Many years ago, I decided to stop donating to charities. Not all charities, just the big names in the business, the ones we encounter frequently with their ceaseless advertising assailing us at every turn.
We see them on the trains and buses; we see them on TV and hear them on the radio; the newspapers carry them and Amazon helps out by delivering their adverts after check-out. The big charities form partnerships with the police, celebrities and large businesses to make sure that their urgent messages of need reach us regularly and without fail.
In the wake of Haiti’s earthquake, the world’s largest and most influential charities have reacted with admirable speed to the disaster. Like seasoned and experienced vultures, they are well in position and circling, shrieking loudly for funds in the aftermath of disaster.
They purchase every Google/Yahoo/Bing keyword they can think of and afford – and they can afford a lot – to ensure that their messages reach you and your wallet. You cannot make a move on the Internet with respect to Haiti at the moment without being bombarded by their sponsored links pleading and demanding donations from you to help alleviate the suffering of women and children in Haiti.
And there lies a large part of the problem and the reason why I don’t donate to these agencies: women and children matter, men don’t. Across the board.
But it’s much more than this.
There is a fundamental problem with charities once they grow beyond a certain size. The Amnestys and NSPCCs and Oxfams of this world seem to have become bottomless pits of financial need that can never, ever be satiated.
They ask for £2, £10 or even £25 per month from anyone they can convince and this will apparently make a huge difference to some woman or child’s life. Men are never mentioned by these charities except when they are blamed for atrocities against women and children. It’s as if men serve a purpose as bogey-men but can never exist as victims.
The charities-massive are slickly set up to take Visa, Mastercard, Paypal as well as old mobile phones and unwanted clothes – whatever the flavour of your gift, they can assimilate it into their business.
So what’s the problem?
It’s all “for a good cause”, isn’t it? Surely charities are as close to saintly institutions as it’s possible to get. Surely…
Some of the issue with charities can be summed up with the following points:
1) Charities single out men as abusers and blame men for atrocities, even when no abuse or atrocity has taken place
Unicef (Tsunami 2004)
Unicef’s director of child protection in Indonesia made this statement about the danger of male paedophiles based on nothing more than her own imagination:
“I’m sure it is happening. It’s a perfect opportunity for these guys to move in.”
Amnesty (“Stop violence against women” campaign)
“Violence against women is the greatest human rights scandal of our times. From birth to death, in times of peace as well as war, women face discrimination and violence at the hands of the state, the community and the family.”
NSPCC (“Full Stop” campaign)
“The abuser can go on and on having whatever kind of perverted sex he wants (it’s nearly always a man). In many cases he will share his victim around.”
BBC (report on Hurricane Katrina)
National Guardsmen; “We found a young girl raped and killed in the bathroom. Then the crowd got the man and they beat him to death.”
The truth? “We have no official reports to document any murder. Not one official report of rape or sexual assault” – Police Chief Edwin P Compass III, New Orleans Police.
Et al.
As far as these charities are concerned, as far as the news media is concerned and indeed, as far as anybody is concerned, the truth about men’s behaviour at a time of disaster is irrelevant. There are no reports about the thousands of men rescuing people at risk to their own lives, we hear only of “rescuers” and “emergency services” and “aid workers” saving lives. Men get no credit. Instead, men are accused of crimes against women and children, even when no crimes are known to have taken place. The imagined crimes of men are prominently headlined whilst the genuine heroism of men is suppressed.
Why is it that where charities are concerned, every hurricane, every earthquake and every flood leads us down the garden path to imagined armies of paedophiles, rapists and other assorted abusers? Exclusively male abusers.
Bad, bad men come out of the woodwork the instant disaster strikes
01m 47s
2) Men are never, ever, ever described by charities as “victims” even if they die in their thousands from earthquake or tsunami
As Noam Chomsky has investigated, in this world it would seem that there are Worthy and Unworthy victims:
“Worthy victims will be featured prominently and dramatically, they will be humanized…
In contrast, unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and little context that will excite and enrage.”
Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent (1988, p.35)
Charities are very well aware that Western society is indifferent to male safety and well-being. If a man dies, nobody is interested; but if a woman is so much as hurt, a tragedy has occurred.
