Trocaire TV and Radio Ad

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"

MontgomeryClift

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?

MontgomeryClift

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?

MontgomeryClift

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?"

MontgomeryClift

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...

MontgomeryClift

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.

MontgomeryClift

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.

MontgomeryClift

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."

MontgomeryClift

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?

MontgomeryClift

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.

Zombrex

Dontico wrote:

car insurance.

No, you are missing the point of my question.

For every stereotype of men (such as they are dangerous drivers) there is a stereotype of women (they are going to get pregnant and leave my company, best not promote her).

So how is being a woman any better than being a man at the moment? Surely both face discrimination in different areas.

You appeared to be saying that women now have it grand and it is the men who are suffering. That might be true in the area of car insurance, but that is not exactly a general rule.

Zombrex

MontgomeryClift wrote:

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

Groan ... :rolleyes:

As I said before ..

Wicknight wrote:

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

MontgomeryClift wrote:

Vague.

That is an AP filing on the Amnesty report, which I imagine isn't "vague"

MontgomeryClift wrote:

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?

How does this "attribute victimhood?"

It seems to be stating (I have not read it but I see no reason to believe that the AP reporter is altering the body of the report) that rape and other violence towards women goes largely unnoticed in conflict zones and that this needs to be addressed. Do you disagree?

MontgomeryClift wrote:

A well established idea can't be wrong?

Certainly it can. As I said if you have a counter argument I'm all ears.

MontgomeryClift wrote:

Which tells us nothing.

No it tells us quite a lot actually.

MontgomeryClift wrote:

I could quote Srebrenica, where 7,000 men and boys were massacred in the worst case of genocide since WWII.

What do you mean "I could" ... why would you suppose anyone would object to you doing that?

As I said this isn't an either or situation.

MontgomeryClift wrote:

But I don't want to use that to attribute victimhood to men, so why do similar to try to attribute victimhood to women?

I still don't understand what you mean by "attribute victimhood" ... are you saying that if we just ignore this, and thinks like Srebrenica, then the women and girls in war zones will be some how protected from harm because those on the other side won't think of them as victims and therefore won't attack them?

I'm not sure you have thought that through.

MontgomeryClift

You're missing the point completely and just going off on all sorts of crazy tangents. You don't seem to understand what's being said. I'll have to leave it at that, because you seem to read things that aren't written at all.

DadaKopf

Hey, Monty, seriously, what's your beef?

MontgomeryClift

DadaKopf wrote:

Hey, Monty, seriously, what's your beef?

I don't eat beef since the whole BSE thing.

Jackie laughlin

To return to the point of the thread, one of these ads. was running on the radio about lunchtime yesterday. Now, while I agree fully with the argument it advanced, the BCI must not allow any form of political advertising. This is clear to me because changing the concluding few words of yesterday's ad to, " ... because she is a female foetus." reminds of where this will go if the BCI don't rigorously uphold the law.

Dontico

Wicknight wrote:

No, you are missing the point of my question.

For every stereotype of men (such as they are dangerous drivers) there is a stereotype of women (they are going to get pregnant and leave my company, best not promote her).

So how is being a woman any better than being a man at the moment? Surely both face discrimination in different areas.

You appeared to be saying that women now have it grand and it is the men who are suffering. That might be true in the area of car insurance, but that is not exactly a general rule.

it is illegal to hire a less qualified man over a woman. it is not illegal to sell more expensive car insurance to men than women. infact there are car insurance companies that addvertise that they give cheaper car insurance to women, some only serve women. imagine if a company came out and said "we only hire men" or "we hire men over women".

DadaKopf

This discussion is about the Trócaire ad, Dontico.

walshb

It's just another whizz kid scam to extort more money and exploit the poor of this world. Every day of the week these charities are coming up with new ways to collect money, most of which may never get to those in need

DadaKopf

most of which may never get to those in need

Is there a logician in the house?