Thanks for putting this together. A few years ago as some of the rhetoric shared in an interview with the founder made me concerned that there may also be a connection to ideas put forth by Q’Anon groups. Human trafficking is real AND the path toward helping starts with truth.
You're welcome - I definitely think that's the only way to address any issue, really. If you're starting from a false premise, you're not going to be very effective.
Thank you for this. Another problematic aspect is that the film creates the impression that there is a vast and shadowy population of pedophiles fueling abductions of young children, when statistics indicate the demand is coming from so-called normal men seeking young-looking women for porn or prostitution. This kind of political bogeyman distracts from the billion dollar business that caters to “barely legal” content and creates the demand for trafficked kids. The disservice of the movie is presenting an easy scapegoat in pedophiles when the majority of men and the society at large are complicit in the crime. The inconvenient truth is that the demand for young looking sex workers by so-called normal men has created a market for adolescent minors, who are far more easily trafficked by the trusted individuals in their lives than more mature and less at risk women. Yes child sex traffixking is real. But the problem isn’t just the pedophiles; it’s all of us. If I Pornhub I would be thanking the filmmakers for diverting attention away from the real crime. Their business depends on it.
Well articulated and well done. I remember trying to wrap my head around modern day slavery in freshman year of college, which is very much conflated with child sex trafficking sometimes.
I remember one of the unsatisfying rules of thumb being try to eat less fish, and not partake in fast fashion. Obviously super complex topic. I found out about the movie from mens fellowship and alarm bells immediately started sounding in my head. Sounded like a Kony2012 redux but maybe worse, more oversimplifying.
Father Mike Schmitz did a review of the movie on youtube. I shared this article there and it got deleted. He was going on and on about how Tim Ballard is with OUR.
The criticisms here are incredibly shallow. The author would have saved herself a lot of time by posting "Anything championed by conservatives must be bad."
You criticized the film on the basis that "the film implies traffickers routinely snatch children off the street, when the truth is, most children know and trust those who traffick them." You provide statistics about stranger abductions. It appears you did not actually watch the film. In the movie, the children's father is lured to leave them under the pretense of a modeling contract and a photo shoot. The father knew and trusted the traffickers. Even if this is not the most common arrangement, the film can only tell one story at a time and you cannot claim that this sort of thing does not happen all the time.
You criticize OUR's finances but do not include important context. Ballard's salary is a fraction of those of the CEOs of well-known nonprofits including the Red Cross, United Way, St. Jude's, American Heart Association, MD Anderson, Shriners Hospitals, Anti-Defamation League, World Wildlife Fund, Brookings Institution, and hundreds of others.
Thanks for putting this together. A few years ago as some of the rhetoric shared in an interview with the founder made me concerned that there may also be a connection to ideas put forth by Q’Anon groups. Human trafficking is real AND the path toward helping starts with truth.
You're welcome - I definitely think that's the only way to address any issue, really. If you're starting from a false premise, you're not going to be very effective.
Preach!
Thank you for this. Another problematic aspect is that the film creates the impression that there is a vast and shadowy population of pedophiles fueling abductions of young children, when statistics indicate the demand is coming from so-called normal men seeking young-looking women for porn or prostitution. This kind of political bogeyman distracts from the billion dollar business that caters to “barely legal” content and creates the demand for trafficked kids. The disservice of the movie is presenting an easy scapegoat in pedophiles when the majority of men and the society at large are complicit in the crime. The inconvenient truth is that the demand for young looking sex workers by so-called normal men has created a market for adolescent minors, who are far more easily trafficked by the trusted individuals in their lives than more mature and less at risk women. Yes child sex traffixking is real. But the problem isn’t just the pedophiles; it’s all of us. If I Pornhub I would be thanking the filmmakers for diverting attention away from the real crime. Their business depends on it.
This is definitely an aspect of the issue as well - I could have written volumes about other connections, but probably it would have been a book!
That's such a good point.
Well articulated and well done. I remember trying to wrap my head around modern day slavery in freshman year of college, which is very much conflated with child sex trafficking sometimes.
I remember one of the unsatisfying rules of thumb being try to eat less fish, and not partake in fast fashion. Obviously super complex topic. I found out about the movie from mens fellowship and alarm bells immediately started sounding in my head. Sounded like a Kony2012 redux but maybe worse, more oversimplifying.
Thank you for reading!
Father Mike Schmitz did a review of the movie on youtube. I shared this article there and it got deleted. He was going on and on about how Tim Ballard is with OUR.
Thank you Jenn, for drawing my attention to these difficulties. I was not aware of much of what you share here. Doing some homework on the issues.
The criticisms here are incredibly shallow. The author would have saved herself a lot of time by posting "Anything championed by conservatives must be bad."
Hi Tommy - I certainly don't believe that, so it would be foolish of me to say so. What a facile way to operate.
Why do you find these reasons shallow? I found them worth considering.
You criticized the film on the basis that "the film implies traffickers routinely snatch children off the street, when the truth is, most children know and trust those who traffick them." You provide statistics about stranger abductions. It appears you did not actually watch the film. In the movie, the children's father is lured to leave them under the pretense of a modeling contract and a photo shoot. The father knew and trusted the traffickers. Even if this is not the most common arrangement, the film can only tell one story at a time and you cannot claim that this sort of thing does not happen all the time.
You criticize OUR's finances but do not include important context. Ballard's salary is a fraction of those of the CEOs of well-known nonprofits including the Red Cross, United Way, St. Jude's, American Heart Association, MD Anderson, Shriners Hospitals, Anti-Defamation League, World Wildlife Fund, Brookings Institution, and hundreds of others.
I could go on.