This means that for charities, hellbent on pursuing donations, men are of no monetary value and are therefore essentially, of no value at all. The sorry tales of women and children are what tug at our heartstrings and generate income and so that’s what we hear about and see on our screens and it ‘s to them that their relief efforts are targeted. Exclusively.
And the men? Fuck ‘em.
3) Large charities are too large to serve any cause with as much energy and resource as they put to serving themselves
This follows the organism view of large institutions.
I remember taking a short holiday in Jersey, one of the UK Channel Islands. Very nice place, very nice time. While there, I happened to look at the main newspaper on the island and saw an article about the recent expansion in the size of the government.
Now here’s the important part. The government was expanding by 2 people. Yes, 2. Yet, the newspapers were awash with business leaders and prominent residents voicing their concern at what they described as needless expansion at taxpayers’ cost. The minister responsible had to explain the move and justify the addition of 2 more public workers on the island. It was big news.
Jersey is small and has a population of less than 100k. 2 more people in government, not earning for the island, but living off the efforts of others instead, was a significant thing.
So we can see from this that size is everything. In a small economy with relatively few people, we can all see what’s going on a respond appropriately. Conversely, in a large economy with millions of people, we can’t see anything. Not a damned thing.
In the UK, if taxes go up, they go up. If a new government department is created with 1500 new staff and a budget of £100 million, then that’s what happens. If a London borough council decides to spend £176,00 pounds to help domestic violence victims that don’t actually exist, the money gets spent anyway and nobody knows where.
The funding “Disappearing Act“
04m 17s
This is the problem with excessive size and is what lies behind the problem with large charities – just as with large governments, they are no longer accountable. Corruption and inefficiency goes unnoticed within the vastness of the machine; it becomes impossible to see, hidden in plain view.
When one donates to a large charity, the money is simply absorbed into a sponge of staff, advertising costs, property costs, pensions, holidays, expenses and equipment. The charity itself is the chief consumer of donations because the charity itself has requirements that are far more important to the charity than whatever its mission statement happens to be.
Donations to large charities are about enabling it to balance its books, manage cash flow and keeping it trading happily; alleviating tragedy is strictly on a best-efforts basis with remaining funds. Make no mistake, your donations to large charities benefit the charity first, and whatever flavour of victims they use for marketing purposes last.
4) Charities exaggerate problems and then lie to us about what they can do about them
Let’s look at what I mean.
I bought something on Amazon recently and was presented with this little gem after making payment. It was a series of 3 pictures of a sorry-looking child with the tagline “Stop child abuse with a click”
Hmmm.
Could it be true? Could the NSPCC really stop child abuse with a click?
It turns out that, no, the NPCC can’t stop child abuse with a click, but they can take donations with a click.
Ahhh. That made a lot more sense.
They seemed to be implying a link between giving the NSPCC money and preventing what they describe as child abuse.
£ = Safety
That kind of assertion is at best wrong and at worst a deliberate misrepresentation of their abilities.
The fact is that the best way to prevent child abuse is to promote and protect family. Fatherlessness is the chief factor that makes a child vulnerable to abuse. This is well known to the NSPCC from their own statistics and is further established by countless studies and other research.
An intact family with biological father, mother and child is the safest environment for children. It is impossible for any agency to compete with family as regards child protection. And they know it.
If fatherlessness was on their agenda and its causal factors (principally Feminism and Toxic women); if they could be honest enough to admit that their role should be a supporting player to family rather than some kind of leading role; if they would own up and say “it’s not about us and our bank accounts, it’s about family and finding ways to support it”; if they would cease demonising men and fathers; then I could possibly believe that they might make a real difference.
Yet instead, the NSPCC persists in actually attacking family and fathers and choose to focus on growing their role as some sort of National Protector of Children as if more money in their coffers will magically lead to more safety for children.
As I have said elsewhere on this site, this type of thinking is commonly sold to us by large institutions and by government in pursuit of more money and/or power, but it is fundamentally flawed. Just as one cannot prevent global warming with more air-conditioning, neither can one prevent child abuse with more donations to the NSPCC. It is the wrong approach that never tackles the root cause of the problem. Rather than genuinely ameliorate child suffering, it possibly exacerbates the problem.
