Charities we have concerns about supporting

[Doyenne]

Last year the institute of fundraising have found what many of us could have told them and that's that women think more carefully about charities and give more often.

There used to be a long list of charities I would support: Oxfam, NSPCC, Shelter, Save the Children, Cancer Research, Shelter.

One by one I've removed them from my list

Save the Children was the realisation of the behaviour they had let Brendan Cox get away with.

Oxfam was aid workers sexually exploiting vulnerable women in Haiti

Amnesty International when I realised their stance on prostitution seemed to have moved 180 degrees

Cancer Research was when they removed the word women from cervical cancer info even whilst their research showed women at higher risk of not going for scans were women whose first language was not English.

NSPCC I'm watching to see if they will belately show leadership on the need for children to be allowed to assert boundaries

Shelter I was really sad to stop supporting when I realised how toxic stonewall had become to lesbians (Strong links between the two wrt trustees).

Children in need has become an absolute no with their support for mermaids and them stopping supporting sex specific refuges.

I'm trying to ensure I don't reduce my overall charitable giving but I fear that may be an unintended consequence of my greater scrutiny.

I wondered what changes/concerns other may have wrt charities

Look carefully at the puff behind individual hospices. I have been told of one in the South West where the wage bill for 5 'executives' comes to half a million pounds. That's a hundred grand each, on average. Remember that hospices do get substantial grants from government (ie the taxpayer) too.

And thank you @LangClegg for those links

AAAAAAAHHHHG

Excuse me but I'm reeeling with shock. Just visited a local charity to learn more and was faced with a huge photo of Richard Branson (eeugh) and some blurb telling me that VirginCare had taken it over.

There must be a lot of incentives for Branson's mob to get involved - like the 80% discount on business rates, VAT exemptions, no capital gains tax on investments, gift aid, local government and treasury grants. Charities can be nice little earners.

I was an Amnesty member from my early teen for 30 years - until they gave up to political prisoners in order to champion men's right to fuck non-consenting women

I now support Kiva - charitable micro-loans: you can chose the individual who gets your money (I always chose women) and you get the money paid back, so can keep helping people. Also Women for Women, which allows you to sponsor a women for a year's education and training.

The Charity closest to my heart is Freedom From Torture (formerly Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture). They provide mental health and medical care for torture victims - the only such group that I know of.

Women's Aid don't actually run any refuges - they run the federation of membership refuges which are largely independent charities all with their own policies. Refuge is a huge organisation - the "Shell Oil" of the refuge world - and their policies apply to all the services they run.

Yes, I should have made that clearer - I hadn't realised that about WA til just recently. We (so far) have only needed to use the helpline rather than a shelter, I presume that's a separate part and my question was more about policies for the umbrella body than the the shelters since that's what I donated to.

XXcstatic that reminds me, Women For Refugee Women www.refugeewomen.co.uk/ is a group I've supported in the past. Surely they would be pretty good at understanding the need for single-sex accommodation, and I note they have an LB group rather than LBT. I haven't looked at them for a while but I note Natasha Walters is the director and one of the trustees, Elen Griffiths, is ex-Mumsnet. It'd be really interesting to get her in for a chat, wouldn't it.

doyenne I couldn't disagree more. You were not informed about the specific campaign they were there to talk about that day. You don't have the right to railroad every event into focusing on your pet concern - there are equally important things to think about and there's a time and a place. If NSPCC had agreed to come on and talk about whatever you wanted to discuss, it would have been different. In a way, you (meaning the feminists of mumsnet) broke faith with the spirit of the discussion because you knew that you were changing (or twisting) the agenda for political purposes of your own. To say the NSPCC is no longer worth your money is ludicrous and will harm children, not help them. Especially since no other charity is doing the work that they do. There is abuse going on outside your little anti-trans bubble, you know.

If people didn't know what the subject to be spoken about was, how are they supposed to ask relevant questions, though? People asked questions about concerns uppermost in their minds. Id have to check, but it appeared to be an open floor, subject wise. If MN and the NSPCC didn't specify the allowed subjects, they surely had an idea of concerns people had, if they'd been paying attention. Clearly they haven't, and they weren't prepared. Don't get mad at those who asked questions.

If you do not want to support CRUK for any reason. But do want to support cancer research, I recommend Bloodwise. Yes it’s focussed on blood cancers, but breakthroughs there are likely to be relevant to all cancers. Also leukaemia is one of the commoner childhood cancers, and it does currently find research into the childhood forms.

heartsease68 : "..your little anti-trans bubble..."

How many times a day do we see this utter, blatant lie?

GC posters are pro-children and pro-women, and children's and women's rights and safety; not, repeat not, "anti-trans".

Thanks to everyone else for an important discussion on charities.

