Are charities predisposed towards anti-women ideology?

[JellySaurus]

I think that group altruism predisposes the group to being captured by anti-women ideology disguised as kindness.

Charities are altruistic and therefore, by definition, predisposed to Be Kind. They select a group that is suffering or struggling, and try to help them. Charities require their employees and volunteers to subscribe to a form of groupthink, because they all work towards the same altruistic goal of supporting the selected group , often in conflict with established order.

This makes them predisposed to supporting anti-women ideology. Once someone senior in the charity has been persuaded that trans-identifying men are the most vulnerable in society, it doesn’t matter what the charity’s objectives are, Be Kind takes over. Groupthink spreads it. Analysis and objective thinking are avoided because the suggestion that the altruistic and knowledgeable charity could be wrong, could be unkind, could be ignorant, is too terrible to be considered.

Can this be changed?

Add to this the grifters who are basically chuggers promoted into management, and the misogyny latent in society.

You may well be right - there has to be some reason, doesn't there?

I can't think of any other 'marginal' , numerically tiny group in society which has received such strident, all-encompassing, unquestioning support in such a short time - genderwoo arrived, saw and conquered.

I think its more to do with the demographics of the people it attracts. Most people who work at charities tend to be quite young, educated and far left leaning (the sort that vote greens). They also tend to be more likely to be female.

All these things (university educated, young, female and left wing) correlate strongly with supporting trans ideology. Most are probably already very pro-trans even before they have joined the charity sector (probably got into it in uni).

I actually don't think it is some great conspiracy where a particular individual at the top is forcing others to believe this ideology, it is more a reflection on the sort of people who this industry naturally selects for.

It would be interesting to know whether small charities are the same. The big charities have certainly been taken over, though whether that’s through the altruism of those working there or by targeted infiltration it’s hard to say.

I think big charities involved in human rights are quite likely to have been deliberately targeted.

The suggestion that those in the charity sector are more altruistic is also in question, given the wages of some of those at the top. Like other businesses, they may have decided that to get “the best” they have to be competitive and business-like. I think we can see by the promotion of Justin Welby, for example, why it is not good for an organisation for promotion to be based on business experience rather than actually holding the values you are supposed to promote.

Name changed for this as work in charity sector

It's riddled with be kind from top to bottom. Small charities can be in a slightly better position because they're less likely to have brought in expensive stonewall type training but as all the charity umbrella/representative bodies - NVCO, NAVCA, DSC are fully on board any training/policy/information they get via them will still be full on the most marginalised ever. They're also subject to entryism at board level so the little charity for ND ppl where I live is now full of trans rights activism thanks to an TRA getting on the board

also all the funders are fully signed up to gender woo so if you want money, you have to play along

and yes as Peachy says, the sector is full of young or not so young but definitely left liberal be kinders who have fully brought into this being the most marginalised group of people. In fact as do many charity leaders are women, I have heard female charity leaders say it's only fair TW should get more representation

the wailing over the charity commissions very mild statement has to be seen to be believed

I’m in the charity sector as fundraiser and grant maker.

Much of this is coming from the funders. There’s European Funders influencing the way groups operate.

look up Mama Cash, Ariande network.

it’s insidious.

I’ve had groups crying to me about having to include men (as trans women or non-binary) in their work when they had wanted it to remain single sex.

other groups just follow the money.

I think as with many things you will find local charities, nor for profits not part of it. This is because they are either all volunteer, or on very low wage part time contracts.

The problem is cause as much by the fact that in larger charities salaries as relatively quite high, and attract the wrong sort of people. They of course would say this isn't true about them, but it is about people who think (the white saviour complex) they are exactly the right sort of people!

I dont think people should work for shit wages, but there is no doubt that this lure of a good salary in a doing good job is a huge attraction.

But of course fundamentally, in both the large high pay charities and small local ones, nearly everyone thinks the needs of women are the least important eg the famous quote that donkey sanctuaries get more money donated than women's aid projects.

And women themselves are just as guilty.

The acceptance of TW being so important is based on the age old much longer and more lasting anti woman stance of MRAs.

it is the bedrock a male chauvinism that TW flourish on.

