I’d feel a little better if your cite wasn’t grinding that vegetarian/PETA axe quite so heavily there.
Also, if you’re bitching about how they rate as a charity, you can’t really turn around and slam them for “we don’t track individual donations.” In case you didn’t bother to think about it, that by itself does substantially cut down on funding waste - can you imagine how much more expensive those brochures would be if every single donor got a photograph of “their” particular animal?
Sure I’d like it if Heifer spent a good deal less on PR and on advertising and more of that money on actually getting animals out to people in need, but that’s a small concern. No one and no organization is perfect - if I waited for a perfect charity to come along, I’d never give anything.
I agree with the OP. I’m currently out of cat rescue work due to moving, but in the past, if someone asked me what I wanted for a gift, I would ask them to donate to my rescue group. Like ZPG, I do feel that those donations were gifts to me.
Now, if someone were to donate to a dog rescue in my name, that really wouldn’t be a gift to me. Yes, I would thank them and act pleased, but that donation would have been for them to feel good.
As I mentioned upstream, Bill bought me a cow for my birthday. Both of us get to enjoy that gift because it was something we talked about and agreed on. We make jokes that I’m a lazy Texan now. I needed a cow because everyone in Texas owns cows, but I’m too lazy to take care of one so put the task on some poor family instead.
Nobody is pitting people about encouraging people to help the less fortunate here.
Irrelevant. Nobody (including the OP) is suggesting that people should not help the needy. Just don’t call a donation in someone’s name a gift to that person.
It would help if you read the Op and the thread. It was explicitly stated that when there is agreement and collaboration on the choice of who to donate to, it’s a great idea.
Come on, now, you think your own mother doesn’t know of your…predilections?
Heh.
I really like the idea of getting the gift recipient involved in the donation gift, rather than just, “I did this in your name.” It’s a good chance to talk about donations and gift-giving and which charities you support and stuff like that.
I had a similar argument with my wife about my in-laws (her parents) giving our niece and nephew some dinky, craptastic, $10 gift, and then putting a rather large sum in their college funds, and thinking they’d done great.
I pointed out that the ONLY reason that this isn’t perceived as terrible by the kids is because their other grandparents go overboard in the opposite direction and buy them anything and everything they ever wanted in the toy or gadget department.
My wife thinks that a kid that doesn’t appreciate a college fund gift is ungrateful, and I tend to think that to a 5 year old, a college fund is pretty much a mythical thing that they neither understand nor care about, and what they hear is “blah, college fund, blah, here’s this $10 gift” and think that the in-laws are cheapskates.
A charitable gift to others isn’t a gift to the kids- it’s ultimately giving their gift to someone else, no matter how helpful to the recipients it may be, and the kids aren’t really going to understand.
I’d think it’s better to give normal gifts, including some cash, and then after Xmas, make a point of doing some sort of charity donation, and suggest that your children donate some of their cash as well, and even let them pick where to donate it. That way, it’s their choice, and they get some freedom in doing so.
Coerced giving is essentially theft, and giving a “gift” that someone else actually gets is the same as no gift at all.
I don’t know how can some people live with themselves, robbing poor American children of their rightfully earned Gameboys just so some entitled brat in Haiti can have a chicken.
Again, the issue is NOT that you are being cheap, it’s that you are calling a donation from you to some charity a gift to some individual on your gift list. If the aforesaid individual prefers you to donate to a charity **instead **of giving a gift, that is fantastic for both of you (as well as the charity).
Or if you just choose to. The problem is this underlying attitude that various people are entitled to a gift, so this is a way to deflect this. That’s the thinking that needs to change. This “for their gift, get them the gift of giving”. If Aunt Suzie says to nephew Johnny “Johnny, I love you. I am looking forward to seeing you this Christmas, but I am not buying you anything just to show affection. I am giving money to charity instead” that’s GREAT. If little Johnny is disappointed, his parents should lecture him up one side and down the other and send him to his room. But saying “Hey. Johnny. Because I love you so much, I got a kid in Haiti a chicken” makes no sense. It perpetuates the horrible idea that Johnny is entitled to a gift of some sort, and then tries to make him feel grateful for not getting one. That’s fucked up.
Basically, giving someone who doesn’t need anymore crap a charitable donation is a weird, backward bandaid over the deeper problem of materialism run amok.
What if it’s a charity I really hate or don’t even approve of? When I give, I give only to charities that look to the future, funding research and education for the next generation. That means no Toys for Tots. No helping people through THIS Christmas. Etc. I don’t really have a problem with these charities, I just prefer to give to the other kind.
Should I still be grateful when someone gives to those charities in my name? Not all charities are equal.
Hell, I’m going to start giving Planned Parenthood donations in the names of all my friends. Even if they are pro-life. Is that OK? I mean, it’s a charitable donation!
Perhaps they did it specifically to piss you off. Why do you not support charities outside your province?
But then there’s no surprise!
That said, I see where you’re coming from. Do not give in public like the hypocrites do and all that. However, exchanging gifts is not just about accounting and satisfying pecuniary needs: there’s the acknowledgement of mutual relationships and the subtle influencing of other people’s tastes. For instance, I have a friend who likes the Dead Kennedys and I think he’d like the Wingnut Dishwashers Union. I could just link him to one of their songs on youtube and let him listen for himself, but there’s nothing really lost in buying one of their albums to give to him. Well, that would have been the example if I could actually find somewhere to buy an album of theirs. Someone may support a charity in notion and have not got around to supporting it in practice. Receiving the title for a donation may help them to feel they’ve contributed, in a fashion.
That’s another good point. After eight years of working for a company that tries to shove the United Way down my husband’s throat every year, you couldn’t come up with a better way to piss him off than making a donation to United Way in his name.
I have had people give in my honor to charities I hate such some of Mother Theresa’s organizations and pregnancy centers that convince teenagers not to have abortions. It is galling. I find it consoling to think at least I do not feel compiled to write a thank you note for that gift and that at least it is not one more hideous scarf, box of bath soaps, or tacky nicknack doomed to take up space in a landfill, so at least a little good has been done for the environment that way.
And it SO depends, even then. When my mother died, a very close friend gave money to a catholic charity in her name. Eek. We have no catholics in our family and Mom would have been disturbed by the thought. But I knew it was meant well, so I wrote a nice thank you note and was grateful someone thought of my mother when she died.
If someone had given that to me in lieu of a Christmas gift, in a situation where Christmas gifts were expected? Yeah, thanks for the sentiment. :rolleyes:
This is going off-topic a bit - sorry; I would find a question like that a little offensive, and my answer would be something like “because I prefer not to”. There are numerous reputable charities for any reasonable need, whether local, national, or international. Given that, “specializing” in a particular category of charities for your giving is perfectly reasonable. For my own giving I prefer local charities. Other people prefer national charities. Other people prefer international charities. As long as you are picking reputable charities for reasonable needs a well-defined reason is unnecessary. Chacun à son goût.
What about Give Directly? Set up by MIT economists. If you’re honestly annoyed by alleviating poverty, I think that a charitable donation in your name for such a cause is the most noble gift given with the purpose of irritating the recipient.
Ed:
As a Utilitarian, I disagree. I believe that one should always strive for efficient resource use - I don’t believe a dollar spent on (say) spaying cats provides as much good as one spent on preventing starvation. I wouldn’t have brought it up if Nerdessence didn’t implicitly disagree by outright being annoyed at someone spending money on preventing starvation in their name.
