ISPCC Christmas campaign and fathers

iptba

Letter in Irish Examiner today (Wednesday). It would be different if half of the time or half of the posters had "from mum". But that's not what tends to happen:

Not all fathers are child abusers

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

IT is with regret that I see the ISPCC Christmas campaign depicts all fathers as child abusers.

In the ISPCC adverts they show a young girl with her arm wrapped in Christmas paper with the tag saying to "Melanie from DAD".

In another depiction of a letter to Santa the writer states that her "DAD" broke her arm.

As a father of three children I find this offensive to me and to all the other good fathers in this country.

And to make matters worse in the ISPCC Facebook page the Minister for Children Barry Andrews has indicated he "likes" the campaign.

It is not saying much for all the good fathers and all the fathers that are prevented from seeing their children this Christmas.

Is it any wonder that there is total bias against fathers having proper access to their children when campaigns such as this one are allowed to go on?

Declan Keaveney
PRO, AMEN
Co Meath.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/not-all-fathers-are-child-abusers-140533.html#ixzz19SSjnZk7

iptba

I think it was removed from the Facebook page after complaints. I imagine the ad had run somewhere first. But good to see they were willing to change/remove something.

ISPCC Christmas Appeal 2010

Unmarried and Separated Parents of Ireland;

RE: Response to ISPCC Christmas fund raising campaign 2010

The unmarried and separated and parents of Ireland is a voluntary organisation who provide assistance and support to parents of children who are separated or indeed in the process of separation. More often than not this group deals with acrimonious separation where access to children is often contentious.

In a number of cases where we have assisted parents, we had heard and have dealt with many false allegations of domestic abuse against men in particular. This has had the effect of alienating children and parents and has caused untold damage to the child and parent relationship of these unfortunate individuals.

While we accept that the ISPCC has done tremendous work in the area of child protection down through the years we would however like to criticise and equally condemn this particular advertising campaign by the ISPCC.



In particular we would like to make the following complaints on observation of the campaign.

The Letter;
The letter portrayed implies that it is written by a seven and a half year old girl named Melanie. In this letter the child is seen to be writing about her parents to Santa for her Christmas presents and her concerns for her brother. To an educated reader, it becomes obvious that the letter is written by an adult and not by seven and half year old Melanie. The punctuation and the letter shapes ect are of a good quality.

We strongly abhor the use of this letter as a means to invoke public sympathy or outrage as it is simply a fraudulent depiction. We know from our experiences that any documentation between ourselves and those we would assist are and will remain at all time confidential. Therefore we must ask that this practise be stopped immediately.



It raises a question also that if a genuine victim were to avail of the services of the ISPCC would they be discouraged from doing so by believing that there appeal for assistance may become public knowledge.

The Images;
The images used show a girl with a black eye and cut lip, and an image of a child’s arm in a splint, “Santa Plaster of Paris” how quant, with a card saying;
“To Melanie, From Dad” implying that the father is responsible for the injury.
Why not
“To Melanie, From Mammy and Dad” like the letter implies.

I would like to direct your attention to the following links on domestic abuse.
http://www.uspi.ie/Surge In Claims Of Child Sex Abuse By Women.pdf

http://www.uspi.ie/My wife physically abused me for 20 years.pdf

These are just two recent articles and make for harrowing reading of what is actually happening in the real world. We don’t need fictitious advertisements to bring about social change. Rather a release of the true statistics of the domestic abuse figures and the perpetrators of such abuse. These statistics are held by the ISPCC.

The Unmarried and Separated Parents of Ireland call on the ISPCC for the removal of these images and that a more gender equality based image be portrayed in there campaign against domestic abuse. This man hating has gone on for too long,
Click the following link.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.uspi.ie/Eddie%20Hernon.pdf&h=78533

It has to stop now or our children as adults will be the next victims of this abuse.

It is an abuse of the position that the ISPCC have, in protecting children, by directing a gender based campaign using images that depict men as the only perpetrators of such abuse.

CDfm

A lot of campaigns are misleading and it would be truer to say that the ISPCC played to the gender stereotype when the research and studies show different results,I have posted this table from the US Department of Heath before but it is a good pictorial representation.

If campaigns are to be effective they need to be truthful.


The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that for each year between 2000 and 2005, "female parents acting alone" were most common perpetrators of child abuse.