Okay, checked. The chat was to be about prevention of abuse against children ( unsurprisingly). Surely concerns about safeguarding with reference to the self id declarations etc are relevant? Safeguarding prevents abuse. Or helps prevent it, anyway. Why so mad?

heartsease

Again with the 'you don't give a shit' trope. Some of us work with children. Be off with you with your accusations

@silentcrow

I cancelled my support for ASN, very reluctantly, after they drank the tens kool aid a couple of years ago

They got rid of their 'female' logo after appealing to members to design a new one which was more trans-inclusive

They also refused to answer a direct question as to whether they did that to appease groups providing financial support
The CEO wrote the most pathetic and evasive response that made it very clear she was more scared of losing the support of their pro-trans/men-can-be-pregnant supporters than the support of those who disagreed

A shame, because they have brilliant aims, and help lots of vulnerable women but we're more focussed on the theoretical idea of offending a pregnant transman than helping the women who needed their services

This is one of the most depressing threads I've read. So much good work trashed.

Oxfam for instance, are an excellent charity - no business can fully ensure that every single person who works for them lives up to their values and expectations - particularly working at a distance in extremely challenging crisis environments. Overall they are one of the best international development charities in the world and addressed these issues when they arose 7 years ago. And no I don't work for them. Shelter too - I would not fault their moral integrity. I have more reservations about Cox, Forsyth and Save the Children Fund. And I cant comment on some of the others. But I'm not convinced by the objectivity of your judgments.

Many, many institutions have been challenged by predatory male behaviour - schools, churches, banks, the scouts, political parties, small businesses, media companies... you name it - the whole of society. Or adopted policies I would disagree with.

But hey - keep reading the Daily Mail and believe that charities are corrupt and rotten through and through. I hope you all dedicate your lives to charitable works and only work in organisation that are purer than pure - you must be saints! And I'm sure you you give generously. )I often hear people say who they would no longer fund - but suspect they didnt in the first place).

Great thread, thanks.
I currently only do Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Just looked up women's aid trans policy. Sorry if this has already been posted
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/04/womens-refuges-set-to-overturn-ban-on-self-identifying-transgender-staff/amp/

ladybirds

You are the one encouraging people not to give to the NSPCC. I don't give damn if you work with children. That doesn't make what you're doing ethical.

I give to my local hospice and we have a special school near us where the pupils run a charity shop to raise funds for their school so I donate toys/clothes to them

Won't touch any of the big charities

But that's the feminist board all over. If you don't say what the feminists want to hear, be off with you. Because you're only interested in hearing from a particular type of woman - the irony is you are more suppressive to women in general than any men I've met.

And now you're turning on the NSPCC. Have you no shame.

I mainly give my unwanted items to either the local hospice charity shop or Scope the disabled young adults shop.
I try and financially support Amaze a fantastic local charity that informs and empowers parents of children with disabilities. It was started by parents for parents. They are amazing.
Also Shine Young Adults cancer support.
At Christmas I try and give to the local young persons night shelter.
Charities where the money goes straight to the people.

I've always felt a bit worried about the big hole of giving money to massive charities.
I'm very concerned about gender laws allowing males access to children. It's making me rethink a lot. I might pull my daughter out of Rainbows and tell them why.

Bouledeneige: no, not at all depressing. This thread is a great example of women looking into matters, exchanging information and providing relevant links, and making their own choices.

After all, why on earth should women direct their money to charities that have been demonstrably active in working against the safeguarding of women and children?

Our money, our choice.

No, my conscience is clear. I know what genuine child-centred work looks like and am prepared to support charities that do it. Plus I do it myself so...

And 'be off with you' was metaphorical. Your choice of you stick around or not, of course.

I work for a small charity and can echo that money given to some of us smaller fish is well spent. All of our donations received go directly towards providing a much needed service.

What MN is not is knee-jerk headline, Twitter reading. What's depressing is when the Labour Party, The Greens, The BBC and the Greens - the natural home of many of us on here - are not prepared to be investigatory, sceptical or ethical

Heartsease, this is clearly something you're massively impassioned about. Explain to me why I should support the NSPCC? Honestly, why? Convince me. Its obviously your preferred charity to donate to.

tenbob thanks. This is all beyond ridiculous, isn't it. It's not that I have an issue with the provision of the service to anyone that needs it, it's the kowtowing to the lobbyists that gets me. Although I suppose it's one of the rare occasions women who live as men have actually benefited.

A friend of mine is about to lose her job at Oxfam head office - her work is specifically about aiding the access to healthcare for women in sub Saharan Africa, but she is one of the casualties of the scandal. So are a number of her colleagues - almost all women. So do please be aware that, while the behaviour of some people, often men and usually in the field has been execrable and exploitative, withdrawing your support for reasons of female solidarity punishes mainly women,both abroad and at home.