NSPCC ADVERT "EMILY'S CALL" BETRAYS FATHERS, GIRLS AND THEIR OWN CHILDLINE FACTS

Before reading further, please watch this new NSPCC advert (courtesy of You tube) called Emily's Call and produced by RAPP.

A common theme in the gender and sexual discrimination that men face in the UK is the stereotyping they face in the media and especially in marketing and advertising (Pink and MFI and explained in a cracking Daily Mail column).

Not just in the "men are stupid, throw rocks at them" type of way but in the way that myths are perpetuated and become the accepted truth (if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth) even if the facts are different.

So what is wrong with the NSPCC advert?

Simple.

Last year the NSPCC published research (covered on the site a year ago) that showed that girls who had rung its Childline had said they were more likely to be a victim of physical abuse from their mothers than their fathers. In fact, girls said that 37% of perpetrators were mothers and 25% fathers.

Or another way, for every five calls from girls about physical abuse, three said they had been physically abused by their mother and two by their father.

The report  said (page 10) "it can therefore be concluded that the children who call the Childline are most commonly phycially abused by a parent of the same gender."

To repeat, the NSPCC's own figures show that a girl is more likely to be physically abused by her mother than by her father.

But does the advert leave you with that impression? Of course not.

If the NSPCC advert was to more accurately portray a typical telephone call from a physically abused girl called Emily or portray the more likely scenario, the advert would be based on a call saying it was her mother that was hitting her.

But that wouldn't tug on the emotional heart strings as the NSPCC campaign wants to create maximum stress so it can raise more money. It would also go against the stereotypes and myths that society has about men and fathers and it is easier and less controversial (even if factually inaccurate) for the NSPCC to play along with that rather than worry about its own facts and experience (the NSPCC were probably worried about the Fawcett Society ranting to them as well).

The NSPCC is not concerned about wrongly portraying fathers, demonising men and reinforcing a stereotype/myth that its own figures have shown to be wrong. It is not interested in the truth.

In the war against men and the need to raise money, who cares about running hypocritical, misleading advertising campaigns. The NSPCC hypocrites certainly don't. It lets the poor girls who call down as well as it misleads people into thinking that fathers are more likely to commit physical abuse on them when its wrong.

Complaints about the advertisement should be made to the Advertising Standards Authority as the advert is misleading.

We look forward to them running a reciprocal though equally factually wrong advert called "Edward's call" about a boy being physically abused by his mother.Thought not.

Posted by Skimmington

Comments

[John Kimble]

Brilliant piece, really good to use an organisations own statistics against them in this way.

We should also note that serious violence by males is more liekly to be committed by step fathers than the biological father these days, therefore they probably haven't even shown the correct type of male abuser either.

[Bob]

Very well researched. I tried to find the page that you link to which says that women harm kids more than men from their home page. I'll tell you if you can find that page by just browsing their site you're doing better than me. They've definitely tried to hide that stat!

[John Kimble]

There probably isn't much difference in harm caused by men and women due to the amount of contact violent step fathers have with children. (unlike biological fathers mum's latest boyfriend has no limits placed on access and no hoops to jump through).

Therefore the key difference at present is between mothers and fathers, not so much men and women.

[Dave E]

The latest nspcc advert reaches a new low with their attack on fathers.

Features a young girls voice during a telephone call with an oscilloscope voice recording on screen.

They continue to attack fathers despite their research contradicting the misandrist filth they broadcast.

Tim Loughton on nspcc's lies and misandry from Hansard...

> Hansard of the U.K. Parliament, March 2, 2006
> From a debate regarding presumption of child-visitation rights by non-residential fathers:
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060302/debtext/60302-18.htm#60302-18_spnew5
>
> Tim Loughton [MP]: Let me finish...
>
> In support of its claim, the NSPCC [which is fighting hand, tooth and nail to keep non-residential fathers from having child-access rights — "in the best interest of the child"] cites the fact that 29 children were killed over the past 10 years during contact visits to non-resident parents. That is an appalling figure.
>
> ************************************************************
**************************************
> However, it ignores its own research, which shows that over the same period some 800 children have died at the hands of resident parents or carers [read "mothers"], and the 2000 publication "Child Maltreatment in the UK" , which showed that violent treatment was more likely to be meted out by female carers than male ones.
>

[Ian]

"In support of its claim, the NSPCC [which is fighting hand, tooth and nail to keep non-residential fathers from having child-access rights — "in the best interest of the child"] cites the fact that 29 children were killed over the past 10 years during contact visits to non-resident parents. That is an appalling figure."

Are you kidding me, over 1000 children have been tortured and murdered in the UK while under the direct supervision of the social services in the last Ten years...majority of them done by WOMEN!

This is SOME of them
http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/articles/comments/baby-p-and-the-death-toll-keeps-rising-38-named-children-now-dead-from-soci/

[Dan]

My mum beat me (I'm male) and my brother when our dad was away. She had a long piece of a garden hose prepared for beating us. She would ask me or my brother to pull chair into the middle of the kitchen, then ordered us to pull our trousers down, lie on the chair, stick naked buttocks up, and then she would lash. While one of us was beaten, the other had to watch. Then we changed places. Then, at the end, she would hold us in her arms, saying, "I had to do it, because I love you, and you did not listen or obeyed."

It was not only my mum, who did that, I have seen in in friends families as well - dads away, and mothers maltreating their children.

Women are very violent but normally they perform violence by manipulating a male to do/ perform the violent act for them. If there is now male around that can be used, then they would secretly lash out themselves.