Victims by Perpetrator Relationship, 2005
This bar graphs shows that 40.4 percent of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.3 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 17.3 percent were abused by both their mother and father. Victims abused by a nonparental perpetrator accounted for 10.7 percent

Mothers are involved in 64% of child maltreatment and fathers 18%.

When I see campaigns like the ISPCC campaign -it does make me wonder how effective groups like the ISPCC really are.They are reinforcing a stereotype.

It also strikes me that money allocated to them might be better spent elsewhere.

Money spent preventing child abuse is an investment in society and it will in the future have a trickle down effect of lessening domestic violence as children who grow up in todays abusive homes are tomorrows abusers.

Fittle

I believe that any man who is offended by this ISPCC ad is just looking for an argument to be honest.

The ad depicts one man and one child - nowhere does it say that ALL fathers abuse their children. Nowhere. Their ad is based on a particular case, and they have chosen to keep the identity of the family anonymous obviously. But they are not trying to state that ALL fathers physically their children.

This is similar to women being offended by the 'Hello Boys' underwear posters all over the place a while back, and taking it on as a 'gender debate'. As a woman, I wasn't offended in the least by these posters, why would I be?? It depicted a woman in her underwear - no one forced her to do it, so I never understood the Mary Whitehouse brigade who got on their high horses about that one.

And this debate is similar - to highlight this campaign as 'anti-men' is ludicrous. No one I have spoken to about this ad views it as an being against fathers - no one I have spoken to now believes that all fathers abuse their children because of this ad - and no one I have spoken to sees this as ANYTHING to do with bias towards fathers getting custody of their children.

CDfm

Esther Rantzen who founded Childline disagrees with you.

Has it occured to you that children that are abused by women do not call helplines and report as they do not think they will be believed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/09/boys-sexual-abuse-childline

Its not an underwear advert ffs but even then when have you seen Pretty Polly use a male model selling its products.

Stereotyping it also means that the wider community and public are not aware of what to look for so as a public information broadcast it does not inform.

I am not saying that men do not abuse children, they do. Women also do but are less likely to get reported or for an intervention to occur.

So both men and women should be offended that an advert broadcast to highlight an issue does not challenge this thinking and inform.

The ad being withdrawn is a good thing as maybe it also challenges the ISPCC to get rid of the gender stereotype and get on with the business of reaching out to more children.

Men are offended as in the family law system men are potrayed as violent and more likely to have custody and access problems and have to leave the family home.

The same guy that might be protecting the kids from violence - as in I am stuck with a violent partner and no-one will help me and the kids. We wont be believed by anyone.

So there are lots of reasons why the advert offends - maybe you should have asked your friends if they were aware of the incidences of child abuse by women or where would they go to make a report.

cocoa

Fittle wrote: »

And this debate is similar - to highlight this campaign as 'anti-men' is ludicrous. No one I have spoken to about this ad views it as an being against fathers - no one I have spoken to now believes that all fathers abuse their children because of this ad - and no one I have spoken to sees this as ANYTHING to do with bias towards fathers getting custody of their children.

I think that's the biggest problem, it reinforces the stereotype and people will just accept it. Why would anyone, male or female, who has a preconception that most abuse is done by men be offended by an ad that reinforces this belief? It doesn't have to offend people for it to be a fairly bad idea and a total failure at informing the public about the actual facts...

CDfm

cocoa wrote: »

I think that's the biggest problem, it reinforces the stereotype and people will just accept it. .

And as Helen Lovejoy often says



"Wont someone please think of the children"

Very fundamental and a core issue.

Fittle

But it doesn't reinforce anything - the ISPCC are not stating that all fathers physically abuse their children and anyone who translates that ad into meaning that, is a fool.

And with respect CDFM, your research pie-chart is almost 6yrs old and based on American stats, so it's hardly a reflection of what's going on in Ireland in (almost) 2011.

CDfm

Fittle wrote: »

But it doesn't reinforce anything - the ISPCC are not stating that all fathers physically abuse their children and anyone who translates that ad into meaning that, is a fool.

Its the way advertising works and if the gender of the abuser was so unimportant then we do we not see women portrayed as abusers in adverts.

I have never seen a tv advert on domestic violence in Ireland portray a woman as the perpetrator

And with respect CDFM, your research pie-chart is almost 6yrs old and based on American stats, so it's hardly a reflection of what's going on in Ireland in (almost) 2011.

Try as I might I could not find similar statistics for Ireland from a neutral source.

Do you have stats for Ireland ?

