The Eve Appeal...

(17 Posts)
HopeClearwater Fri 09-Apr-21 20:44:07

... would like donations to help more people beat gynaecological cancers. Sponsored page thing came up on my Facebook.

By their logic, if ‘women’ should not be used, how can they get away with using ‘gynaecological’?

OP’s posts: |
persistentwoman Fri 09-Apr-21 21:28:32

In their defence - this is one of their main online pages where they unashamedly talk about women.

My guess is that they have a few members of staff determinedly pushing their own personal women erasing agenda and language with no thought of the impact this can have on women. It seems common in the charity sector that it attracts those interested in their own niche political activism with no thought of their charity's aims or their target groups. A real arrogance if you like.
They certainly lost my financial support after their last tone deaf erasing women's language twitter rants but I have read carefully their recent publications and have been pleased to see plenty of sex specific language.

HopeClearwater Fri 09-Apr-21 21:47:57

So they’re being careful with the notice on the front door, so to speak, but it’s ok when you get inside? What a terrible position they’ve been forced into.

OP’s posts: |
FlibbertyGiblets Fri 09-Apr-21 22:01:51
This is a whole section for trans, Nb and intersex, it has been done really well, sensitive language used. Well done Eve Appeal.

persistentwoman Fri 09-Apr-21 22:08:31

I agree FlibbertyGiblets. I think (after some initial messing around) they've established different sections that ensure inclusivity without eradicating women. And yes HopeClearwater as this is a charity for women's gynae cancers, they should never have got themselves into this mess in the first place hmm

NiceGerbil Sat 10-Apr-21 03:09:31

The great news is that if they look at incidence of gynaecological cancers in people, rather than women, then the incidence is halved.


Nice work and much easier than the other things to try and reduce it.

Pleased to see Eve appeal following this approach, as NHS website did on their conception page. (Doubling the conception stats simply by taking a more inclusive approach).

I look forward to seeing the incidence of prostate cancer, testicular cancer etc halving in the same way

A massive achievement.

NiceGerbil Sat 10-Apr-21 03:17:37

Have had a look and agree they have a good approach.

IME though I don't think that using women generally and then s separate section for trans people who are female is acceptable.

Is this changing? I hope so.


NiceGerbil Sat 10-Apr-21 03:20:51

NHS still says this

'If you are under 40 and have regular sex without using contraception, there is an 8 in 10 chance you will get pregnant within 1 year.'

The change to remove the word woman etc was presumably pushed for by ? whoever.

You're supposed to assume it means if you're female from the bits before, probably. (Which refer to people who ovulate etc).

Are the activists pulling away from complaining about the language for medical stuff that affects women?

DifficultBloodyWoman Sat 10-Apr-21 04:12:20

I won’t support the Eve Appeal.

Financially, there are other charities in the same sector that spend money more effectively.

And then there is the whole erasing women issue as well.

I’ve just noted that their patron is Queen Anne-Marie. I wonder if contacting her about this might have an effect? Is anyone else up for writing/emailing?

thinkingaboutLangCleg Sat 10-Apr-21 22:48:19

The great news is that if they look at incidence of gynaecological cancers in people, rather than women, then the incidence is halved. Yay!

And we’ve halved the incidence of underage pregnancies — brilliant!

78percentLindt Sun 11-Apr-21 18:33:10

Do you mind saying who do you suggest supporting instead of Eve Appeal please? (PM me if you prefer) I have been supporting them for a while -my mum died of Ovarian Ca- but happy to give elsewhere if the money can be used more effectively.

DifficultBloodyWoman Mon 12-Apr-21 01:04:36

Lindt, charitable giving is very personal so it would really depend on why you have been supporting the Eve Appeal. Charities can have a very specific focus beyond ‘ovarian cancer’. For example, raising awareness, medical research, advocacy, patient support. You need to decide which of those is of interest to you or which is most important to you. Or, which charities were most helpful to your mother while she was alive.

Then, search the register of charities [[ ]] to see if their spending actually matches the claims they make. Click on accounts and annual returns. It only takes a few minutes to see where charities spend their donations.

As an example, the Eve Appeal’s most recent accounts are here - [[ ]]. The Eve Appeal has 14 staff and spent £714,000 on them from their total income of £1,300,000. The Eve Appeal’s charitable activities mostly consist of the Ask Eve Information Service which cost a little over £60k, a £75k research grant to Imperial College and more than £250k on ‘information and awareness’ which, I think, boils down to buying advertising space (happy to be corrected if anyone has more information).

As a donate, the red flags you should look for include generally high admin costs, high staff costs, high fundraising costs. Also, pay attention to who they give grants to. Some charities exist to distribute funds to other charities (The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example) which is fine. But charities can get rather incestuous. As a donor, you don’t want to donate to a charity with high admin costs who then gives a donation or grant to another charity that takes a cut before a small fraction of the money reaches the researchers or the patients or the carers you wish to support.

If you are interested in supporting medical research in ovarian cancer, you may find that larger charities (umbrella or general cancer charities) are a more effective use of your money. You may also want to consider international charities.

DifficultBloodyWoman Mon 12-Apr-21 01:07:34

Whoops, sorry about the links. Let’s try that again.

Hope that works

vivariumvivariumsvivaria Mon 12-Apr-21 01:41:18

An average of 51k per employee?


<gobsmacked face>

EyesOpening Mon 12-Apr-21 08:36:54

Just had a quick look on their Twitter page and they’ve been using “women” recently (not sure if I remember them using “people” instead)

NiceGerbil Tue 13-Apr-21 00:28:27

Agree always look for amount going to the cause Vs overheads. There are sites that give you the %.

On the actual pay I would say that blancing at that average is not how I would view it.

If it's a few top people on 100k plus and everyone else then alarm bells.

If it's all similar pay for the people who work there and they're getting people eg those who have worked in specialist nursing, doctors, people who are proven at getting donors and raising profile, writing bids for funding etc then I have no problem with that

Good people cost money even in the charitable sector. As a bald figure, ok. If it's 20 people with 2 execs taking most of it, different story.

NiceGerbil Tue 13-Apr-21 00:30:22

And the eve appeal imo punches above its weight in terms of getting their name out there.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in