Fuck Oxfam

[DismantledKing]

Anyone seen the tweet by Maya tonight about this little animation by Oxfam? Here’s the link:

https://twitter.com/mforstater/status/1665817901327085568?s=46&t=U7-xooKExwmFQ8mivn72lw

as I said, fuck Oxfam.

They published the deleted tweets including what is OK to say according to the "legends" at Mermaids so Pink News are unwittingly spreading the word 😁

So the people holding government responsibility for this area to copy in now, I think are Lucy Fraser MP and Stuart Andrew MP.

With the DCMS’ digital brief lost to the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the charity sector now has its eighth Minister in six years, and its 13th minister in 13 years, which doesn’t help make stable relationships, support detailed oversight or innovative, well-informed policy making.

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-sector-eighth-secretary-state-six-years-sunak-shuffles-team/policy-and-politics/article/1812575

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/charities-respond-to-dcms-shake-up-as-lucy-frazer-announced.html

I worked for a massive, popular, wealthy charity and was told by a former volunteer (at a fundraising event) that just 10p in every £1 donated was spent on the charity’s beneficiaries, the rest went on offices and admin. Stopped me donating to them.

Julie Bindel is really on a roll with this at the moment DM article

This is interesting, from graham lineham

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/oxfam-when-misogyny-is-the-mission?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMjIxNTcxMjcsInBvc3RfaWQiOjEyNjQxMjMwNiwiaWF0IjoxNjg2MDgxMjUwLCJleHAiOjE2ODg2NzMyNTAsImlzcyI6InB1Yi02NzMwOSIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.raNv-046bn3_9GH1L7kUpueQN1pjEz7elxwhFMJ4ryA&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

It's a bandwagon isn't it. Drinks companies, banks, all these groups whose services and products have nothing to do with this topic are promoting LBTQ-whatever.

It will depend on what a donor wants to give towards. I would happily donate to a charity that promotes a network of support for the elderly and their carers, which I understand used to be Age UKs main focus. If I donate now, I would have no say in any lobbying they do, and may not agree with it. Another example is people might support work Stonewall does to help LGB and T people who face homelessness, or are living with HIV, but who are aghast at their lobbying activities especially where conflicts exist with other protected characteristics.

My last visit to the National Trust was marred by the focus on LGBT. Lots and lots about one heir having to flee to Italy because of "misbehaviour" with guardsmen, virtually nothing about the sister who managed and refurbished the property in his absence. She too might be a worthwhile role model.

I agree that local charities can be a mixed bag. Wasn't Aimee involved with a youth group in the midlands well after the Green scandal. When I looked on the website there did not seem to be any obvious safeguarding policies.

However there are lots of good local causes. I am confident my regular donation to the local disabled swimming group will help pay for minibuses and for biscuits and ribena after sessions. I know that this weekly trip is important for a group of mainly house bound people. There are any number of other worthwhile local activities. A friend is encouraging me to join her in her weekly coffee mornings for her fellow disabled ex service people. I am not sure about the time but I can certainly give her some money.

In the end surely the solution is some sort of approval rating for charities, large and small, with focus on safeguarding, financial checks and balances etc. Sport England has a useful ClubMark certification for volunteer run sports clubs. Something similar.

In terms of overseas charities, is CAFOD ok? A friend is a strong supporter and it would seem to have useful links within Catholic communities overseas. I know that a lot of UN ones have very high operating costs and appointments are often very political.

Sorry if linked already but was Mariella Frostrup already a defender of JKR / women having mainstream opinions, or is this a new thing?

https://twitter.com/MrsNickyClark/status/1666712435485491203

I totally had not realised the person earlier described as Sean Bean was meant to be JKR. FFS.
Apologies if this has been covered.

apple.news/ApZUbMIduS7uRhKyUzZ860Q

It is a bandwagon. And they don't promote Pride or have rainbow flag everything in middle eastern countries which shows just how far their performative virtue signalling goes.

It's a way to try and get out of actually doing anything about real inequality e.g. making trains properly accessible to disabled people (which would take intelligence, money and planning) rather than just painting a train rainbow colours which costs very little and requires no intelligence and then gets some free publicity.

The media are complicit with notable examples. Rarely questioning their PR puff pieces.

exceptions not examples. I need coffee.

It's a way to try and get out of actually doing anything about real inequality e.g. making trains properly accessible to disabled people (which would take intelligence, money and planning) rather than just painting a train rainbow colours which costs very little and requires no intelligence and then gets some free publicity.

Indeed. Or closing the gender sex pay gap.

Yes, that, and this..
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12163003/South-London-hospitals-giant-three-sided-rainbow-flag-slammed-Health-Secretary-Steve-Barclay.html

even more ridiculous given that the flag they’ve just plastered all over the wall gets ‘updated’ every few weeks. Well done mr Barclay

Have not read the whole thread. Below is the message I have sent to Oxfam.

I have supported Oxfam for almost 60 years. I have raised money, collected and delivered envelopes, given and bought goods from your shops, and currently donate by monthly standing order. I have maintained this support despite various scandals.

I am withdrawing it now because of the Terf cartoon, which shows very poor judgment and management by those promoting the charity's work. I suspect this is ingrained in other areas, and have decided that my money will do more good via other agencies.