CathyMoran

From what I can tell things were a lot worse when I was growing up but the people who were supposed to care (teachers, doctors, other family) ignored abuse if it was by the mother - was given the line "it is not child abuse as she did not break your bones". Women can and do abuse children and the ISPCC advert was offensive (well at least to me) a female survivor of constant physical abuse by my mother. Both sexes can and do hurt children.

Fittle

CDfm wrote: »

Its the way advertising works and if the gender of the abuser was so unimportant then we do we not see women portrayed as abusers in adverts.

I have never seen a tv advert on domestic violence in Ireland portray a woman as the perpetrator



Try as I might I could not find similar statistics for Ireland from a neutral source.

Do you have stats for Ireland ?

No I don't, because obviously I couldn't find them either - but to post your 6yr old stats and to state on the back of them that "64% of mothers are involved in maltreatment" is VERY misleading.

I have seen few adverts on domestic violence in Ireland at all - this ad is being jumped on by a few people, on this, and other websites, as being a thorn in the side of single fathers who can't get access to their children at christmas.

It's propganda at it's very best/worst - it's an ad about domestic violence in the home, committed against children by a parent. The fact that the parent - in this instance - is the father, is not relevant and is being used by a group, determined to publicise their cause by whatever means.

Insinuating that this ad is ONLY about fathers who abuse their children, and therefore relfects negatively in a court room situation etc etc, is not the way to fight their cause.

CDfm

But in the UK they are moving on and tackling the issue and we should too

Sharp rise reported in child abuse by women

By Sam Marsden, Press Association

Monday, 9 November 2009
}


The number of children reporting sexual abuse by women to ChildLine has more than doubled over the past five years, it was revealed today.
New figures show a 132 per cent rise in complaints of female sexual assaults to the helpline service in this period, compared with a 27 per cent increase in reports of abuse by men.

We can discuss gender politics for ever but like it or not the debate does nothing to help children.

Thats what I am highlighting here.

Several of my female friends could post stories similar to Cathy's and one of them has a sexual abuse complaint against a female relative.

That is not an attack on women or feminism -it is simply factual.

Whats so wrong about looking at it from tackling child abusers with no excuses.

Fittle

CDfm wrote: »

But in the UK they are moving on and tackling the issue and we should too



We can discuss gender politics for ever but like it or not the debate does nothing to help children.

Thats what I am highlighting here.

Several of my female friends could post stories similar to Cathy's and one of them has a sexual abuse complaint against a female relative.

That is not an attack on women or feminism -it is simply factual.

Whats so wrong about looking at it from tackling child abusers with no excuses.

There is nothing wrong in looking at it from tackling child abusers with no excuses, in fact, that's what we should be doing.

But you're not the OP here and that's not his agenda in this instance.

That's all I'm trying to say here - we are all for the rights of the child - all of us, except for those few who have no soul. But to jump on the bandwagon of this ad, and to pretend your agenda is to protect single fathers, when in fact it's to publicise your own campaign (a campaign I agree with btw - I'm 100% for fathers rights and agree that the Irish system is very wrong in dealing with single fathers in Ireland) is publicity at its very lowest, in my humble opinion.

Reward

Fittle wrote: »

I believe that any man who is offended by this ISPCC ad is just looking for an argument to be honest.

The ad depicts one man and one child - nowhere does it say that ALL fathers abuse their children. Nowhere. Their ad is based on a particular case, and they have chosen to keep the identity of the family anonymous obviously. But they are not trying to state that ALL fathers physically their children.

This is similar to women being offended by the 'Hello Boys' underwear posters all over the place a while back, and taking it on as a 'gender debate'. As a woman, I wasn't offended in the least by these posters, why would I be?? It depicted a woman in her underwear - no one forced her to do it, so I never understood the Mary Whitehouse brigade who got on their high horses about that one.

And this debate is similar - to highlight this campaign as 'anti-men' is ludicrous. No one I have spoken to about this ad views it as an being against fathers - no one I have spoken to now believes that all fathers abuse their children because of this ad - and no one I have spoken to sees this as ANYTHING to do with bias towards fathers getting custody of their children.

Its not ludicrous, charaties use the evil man stereotype to generate funds, all over the world. Despite the fact that women are the main child abusers in society, these charaties (and feminist groups) constantly depict men as being the child abusers, practically every campaign.

If you dont think that the deliberate stereotyping of men as abusers, child or other wise does not effect fathers rights, you just arent aware of the issues. If you dont think that stereotyping men as abusers is wrong, you are just likely brainwashed to accept it as correct.

