.

It is very easy for us, in a stable western democracies, to say "Oh look, the women are fine. Sure didn't they get the vote like 100 years ago" The whole point of this ad is to snap people back into the reality of the modern world, where the vast majority of people do not live in "stable western democracies"

DadaKopf

DadaKopf wrote:

But this thread isn't about Ireland.

Why is it not about Ireland?

Zombrex

Dontico wrote:

at the moment we are the ones not being treated equally.

What rights do women in Ireland have the men don't?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

What rights do women in Ireland have the men don't?

I think the post alluded to unequal treatment, not rights in an official sense.

Zombrex

MontgomeryClift wrote:

Why is it not about Ireland?

Because Ireland isn't a conflict zone where women are far more likely to be targeted for injury than men. Was that not obvious?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Er, how did you get that out of this ad? It sounds like you are being a bit overly sensitive.

The purpose of the ad was to highlight the fact that women are far far more likely to suffer during a conflict across the world.

How do you know this for sure?

Zombrex

MontgomeryClift wrote:

I think the post alluded to unequal treatment, not rights in an official sense.

Well he mentioned rights -

"what rights men have in ireland that women dont?"

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Because Ireland isn't a conflict zone where women are far more likely to be targeted for injury than men. Was that not obvious?

I'm looking at the ad again and I see nothing about conflict zones. But let's pretend the ad did mention 'conflict zones' - how do you know women are more likely to be targeted for injury any more than I could claim it's men who are mostly 'targeted for injury?' (And I'm not saying that because I don't know. How could I?)

Zombrex

MontgomeryClift wrote:

How do you know this for sure?

Your "for sure" has instantly put my back up. Please tell me this isn't going to turn into a rant about how feminists distort the picture of things ....

To answer your question, various sources over the years.

I'm perfectly open to the idea that this picture of a conflict zone might be wrong, so if you have a counter argument I'm all ears. So long as it isn't long the lines of You can't trust those feminists...

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Well he mentioned rights -

"what rights men have in ireland that women dont?"

Right. That's not the same as claiming that women receive preferential treatment. Preferential treatment is a separate issue from rights, and is, unfortunately, had to quantify.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Your "for sure" has instantly put my back up. Please tell me this isn't going to turn into a rant about how feminists distort the picture of things ....

Remove the 'for sure' if you like.

To answer your question, various sources over the years.

I think we can all see for ourselves how vague that is.

I'm perfectly open to the idea that this picture of a conflict zone might be wrong

Good.

, so if you have a counter argument I'm all ears.

As I said in a previous post, I have no way to make a contrary claim, and I would not try to. Again, I make no claim that men are 'targets' any more than women, in 'conflict zones' (which people are free to assume the ad is about as it never specified).

So long as it isn't long the lines of You can't trust those feminists..

Please don't start dragging in stuff I did not even allude to.

Zombrex

MontgomeryClift wrote:

Right. That's not the same as claiming that women receive preferential treatment. Preferential treatment is a separate issue from rights, and is, unfortunately, had to quantify.

I would agree that it is very hard to quantify, and I can think of the top of my head of a number of areas where men are on the end of negative stereotypes.

But are people seriously suggesting that this doesn't also happen to women in this day and age?

Why is it always one or the other? Surely both sexes experience negative stereotyping from time to time?

Zombrex

MontgomeryClift wrote:

I think we can all see for ourselves how vague that is.

"Vague" my comment maybe, but as you say yourself there seems to be little reason to think that this idea is wrong.

A quick Google finds these articles on the subject

http://women.amnestyusa.org/caseforgiving.asp

"The UN Secretary-General reports that 80 percent of casualties in recent armed conflicts have been women and children."

http://www.worldrevolution.org/news/article1703.htm

"Women and girls in war zones suffer rape and violent abuse while offenders escape punishment, Amnesty International said a report released Wednesday"

And a ton more. As I said pretty much source I've seen over the years all say the samethings. I've never even heard of a challenge to the idea, which is always a sign that it is well established. And a quick Google of "Women" "war zone" "conflict" "violence" will all produce reports detailing the same thing.

I didn't even know this was an idea that was actually in dispute.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

I would agree that it is very hard to quantify, and I can think of the top of my head of a number of areas where men are on the end of negative stereotypes.

But are people seriously suggesting that this doesn't also happen to women in this day and age?

Nobody suggested that, that I can thing of. I certainly don't suggest it. Suggesting something 'does not happen' is foolish, as only one example of it happening makes you wrong.

Why is it always one or the other?

It's not. And I don't think anybody claimed it was.

Zombrex

MontgomeryClift wrote:

It's not. And I don't think anybody claimed it was.

Ok. Perhaps you could explain what you think Dontico meant by -

"at the moment we are the ones not being treated equally."

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

http://women.amnestyusa.org/caseforgiving.asp

"The UN Secretary-General reports that 80 percent of casualties in recent armed conflicts have been women and children."

From the Amnesty International Women's Council? Quoting the corrupt, slow, inept UN? Please!

http://www.worldrevolution.org/news/article1703.htm

"Women and girls in war zones suffer rape and violent abuse while offenders escape punishment, Amnesty International said a report released Wednesday"

Vague. I'll bet these things do happen to women and girls. But attributing victimhood to one sex over the other is absurd and practically impossible, so why try?

I've never even heard of a challenge to the idea, which is always a sign that it is well established.

A well established idea can't be wrong? 'The earth is flat' went unchallenged for a long time and must have seemed entirely reasonable to most.

And a quick Google of "Women" "war zone" "conflict" "violence" will all produce reports detailing the same thing.

Which tells us nothing. I could quote Srebrenica, where 7,000 men and boys were massacred in the worst case of genocide since WWII. I could look at Iraq where it's mostly male soldiers and male Iraqi police and would-be police who get killed in the streets. But I don't want to use that to attribute victimhood to men, so why do similar to try to attribute victimhood to women?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Ok. Perhaps you could explain what you think Dontico meant by -

"at the moment we are the ones not being treated equally."

I'll have to let him answer that if he wants to. I can only answer for myself.

Dontico

MontgomeryClift wrote:

I'll have to let him answer that if he wants to. I can only answer for myself.

i have before. so i'll only make one point.

car insurance.