This is not a knee-jerk reaction The now-removed cartoon is insulting to older women, showing complete lack of awareness of the hard work done up and down the country by those who, like me, are gender-critical. I remind you that under the law; it is a 'protected characteristic'. Our knowledge and beliefs do not make us '-phobes' of any kind, but reflect our understanding of biology, evolution, history, psychology and sociology.

I am sorry that things have come to this.

Yep, there are lots of good local causes. This is not the same thing as smaller local charities being more focused on delivering to meet a need, though, which one poster claimed. There's very considerable variation, as you point out. Some local charities are dangerously bad. I use the word dangerous for a reason.

Fwiw, if we must generalise, I think the sweet spot can often be medium-ish. Big enough and with enough of a turnover to have good specialist staff, which yes means paying enough to get them and spending enough on admin to be efficient too, despite some people's dislike of both. But not so big that the charity starts to see itself as almost a bigger deal than the cause. Obviously this doesn't apply across the board, and there are some situations where you need a larg

And sure, nobody has to like lobbying, but it's still a sensible part of some charities work. That's not to say there aren't instances where people only want to help with the symptoms of a problem rather than address the cause, and it's up to them what they do with their money.

Brilliant, well written gardener
How very dare they.

StormShadow, I suspect we largely agree. I worked hard to bring my DDs sports club up to Sport England standards, and heard a few safeguarding stories en route including but not exclusively, some church run ones.

Lobbying is an obvious activity, but I would like it to be evidenced based. For example I would be happy for the Alzheimers Society (which in my experience is one of the good ones) to campaign around digital exclusion. But Oxfam and gender. Unless there are real issues, ie when ISIS was throwing gap people off buildings, stick to famine relief and lobbying for preventative measures to reduce risk of future famine.

My initial shock was when working at UN many decades ago and hearing that only 7% of UNICEF funds went to recipients. Colleagues used to refuse to buy UNICEF Christmas cards.

For me the Charity sector has become a bit like Etsy. You need to research to find something good. The owner of a local Indian restaurant goes out annually to organise the digging of wells in his home province in Bangladesh, and has even taken customers/donors with him. He is careful about using local people so they contribute and have a stake. He keeps an eye on the work as it progresses. Money to him or to Oxfam?

Yeah, it sounds like we do. The issue isn't lobbying, it's stupid lobbying. There are some instances where a smaller charity will work best, others where a larger one is more appropriate. It is necessary to pay people and to spend money on admin if you want a charity to function properly unless the setup is incredibly tiny, and not paying people can often be more expensive than paying them, but that doesn't mean every payment made for staff or admin is legitimate.

And a typo. "Gay" people.

In countries where transing might be a form of conversion therapy.

I had no idea Oxfam was big enough to have in house lawyers.

Maybe those that work there should either say something or start looking for another job.

I'm no fan of Rod Liddle or The Sun, but this piece will get Oxfam's nonsense a whole new backlash: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22613118/oxfam-donations-jk-rowling/

Wasn’t Ox FAM set up to help food inequalities and stop people starving to death?
How does all this rainbow bullshit do that?
I realise that charities can change direction but I genuinely believed that their main focus was still on helping people all over the world to access food and clean water. We have people going hungry right here FFS and food bank use is higher than ever but instead Oxfam decides to made videos about mutilating children and promoting what some would call body dysmorphia in vulnerable young people.
How the Fuck did that happen?

I think it's to do with the demographic profile of all those involved in decision making. Young, not widely read, swallowing fashionable opinions without research or critical thinking. They don't know about Nazi anti-semitic propaganda - despite supposedly being anti-fascist, they know nothing about actual fascists.

I agree with all of that. The young are often idealistic and have passion and enthusiasm but the cult of youth, by definition, negates wisdom that comes from experience. The young are also easily corrupted because of that lack of experience. This is particularly dangerous for women and girls.

However, IMO it has been the conversion of the young to gender ideology weaponised by misogynistic and deeply disturbing older men than has been the most spectacularly - and tragically - successful strategy. Aided and abetted by other older adults that have failed in their research and critical thinking and in their safe guarding roles. Such as those in health care and education.

The young I understand. It’s the older, more experienced and supposedly intelligent, men and women rushing to support gender identity that I really do not understand. Caroline Lucas as just one small example of a woman that I would otherwise applaud for her longstanding commitment to environmental issues, but is resolutely blind about the negative impacts on safeguarding and loss of SSSs for women.

I sometimes seriously wonder if the Greens, some of them, see trans stuff as a way to reduce or reverse population growth. But they can't say that so, yay.... rainbows!

I cancelled my dd after the language guide nonsense. I'm genuinely ashamed not to have done it after Haiti, really wanting to believe that there would be lessons learned, and knowing that there's good life-saving work going on. But you can't help women if you (pretend you) don't know who they are.

Here's what I sent:

I've been a regular donor, via direct debit and regular donations to my local Oxfam shop for over twenty years. I can no longer in good conscience support an organisation which is proud to make it clear that it considers men entitled to women's rights, and which self-righteously dismisses the concerns of women and girls as 'culture wars' nonsense.

It was particularly insulting to receive a mailing this week asking me to support your work with women against climate change. Is this the new definition of 'woman': 'person disproportionately affected by poverty and climate change'? Meanwhile Oxfam has no idea why this group of people might be in such a position, since 'biological sex' is now something we're not supposed to talk about, in case feelings are hurt?

You cannot help women if you won't admit that you know who they are and the basis of their disadvantage and oppression; the real category of biological sex. You have lost your way.