Fittle

Reward wrote: »

Its not ludicrous, charaties use the evil man stereotype to generate funds, all over the world. Despite the fact that women are the main child abusers in society, these charaties (and feminist groups) constantly depict men as being the child abusers, practically every campaign.

If you dont think that the deliberate stereotyping of men as abusers, child or other wise does not effect fathers rights, you just arent aware of the issues. If you dont think that stereotyping men as abusers is wrong, you are just likely brainwashed to accept it as correct.

Ok, well I'm brainwashed and I accept that it's correct that all men are abusers:rolleyes:

How can I even defend your argument - other than to say that I am the opposite of who you perceive me to be

Reward

Fittle wrote: »

Ok, well I'm brainwashed and I accept that it's correct that all men are abusers:rolleyes:

How can I even defend your argument - other than to say that I am the opposite of who you perceive me to be

I wasn't making an argument, I was simply telling you truth to you and you decided to respond with gibberish and a passive aggressive eye roll.

If you feel that men objecting to being stereotyped as societies child abusers in these campaigns while societies main child abusers, women never seem to make it into these campaigns as the perpetrator is "ludicrous" there is a problem with your perception not mine or any of the others here on this thread that can see that its not right, whats more, women don't get to dictate to men how they should or shouldn't feel about being unfairly stereotyped as societies abusers.

CDfm

Fittle wrote: »

There is nothing wrong in looking at it from tackling child abusers with no excuses, in fact, that's what we should be doing.

I agree

But you're not the OP here and that's not his agenda in this instance.

But you specifically mentioned my post so I responded

That's all I'm trying to say here - we are all for the rights of the child - all of us, except for those few who have no soul.

It is not my OP & my purpose in posting was to point out that both mothers and fathers abuse and to say its a social issue.

I'm 100% for fathers rights and agree that the Irish system is very wrong in dealing with single fathers in Ireland) is publicity at its very lowest, in my humble opinion.

I find when I see adverts on abuse in 100% of cases it is a man who is portrayed as the abuser and that is factually wrong and misleading.

Irrespective of the furore, we know that it stops abuse being reported and that does not help anyone.

Fittle

Well, I don't see many adverts on abuse. In fact, this is probably the first one I've seen, where it was the father depicted as being the abuser.

Anyway, I'm not arguing the toss here - my initial point stands - the debate about the ispcc ad is completely contorted, and made to look like it's an anti-fathers ad, when in fact, the OP is trying to publicise his own cause. In every part of my life, I prefer honesty, and this 'argument' from the OP, is not honest.

Reward

Fittle wrote: »

Well, I don't see many adverts on abuse. In fact, this is probably the first one I've seen, where it was the father depicted as being the abuser.

Anyway, I'm not arguing the toss here - my initial point stands - the debate about the ispcc ad is completely contorted, and made to look like it's an anti-fathers ad, when in fact, the OP is trying to publicise his own cause. In every part of my life, I prefer honesty, and this 'argument' from the OP, is not honest.

Trying to publicise its own cause, making money, by using the tired old inaccurate stereotype of the child abusing male. If they were really out to raise awareness about child abuse, they would be depicting women as the abusers 75% of the time but no, female child abusers and pedophiles get to fly under the radar while men take all the blame.

These cynical charities, feminist and womens groups, raise millions by lying to the public about abuse and fear mongering with images and lies about "evil" men. For decades now they have been demonising and dehumanising us with manipulated stats and media campaigns to the point that we are not trusted around children, its very easy for women to falsely depict us in court as abusive and its very difficult for us to get a court to rule in our ours and our childs favour when the mother is abusive, because of these widespread lies and stereotypes.

Fittle

Reward wrote: »

they would be depicting women as the abusers 75% of the time but no, female child abusers and pedophiles get to fly under the radar while men take all the blame.
.

1. Do you have stats to back up that figure?
2. Why have you brought paedophiles into this?

Reward

Fittle wrote: »

1. Do you have stats to back up that figure?
2. Why have you brought paedophiles into this?

Yeah, around 75% by Western Australian and the US stats. Female pedophilia because its child abuse and because its the most protected and denied form of child abuse in society ,yet people like you think that its "ludicrous" that men are sick of being stereotyped as societies child abusers by charities, feminist groups and the media using images of evil men to fear monger and make money with. Truth is women wouldnt hand over their money ... or watch Oprah so willingly, if the truth were being told.

