We care more about donkeys than abused women
By Louise Livesey | 23 April 2008, 08:53
Evidence from New Philanthropy Capital shows that the British public give more money to a single Devon donkey sanctuary than to Women’s Aid, Eaves and and Refuge combined. Yes dear readers that’s more to one group of donkeys than to three major charities working with abused and trafficked women (and the difference is a ratio of about 85p:£1 (i.e. for every pound received by the donkeys, just 85p is received by the women’s charities).
The NPC has calculated the cost of this abuse at £40bn a year. This is made up of £10bn for the cost of lost economic output caused by abuse as well as the police work, court cases and psychological and physical healthcare arising from the abuse. Victims may also place greater demands on housing and benefit budgets if they have to move away, often with children, from a shared home with the abuser. NPC has calculated the emotional cost of abuse of women is £30bn a year, using accepted measures devised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for translating emotional cost into financial cost. Sexual violence accounts for £26bn of the cost with domestic violence accounting for £20bn.
From The Guardian
The report also highlights facts like the lack of a national helpline for people who had experienced rape, that 1 in 3 local authorities had no domestic violence refuge and that there has been a decline in the number of rape crisis centres available nationally.
The report goes on to detail that the 200 biggest charities working with abused women or campaigning against abuse received a total of £97 million funding (all sources). This is contrasted with £110 million for the RSPCA and £149 million for the Lifeboats.
Meanwhile the Guardian reports that 400 unaccompanied child asylum seekers are missing from the care system, many of are suspected to have been trafficked into prostitution. Concern about internal trafficking (movement of children within the UK for sexual purposes) is rising. Many of the children came from countries which are sources of people trafficking including China, Afghanistan, Albania and India. A majority of the missing children come from Local Authorities which serve the major entry routes into the UK including Kent (Dover and Folkstone), Newcastle, Suffolk (Felixstowe), Sussex (Gatwick) and Hillingdon (Heathrow). Newcastle, for example, reports 12 missing Somali children and 13 missing Chinese children. Suffolk have “lost” 16 children including six Afghani children. Hillingdon, which deals with around 1,000 unaccompanied asylum seekers, reports 74 missing children whilst West Sussex received 145 children and lost 42 of them.
“As soon as they can they will contact their trafficker,” said Kirsty Hanna, manager of the Gatwick children’s team. “It could be they have memorised the trafficker’s mobile number, or the trafficker may have followed them to the safe house. There have been times when they have jumped out of the window. They are under a lot of pressure, often to pay back their passage. Their families back home could be threatened with torture or murder. We are constantly trying to disrupt the traffickers, but it has to be a losing battle if we can’t stop the problems abroad that causes the trafficking.”
From The Guardian
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
Stella said:
I loved the article... but please take the apostrophe out of the headline! :o(
Posted on 23 April 2008 at 10:21 AM
Anne Onne said:
It doesn't surprise me. We refuse to talk about 'wimmins' issues', brush abuse under the carpets, blame victims, insist he juust can't have done it because he looks so normal, and now we as a society are shocked that in a world where womens' welfare doesn't matter, people don't donate to charities towards it?
People won't care about these issues until we make society realise they're NOT womens' issues. They're everyone's issues. Until we as a society take responsibility for what happens, and put a spotlight on preventing it, and on helping women and not shaming or blaming them, this will keep on happening.
Now I think I need a coffee. :(
Posted on 23 April 2008 at 12:44 PM
Cara said:
I hate to make a second pedantic grammar point, but...Gatwick, not Gartwick. :-)
Good article. Although...I once worked as a fundraiser for a charity helping disabled people (yes I was a chugger, sorry) and the number of people who said "I give to animal charities, but not people ones". I don't understand that attitude at all, but it would be interesting to know how gender-neutral charities e.g. disability charities, human rights, compared.
Although I entirely suspect that charities for women may well fare worse. Just saying.
Posted on 23 April 2008 at 12:57 PM
lozzy said:
I wholeheartedly agree that these charities need to be supported a hell of a lot more, but (and I realise this sounds like one of those 'some of my best friends are gay/black/women but...' comments - I assure you that's not my intention) the comparison to animal charity doesn't sit well with me. In my opinion no charity should be more valued than another. I understand that the issue is not that the 'donkey sanctuary' didn't deserve any donations, moreso the inequality between that and Women's Aid etc., but personally I would prefer that have been raised without the donkey comparison. Maybe it will succeed in striking a chord with others though, which is obviously much needed.
Posted on 23 April 2008 at 2:38 PM
Anna said:
Personally I would rather have a rape crisis centre in bristol than a donkey sanctuary, but maybe that's just me..
Posted on 23 April 2008 at 6:41 PM
scifilaura said:
Maybe we are more inclined as a nation to give to animal, and not people, charities, as we think these things should already be being dealt with with our tax money.
Posted on 23 April 2008 at 8:45 PM
Soirore said:
I think the most bizarre thing about this is that people give the most money to the lifeboats. I read somewhere else that the donations to RNLI were significantly higher than for the NSPCC and obviously MUCH higher than for women's charities. Lifeboats do save lives but womens charities and childrens charities do too and these charities also give a higher proportion of the cash to the cause, RNLI is the stingiest of major charities giving less than 10% to the cause it's raising for.
There is no reason for people giving more money to lifeboats than to women and children other than because they value them less, and that violence in the home (rape, violence and child abuse)is seen as normal and not an "emergency". It disgusts me.
Posted on 24 April 2008 at 5:49 PM
Ivan said:
One question to consider is that animal welfare charities do not get government grants, as it is the case of The Donkey Sanctuary (not a simple sanctuary in Devon but an organization that works worldwide helping donkeys) so they have good departments that work hard to get a response for private donnors. When a charity gets government grants, it may rely too much on this found source and may not have any strategy to raise money from the public.
Posted on 13 June 2008 at 11:21 AM
Dianne said:
I give to both causes but am angered at the existance of a quango (presumably publically funded) telling people that they shouldn't be given to certain causes. Perhaps this pointless organisation could cease to exist and free up the funds they are wasting ( employing press officers to deter gioving to animal charities) and send the savings direct to womens ( and mens) refuges.
Posted on 31 July 2008 at 11:24 AM
Spicy said:
I give to both causes but am angered at the existance of a quango (presumably publically funded) telling people that they shouldn't be given to certain causes.
1. New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) is a not a quango but a charity and is not publicly funded. It works to 'match-make' private donors with charitable causes.
2. NPC weren't telling people not to give to certain causes - it was making a comparison.
3. NPC do not employ any press officers. The role of responding to media enquiries is contained within the job of one person who also has responsibility for managing three staff as well as promoting and communicating NPC’s mission and services to clients, charities and opinion formers.
One question to consider is that animal welfare charities do not get government grants, as it is the case of The Donkey Sanctuary.
Women's charities (across the board - not just those which focus on violence) make up 7% of all charities yet receive only 1.2 of central government grants. This is less than any other equalities group.
Posted on 31 July 2008 at 4:01 PM