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.

MontgomeryClift

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.

MontgomeryClift

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?

MontgomeryClift

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?!

MontgomeryClift

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 ?

MontgomeryClift

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.

MontgomeryClift

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.

MontgomeryClift

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.