Fittle

1. Could you provide a link for your stats please?
2. Do you live in Western Austrailia, because I fail to see the connection and how an ISPCC ad can be relevant to stats from western austrailia
3. People like me? You don't me at all - but you are coming across as very misogynistic in your posts by lumping all women into one category. Perhaps your relationship with your ex makes you feel that all women are out to get all men, but trust me, we're not.

Reward

Fittle wrote: »

1. Could you provide a link for your stats please?
2. Do you live in Western Austrailia, because I fail to see the connection and how an ISPCC ad can be relevant to stats from western austrailia
3. People like me? You don't me at all - but you are coming across as very misogynistic in your posts by lumping all women into one category. Perhaps your relationship with your ex makes you feel that all women are out to get all men, but trust me, we're not.

Ok you don't understand whats being explained to you, look up modern child abuse research in any country, you will find that its women doing the bulk, main care giver = main child abuser, nothing to do with gender. The same evil male scam is being run by charities, feminist groups and in the media all over the world, you would be making a mistake if you thought this microcosm we live in or the ISPCC is unique. After you presumed to dictate to men how they should and shouldn't feel about being stereotyped as child abusers, you have a lot of gall calling me misogynist, now go lose your temper with someone else misandrist.

Fittle

Reward wrote: »

Ok you don't understand whats being explained to you, look up modern child abuse research in any country, you will find that its women doing the bulk, main care giver = main child abuser, nothing to do with gender. The same evil male scam is being run by charities, feminist groups and in the media all over the world, you would be making a mistake if you thought this microcosm we live in or the ISPCC is unique. After you presumed to dictate to men how they should and shouldn't feel about being stereotyped as child abusers, you have a lot of gall calling me misogynist, now go lose your temper with someone else misandrist.

I fail to see where I lost my temper, and I fail to see where I attempted to dictate to men

I've made my point on this one, and won't be having the above debate with you, which is in fact, COMPLETELY off-topic. I'm outta here. I wish you well in 2011.

Reward

Fittle wrote: »

I fail to see where I lost my temper, and I fail to see where I attempted to dictate to men

I've made my point on this one, and won't be having the above debate with you, which is in fact, COMPLETELY off-topic. I'm outta here. I wish you well in 2011.

You dictating how men should and shouldn't feel about being stereotyped as child abusers and likening being inaccurately depicted as societies child abusers to an advertisement for a bra...

"This is similar to women being offended by the 'Hello Boys' underwear posters all over the place a while back, and taking it on as a 'gender debate'. As a woman, I wasn't offended in the least by these posters, why would I be?? It depicted a woman in her underwear - no one forced her to do it, so I never understood the Mary Whitehouse brigade who got on their high horses about that one.

And this debate is similar - to highlight this campaign as 'anti-men' is ludicrous."

You beginning to lose your temper and taking a dictorial tone with me...

1. Do you have stats to back up that figure?
2. Why have you brought paedophiles into this?

You continuing with the same and making the obligatory false allegation of misogyny

1. Could you provide a link for your stats please?
2. Do you live in Western Austrailia, because I fail to see the connection and how an ISPCC ad can be relevant to stats from western austrailia
3. People like me? You don't me at all - but you are coming across as very misogynistic in your posts by lumping all women into one category. Perhaps your relationship with your ex makes you feel that all women are out to get all men, but trust me, we're not.

You denying your obvious anger and then scuttling the debate

"I fail to see where I lost my temper, and I fail to see where I attempted to dictate to men

I've made my point on this one, and won't be having the above debate with you, which is in fact, COMPLETELY off-topic. I'm outta here. I wish you well in 2011".

Me providing figures that are replicated elsewhere. (US HHS/ACF reports from 2000 through 2009 for example)

"Mothers are more likely than fathers to neglect and emotionally and physically abuse their children, information obtained under freedom of information laws reveals.

University of Western Sydney academic Micheal Woods (a feminist) said yesterday that the statistics debunked the myth that fathers posed the greatest risk to their children.

Mr Woods, co-director of the university's Men's Health Information and Resource Centre, said if similar data was available in other States it would show similar trends.".

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6089613/mum-not-dad-more-likely-to-neglect-kids/

Men decide for themselves how they feel about being inaccurately depicted as societies child abusers, misandric, feminist harpies don't get to make those sort of decisions on behalf of men

CDfm

I can see where Declan Kearney of AMEN was coming from and it seems very reasonable to me.

But also,the ISPCC is an old organisation and the adverts probably are effective for fundraising but gave a different message too.