Sorry nothing to do with altruism. Just to do with pretentious nobs.

And hate to say youth run agendas.

Unfortunately I think 'altruism' in the large charities is probably a bit of an inaccurate term once you visit the offices and start talking to the people that work there. It's a business, largely focused on sustaining and building income and the jobs of those people. People whose faces and perspectives don't fit are rapidly pushed out again, it's in general a very undiverse group, the offices are all in the same areas, there's a lot of contact between the groups, and it's also very interesting when you look at CVs as you realise how much it's the case that most have worked for other large charities - in many ways it's one pool of people who all periodically swap chairs.

In addition to that, I think some of them have one eye on a future career in politics and the charity work is simply to improve their CV. This is also the case in school governance, IME, where I have met governors who have very little interest in education, schools or even children.

As a social scientist, if you want to understand this type of process it's useful to look up the theory of institutional isomorphism developed in the 80s by DiMaggio and Powell. Contrary to what had been believed until that point, organizational form and practices don't always follow functional requirements deriving structly from the nature of the organisation's tasks. Rather, organisations adopt similar practices following various kinds of isomorphic pressure: normative, coercive and mimetic. Coercive would be a government setting standards. Normative can be both because of similar values spreading, e.g. through shared training and/or professional organisations, or because those values become embedded in explicit industry standards. Mimetic isomorphism at its simplest is one organisation imitating another, or in a more complex form the idea of benchmarking. And crucially, because it's a process that isn't directly connected to the tasks of an organisation, it can go on even when the organisational forms and practices adopted in this way aren't functional or even directly counterproductive.

The idea of institutional isomorphism has most often been applied to public or non-profit organisations (one early subject of investigation were theoretically decentralised and independent but in practice remarkably homogeneous American public schools), but it works incredibly well even for market-based for profit companies. If you apply them to the spread of various forms of gender identity belief and practice in charities in particular but also both public and private sector organisations I suspect you'll find ample evidence of all three types of isomorphic processes in operation. I think it's particularly worthwhile because it helps to understand what's going on without relying to much on conspiracy narratives or an individuals focused blame game. Note: not saying actors like Dentons don't play a role! Rather, they're part of this process and actively leveraging its logic

As a charity CEO I do think there may be some regional variability - but I do agree with @Charitythoughts about the umbrella bodies. Where I work it hasn't really surfaced as an issue which is interesting

ETA - acknowledge my bland statement is probalby a reflection of wider situation even if not felt locally!

I work in an area close to Bristol. Fortunately my charity didn't embrace the gender woo - a few pronouns in signatures but that's it. As a subject it's avoided like the plague at work & I think my CEO is keeping their head down having seen it swamp the Bristol charity sector.

its scary how dependent it is on one individual like my CEO refusing to go there though. If we got an activist on the Board or as CEO I think it would be very different. The pressure within charity sector culture to adopt 'TWAW/be kind/SC judgment is the worst thing ever' is immense.

its very much an omicause approach. These are the things nice left wing people think therefore if we don't agree TWAW then we might as well be Reform MPs

its sad and worrying in equal measure to see people I generally respect basically nod along to destroying women's rights because - well they don't want to take TWAW to the logical conclusion

Isn't everything these days?

I don't think charities are predisposed to being kind, actually, most of them end up chasing money. Many charities, once they fulfill their original purpose have to find other things, and gender ideology is a HUGE topic rn that many people will happily donate for, or if they aren't chasing that money, there is always rich donors who can force the direction of an organization.

These are the things nice left wing people think

That. There is one hell of a lot of social signalling to others in the club about being lovely and social status being involved, alongside this being the 21st Century version of the keeping up with the Joneses snobbery.

Part of the issue is that people don't like to challenge others, stand out, or go against the group so you only need one determined person to sway a crowd.
Its why so much of the activism is face to face - how many times have you seen posters challenge us with ''do you know any trans people?''
Effective organisations and groups have ways to manage conflict. That way they can prevent cliques taking over, or mission drift.

Charities are there for the victims and underprivileged people in life. Once you successfully convince them that you too are one of those, how could they possibly turn you away?