Know your causes - and effects

[author_by_night]

A few years ago, a friend of mine did a presentation on Autism using Autism Speaks. Her intentions were entirely good; she cares about kids with Autism, and was sick of hearing the things people were saying. So she went to the site and gave her presentation, talking about both the organization's information and things she knew from her own experiences.

I later learned that apparently, people with Autism hate the site, as do many people with ASD family members. Why? Because according to them, it acts like anyone with it is a pariah. Based on the things I've seen from Autism Speaks... I have to agree with them. My friend of course had no idea what she was actually advocating, but she also seems to have based her entire cause on one website, which is not run by anyone actually affected by autism.

Then there's the Susan G. Komen foundation. Two years in a row I've offered it as a safe alternative to those stupid Facebook memes every October. "If you really want to make a difference, here's the place you need to look." It somehow did not occur to me that there was something wrong with stores selling everything in pink, or that "a portion of proceeds will go to research" was alarming. I was convinced that the money I spent on pink yogurt was totes going to breast cancer research. Well, if I bought five, I'm sure a penny went. The rest went to... I don't even want to know where.

I think that in the days of the internet, people find things faster, and they want to help. They're sick of internet petitions and stupid memes, and/or concerned with a certain issue, so they try and take things a step further by doing a little online research. The problem is the "little" in "a little online research." It's so easy to find a website and say "hey, this says what I've been thinking, and oh look, they tell me tons of stuff that I had never thought of! Wow, look at those shiny numbers."

But often, one site doesn't speak for all, no matter how legitimate and forthcoming it may be. It's important to know what you're supporting and what it really stands for. What is their perspective, what is their goal, and how does it match yours?

I'm all for activism, and I in no way have anything against organizations - I just think it's important to be informed as possible, rather than half informed. There's a lot of difference that needs to be made - let's not limit it.

Comments

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

I agree. This also relates to what I've been thinking about the Planned Parenthood scandals - most of the places reporting it are very fringe; Planned Parenthood itself admits that it's had a (now-fired) manager who went contrary to what she was supposed to do, but they say they reported all the undercover pro-life operatives before the doctored videos came out. And like it says in the article in Time, But it is impossible to know whether Woodruff’s seeming encouragement of the purported sex trafficker was an attempt to coax the victims of abuse into her care, or whether it “proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Planned Parenthood intentionally breaks state and federal laws and covers up the abuse of the young girls it claims to serve,” as Live Action president Lila Rose has stated. It's also mentioned repeatedly in the comments to this NYT article. It's like the story about the man who submitted Pride & Prejudice to publishing houses and everyone went "oh my gosh! he was turned down! they don't know real literature anymore!" when the truth is that probably all of the slush readers knew he was bullshitting them and sent him the standard rejection letter instead of writing him his own special i c what u did thar note. (I mean, if someone had accepted it, I think that would be a better sign that people don't know literature anymore.) All the anecdata I've heard from people (or read) has been positive.

tl;dr, considering the source and looking for other confirmation and perspectives can be a good thing in many situations, sorry to splooge in your comments

[scionofgrace.livejournal.com]

Yes, to all of this!

And it doesn't hurt to stick to old-fashioned and/or local charities, to ones that have proven themselves, and where you can request (and get!) their financial statements to see what's going on.

[quinns-crossing.livejournal.com]

One of our regional supermarket chains (Meijer) has a gift card that you can buy and it goes to buy nonperishable food for a local food pantry. Each individual store lists which individual food bank gets the donations.

The only trouble I've had is that some cashiers don't know how to scan them because customers apparently don't buy them often!

[quinns-crossing.livejournal.com]

I would have never guessed that about the Autism Speaks site, but then again I've never visited it.

I buy the food I like, preferably on sale, and I don't worry about whether they give a penny to breast cancer research, Feeding America or any other cause. I even wonder about those canisters they keep near cash registers for muscular dystrophy or whatever.

At least once a week I see something go around on Facebook asking people to repost regarding the latest cause. I'm thinking of making a spoof one for April 1. Especially suspicious are the ones about someone asking for prayers for a child in a coma, a homeless family, etc. Most people think their FB friend knows the person in question when in fact their friend doesn't know them at all. It's a hoax.

Why would anyone repost something about a person they don't know, without even checking to see if their friend REALLY KNOWS them?

[baranduyn.livejournal.com]

When it comes to pass arounds anywhere...e-mail, whatever...asking for prayers for a missing/sick/dying child the best place to check first is snopes.com. They hit those things hard, investigate and report as to whether the child being prayed for even exists or if it is very old and the situation has resolved.

As to why people pass them on without checking; for some it's sheer reflex. The people who start them off knowing full well it's all rubbish are a different matter. I don't know if they're looking for 'likes' or laughing. Either way it's reprehensible.