Its a juggling act I suppose, and they compete with other charities for the donation buck.

From the ISPCC website.

Who we are

The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC) was founded in 1889. It is Ireland’s oldest and most well-known children’s charity. The ISPCC has a long, proud history of service delivery and advocacy on behalf of children.


Why we exist

The ISPCC exists to:

• Ensure all children are given the chance to feel love and happiness
• Stop discrimination and exclusion of children
• End cruelty and injustice to children

Our vision

To see an Ireland where all children are heard and valued.

Mission statement

To advocate on behalf of all children in Ireland, and to provide a range of independent and unique services which are preventative and empowering in nature

http://www.ispcc.ie/About-Us/Who-we-are-and-why-we-exist.aspx

The Ireland that saw the ISPCC founded was a much different place than it is now.

For the ISPCC , preaching feminist scams probably isn't very helpful, but pointing out that sometimes it is the father that protects the child from abuse is because the offensive advert might conflict with their stated aims and objectives.

That is the conflict that needed pointing out IMHO.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

I can see where Declan Kearney of AMEN was coming from and it seems very reasonable to me.

But also,the ISPCC is an old organisation and the adverts probably are effective for fundraising but gave a different message too.

Its a juggling act I suppose, and they compete with other charities for the donation buck.

From the ISPCC website.



The Ireland that saw the ISPCC founded was a much different place than it is now.

For the ISPCC , preaching feminist scams probably isn't very helpful, but pointing out that sometimes it is the father that protects the child from abuse is because the offensive advert might conflict with their stated aims and objectives.

That is the conflict that needed pointing out IMHO.

Have you seen the man, woman and myth documentary on you tube? There is a whole section on how womens groups and charities profit from demonising men.

CDfm

Reward wrote: »

Have you seen the man, woman and myth documentary on you tube? There is a whole section on how womens groups and charities profit from demonising men.

How is that relevant to an advert by a child advocacy group. They pulled the advert under public pressure.

The only way it is relevant is if stops the ISPCC in helping children or promotes situations or a culture causing problems for children.

That is in the past and it will be interesting to see how the ISPCC developes from this and whether they will change their marketing and promotional material around this.

Personally, I hope they do as fundamentally they are a very good organisation and Ireland would probably be a worse place without them.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

How is that relevant to an advert by a child advocacy group. They pulled the advert under public pressure.

The only way it is relevant is if stops the ISPCC in helping children or promotes situations or a culture causing problems for children.

That is in the past and it will be interesting to see how the ISPCC developes from this and whether they will change their marketing and promotional material around this.

Personally, I hope they do as fundamentally they are a very good organisation and Ireland would probably be a worse place without them.

The ISPCC and other organisations that use the same tactics put children at risk and protect abusers by convincing society that child abuse is gendered. Outside of high profile, misleading campaigns and collecting money off the image of evil men abusing children and runing phone lines staffed by volunteers, I'm not too sure what it is that they do ... if it is just another outlet thats been hijacked by "men bad/women good" ideologues to promote hatred, they will be reluctant to use campaigns that reflect the true reality of child abuse in the future.

Its great that the ad was pulled.


http://www.manwomanmyth.com/abuse-industry/charities-helping-the-needy-or-helping-themselves/

CDfm

This is their stated aims

http://www.ispcc.ie/Media/Publications/General-Society-Publications/ISPCC-Ten-Point-Plan.aspx

Now I was a bit taken aback by the advert but it was developed by Ogilvy an ad agency

Probably because they felt it would increase donations and they they ad agency miscalculated the adverse reaction to part of the message which portrayed the abuser as Dad. The stereotype with the girls picture also gives the idea that only girls get abused -which may mean boys wont call it.

Advertising is complex and difficult to get right.

Here is what they say on their website.

• e >
• Fundraising Homepage >
• Christmas Appeal Explained

ISPCC Christmas Appeal 2010

For many children in Ireland Christmas is just another day to fear.

We are extremely grateful to Ogilvy for all of their help with our Christmas appeal.

The concept behind our Christmas campaign for 2010 is that Melanie* (aged 7 ½) has written a letter to Santa about what she’d like for Christmas this year. Melanie doesn’t want the usual toys for Christmas, she just wants her parents to stop shouting and hitting her and her brother.

For many children in Ireland, Christmas is just another day to fear. At the ISPCC we’re doing all we can to help. Please help us to give them a voice and to end the cruelty.