The NSPCC against men, family and choice
02m 51s
To reduce child abuse, we need fathers and families not fundraising and legislation. But the NSPCC has nothing to say about the importance of family but plenty to say about their need for more and more money, and their need for more and more child protection legislation. The question is, who really benefits from all the money and all the laws?
So what can we do?
There is currently only one charity that I am happy to support. It’s a local hospice and I support them by buying many of their monumentally expensive Christmas cards every year. The reason this charity gets the benefit of my largesse is that it’s focus is real and tangible. They do not promise to “stop suffering with a click” or make any other impossible claims. They are a small concern, with a narrow focus, and no political agenda. They don’t invent facts, bend facts or exaggerate facts. I can see where my money goes. It cannot get lost in a morass of clever accounting and numerous expense accounts.
The NSPCC’s cash, smacking and attacks on parents’ rights
to school their children at home
06m 54s
If you insist on giving generously to charity, do it in a way that counts. Find a small one that actually does something honest and tangible. Support your local sports centre, or school, or playground. Your donation can and probably will do something that helps.
But let the alarm bells sound loudly whenever a charity promises to “end violence against women” while conveniently failing to mention that enormously more violence is perpetrated against men. Beware the organisation enamoured of green that will tell you, earnestly, that you can help stop child abuse via your bank account, whilst they fail to support the proven value of family, presumably because that runs counter to their business model.
It would seem sensible that large problems require large charities to help deal with them. But this is self-defeating. Large problems beget large charities that depend on large problems in order to make money.
Let us all open our eyes to the reality of large charities and recognise that they have become peddlers of dreams and snake-oil; they certainly do not do what they say on the collection tin.
Related Video
Film 20 – Family: Fatherlessness
Film 18 – Family: Child Abuse
With all of the money that has been donated to the Haiti appeal, both by governments and individuals, every person in Haiti should be eating like a King !!!
Where has all of this money gone to ???
Very good question.
Unfortunately, as with all enormous donation drives, most of the money becomes lost within the organisations themselves.
For once I must disagree with you.
The money is certainly not “lost,” as it ends up in the pockets of Rich Men. I worked four years for the Red Cross Refugee Centre and all it was about pretending to care. The so called victims, in our centre certainly did not need any help; all looked well fed and dressed, before they came to the centre.
The Money Making Recipe:
Take 1 X Disaster (any one will do), if there is not one available, make up your own (DV); let your imagination run wild.
Take a few photos (always show babies crying) that are sort of related to your cause.
You do not need any proof.
The Government & big business, will back you (as they get their cut)
Lots of publicity, at cut-throat prices, thanks to your friends in the media.
Stir for a few days and there you have it….The money starts raining in.
Blah, blah, blah. Stop complaining and just don’t donate. Let those of us who are survivors of incest, rape, domestic abuse, and homelessness make our donations to whomever we want. Yes, I survived it all so I Thank The Lord that He has brought me out of it all with donations when I can.
So, Yvonne Bentley, what sort of abuse did you suffer? One of those described by the Domestic Violence Industry? Let me list some: Did he call you stupid? Did he ask where you were going? Did he dislike your friends? Did he complain that you spent too much time on the phone? If anyone of these happened to you, too bad; we don’t care.
So in your words, “Stop complaining…” and just don’t watch the videos if they hurt your feelings, stupid!
Your friend,
Karina
anyone been on the oxfam website? it’s one of the best examples of what manwomanmyth is talking about.
Don’t take his or my word about it go there yourself.
At Work we were about get some bonus cards we could use for shopping goods in our company store, so they gathered us into the room and the lady from the Human Resources announced that if somebody doesn’t wants his or her ticket he can refuse it and the money will go to the cancer support charity, so they made you choose charity or ticket in front of all your colleagues when you were signing out. I was the only one who take the ticket , it was a shocking surprise for them, my colleagues especially the ladies nearly stoned me, when I told them that I know people who suffer from different illnesses but they are refused care because of expensive drugs they need, they simply called me names.