This is Melanie. There are many things that happen to her every single day that she can’t tell Santa. Because she’s afraid. She tries to be strong, but she’s young and she’s fragile and she’s vulnerable. She has no-one she can talk to. She thinks Santa is her last and only hope. But she’s wrong. You are.

Please donate what you can and help us to help her. Thank you.

Now I dont know if this was a deliberate portrayal ,but , the ad agency would have made their recommendations on what they felt would have yielded the best returns.

I also don't know how childline train their support volunteers in Ireland.

We do know that in the UK - Childlines founder Esther Rantzen has publicised an increase in the number of callers concerning abuse by women.

What we do know that in the UK efforts have been made to encourage more boys to use the service.

So yes -it is a complex area and IMHO the service delivery by the state has lacked leadership and vision.

I do not know enough about their service delivery- but you cannot just generalise it. It may be true or may not be.Do you have any back up information on ISPCC to support this.

Reward

CDfm wrote: »

This is their stated aims

http://www.ispcc.ie/Media/Publications/General-Society-Publications/ISPCC-Ten-Point-Plan.aspx

Now I was a bit taken aback by the advert but it was developed by Ogilvy an ad agency

Probably because they felt it would increase donations and they they ad agency miscalculated the adverse reaction to part of the message which portrayed the abuser as Dad. The stereotype with the girls picture also gives the idea that only girls get abused -which may mean boys wont call it.

Advertising is complex and difficult to get right.

Here is what they say on their website.



Now I dont know if this was a deliberate portrayal ,but , the ad agency would have made their recommendations on what they felt would have yielded the best returns.

I also don't know how childline train their support volunteers in Ireland.

We do know that in the UK - Childlines founder Esther Rantzen has publicised an increase in the number of callers concerning abuse by women.

What we do know that in the UK efforts have been made to encourage more boys to use the service.

So yes -it is a complex area and IMHO the service delivery by the state has lacked leadership and vision.

I do not know enough about their service delivery- but you cannot just generalise it. It may be true or may not be.Do you have any back up information on ISPCC to support this.

No aside from what is already on the board I have nothing on the ISPCC, I have something on deliberate corruption of data and a similarly offensive media campaign that deliberately covers up female abusers and male victims by the NSPCC in the UK.

http://menaregood.com/bias.pdf

I cant get the youtube to imbed for some reason, this link is better for a quick explanation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKXVcUSBKH4

metrovelvet

CathyMoran wrote: »

From what I can tell things were a lot worse when I was growing up but the people who were supposed to care (teachers, doctors, other family) ignored abuse if it was by the mother - was given the line "it is not child abuse as she did not break your bones". Women can and do abuse children and the ISPCC advert was offensive (well at least to me) a female survivor of constant physical abuse by my mother. Both sexes can and do hurt children.

Hold on a second. When I was gring up abuse was not considered abuse as it is now and was often ignored whether it was the man, woman or clergy doing it. Most people I know of my generation, had the slipper, the spoon, the belt taken to them and often worse, both by parents and by teachers.

And yes unless you had black eyes and broken limbs, it fell under the terms 'discipline.'

metrovelvet

cdfm- Why do you consistently use decontexualised statistics from foreign countries?

CathyMoran

metrovelvet wrote: »

Hold on a second. When I was gring up abuse was not considered abuse as it is now and was often ignored whether it was the man, woman or clergy doing it. Most people I know of my generation, had the slipper, the spoon, the belt taken to them and often worse, both by parents and by teachers.

And yes unless you had black eyes and broken limbs, it fell under the terms 'discipline.'

It was and is still abuse. She would hit me because she felt like it, because she was having a bad day (which she always did), because she was upset that I had a bad day, because I was not the type of daughter she wanted - she tried to stab me with a knife several times... Point is, physical violence is never acceptable.

metrovelvet

CathyMoran wrote: »

It was and is still abuse. She would hit me because she felt like it, because she was having a bad day (which she always did), because she was upset that I had a bad day, because I was not the type of daughter she wanted - she tried to stab me with a knife several times... Point is, physical violence is never acceptable.

Once upon a time, not too long ago it was acceptable. Corporal punishment was used a means of discipline and it was common enough that no one thought twice about it unless the consequences of it were very very bad, whether the person was handing out the punishment was male or female, and my point is is that 'normalisation' of it, where authorities turned a blind eye was not gender discrimination at all but acceptance of it as a means to control your kids. They accepted fathers doing it as much as mothers doing it. In fact it was expected.

CathyMoran

metrovelvet wrote: »

Once upon a time, not too long ago it was acceptable. Corporal punishment was used a means of discipline and it was common enough that no one thought twice about it unless the consequences of it were very very bad, whether the person was handing out the punishment was male or female, and my point is is that 'normalisation' of it, where authorities turned a blind eye was not gender discrimination at all but acceptance of it as a means to control your kids. They accepted fathers doing it as much as mothers doing it. In fact it was expected.

I am a parent to a 9 month old and am pregnant again, I still can not (nor do I ever want) to understand why I was abused all my life. My father was never violent against me so it was not always the norm. I do not consider hitting a child because you are unhappy in yourself to be acceptable. Again, I will state that violence is never acceptable.

metrovelvet

CathyMoran wrote: »

I am a parent to a 9 month old and am pregnant again, I still can not (nor do I ever want) to understand why I was abused all my life. My father was never violent against me so it was not always the norm. I do not consider hitting a child because you are unhappy in yourself to be acceptable. Again, I will state that violence is never acceptable.

Ok but you seemed to think that your abuse was ignored by authorities because it was carried out by your mother. I am disputing that, saying that if it had been carried out by your father it would have been ignored too.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

cdfm- Why do you consistently use decontexualised statistics from foreign countries?

I dont think abuse has a context - it either is or isn't. And if the figures were available for Ireland I would use them -but Irish statistics are not available.

I dont know what you mean by decontexualised and if that means excuses -then there are none.

And no, I dont think Ireland is anyway special or different to other western countries except that we are smaller and thus easier to effect change in.

I always make a point of trying to use statistics including all ages, genders and sexual orientations when I post. Thats because bias and stereotyping is not good and does nothing for the victims who will not care what gender their abuser was or is.

CDfm

CathyMoran wrote: »

I am a parent to a 9 month old and am pregnant again,

Congrats Cathy - you have been busy

deirdre_dub

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok but you seemed to think that your abuse was ignored by authorities because it was carried out by your mother. I am disputing that, saying that if it had been carried out by your father it would have been ignored too.

I'm going to jump in here as a survivor of abuse by women.

There are three different issues here. The first is whether the authority has the capacity to respond - that isn't what is under discussion. The second is how seriously an authority that does have the capacity to respond will take a particular report of abuse. And the third is how seriously the victim of abuse believes the authoritiy will take their report.

A disproportionate publicising of abuse by men makes it harder for authorities to believe reports of abuse by women. Look at what has happened with the church! We all believed that the church was above reporach, and so there are tons of reports from survivors of clerical abuse about how they approached the authorities and were not believed. So it is with women - if we never paint a picture of women as abusers, it can create the idea that women are above reproach.

But, more importantly, and I can say this from experience, if there is a disproportionate publicising of abuse by men, it makes it harder for me, as a victim of abuse by a woman, to feel confident about going to the authorities looking for help. I am hence likely to suffer more, and for longer.

Reward

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I'm going to jump in here as a survivor of abuse by women.

There are three different issues here. The first is whether the authority has the capacity to respond - that isn't what is under discussion. The second is how seriously an authority that does have the capacity to respond will take a particular report of abuse. And the third is how seriously the victim of abuse believes the authoritiy will take their report.

A disproportionate publicising of abuse by men makes it harder for authorities to believe reports of abuse by women. Look at what has happened with the church! We all believed that the church was above reporach, and so there are tons of reports from survivors of clerical abuse about how they approached the authorities and were not believed. So it is with women - if we never paint a picture of women as abusers, it can create the idea that women are above reproach.

But, more importantly, and I can say this from experience, if there is a disproportionate publicising of abuse by men, it makes it harder for me, as a victim of abuse by a woman, to feel confident about going to the authorities looking for help. I am hence likely to suffer more, and for longer.

There is bias in the system too, I have one source at a charity that knows of a man who went to social services because his wife was sexually abusing his daughter and they locked the doors of the office he was in and called the police, they had decided that he was the one that was guilty.

Reward

Reward wrote: »

There is bias in the system too, I have one source at a charity that knows of a man who went to social services because his wife was sexually abusing his daughter and they locked the doors of the office he was in and called the police, they had decided that he was the one that was guilty.

Did it turn out ok in the end?

Reward

bluewolf wrote: »

Did it turn out ok in the end?

IDK, thats to only part of the story I saw. The source is Michelle Elliot at Kidscape.