Dear friend,

The fight against climate change is already as hard as it is but it doesn't just mean fighting natural elements. Turns out, it doesn't even mean just fighting big conglomerates, trying to change government policies or trying to convince people that what we're doing to our planet is destroying it. For some people, being a climate activist means putting your own and your loved ones' lives in danger. Latin America is one of the most dangerous places for climate activists, especially women. Read this excellent piece from Open Democracy on the challenges women activists in Latin America face in their fight against climate change.

Berta Cáceres solidarity rally, Honduras 2016. Photo: Flickr/Daniel Cima/CIDH. CC BY 2.0.

If we want to stop humanity from destroying the living planet we need to start thinking beyond the current time and beyond borders. SpaceBuzz is an organisation that is aiming to do both. It's based on the idea of the 'overview effect', something that astronauts who see the earth from outer space experience, that allows them to see it as a "fragile ball of life". SpaceBuzz's mission is to give this experience to as many children so that they will grow up not taking the earth for granted. We talked with Spacebuzz's founder Hidde Hoogcarspel to see where Spacebuzz is headed (other than to infinity and beyond).

Would you like to read this newsletter in the comfort of your own inbox? Sign up 👉 and receive it every Saturday.

More Stories

The shocking history of women’s oral contraceptives

Company blogs

Written by
Alessandra Giliberto

on
22 July 2021

151 million — mostly young— women use it everyday, and it makes an annual revenue of 7.35 billion dollars. Ten guesses what I’m talking about? As you may have guessed from the title, it’s the pill: the worlds’ most widely used contraceptive. If you’re a woman, it’s likely there's a packet of them in your bag.

1960 marked the beginning of a new era of sexual autonomy for women. For the first time women of different ages and backgrounds could control their sex life on their own terms — or almost, as we will see. Because this new sexual autonomy came with a number of side effects; and a dark history. How did we get here?

The dark origin story of the pill

In 1957 the first oral contraceptive was launched in the US. It was called Enovid (Enavid later on in the UK) and promised to change women’s lives once and for all. Being able to limit the size of their families — thus freeing up women’s time for things other than child-rearing — marked an exciting new stage in female autonomy. The pill, at the time, had a particularly powerful impact in underdeveloped countries. Using it reduced poverty, improved overall education for both women and other members of her household, and generally granted better lives to millions of people.

But the first contraceptive pill came at a great cost. American state laws strictly regulated clinical trials related to birth control. So when Harvard graduate biologist Doctor Gregory Pinctus (a.k.a ‘the father of the pill’), had to figure out the correct dosage of estrogen and progesterone, he chose to test it on women whose lives he valued little enough to serve his purpose.

He found them in Puerto Rico, the central American Island closely linked to the US politically. In the 1950s, Puerto Rico was becoming highly overpopulated. Sterilisation was endorsed also by the United States as a solution to the problem. About a third of Puerto Rican women did, in the end, get sterilised — often after being coerced to do so. So when Pinctus’ reversible contraception was presented as an alternative, local women were more than willing to take it.

In fact, they often took it without knowing they were part of an experiment. They hadn’t been told that the drug was still in production and that they were the first women in its ‘clinical trials’, nor did they get any information about possible side effects.

When women mentioned side effects; such as nausea, depression, and blood clots, they were discarded as “unreliable”. As the undisclosed experiment went on, three women taking the pill died. Their deaths were never officially investigated, and so to this day, we are left wondering whether the pill may have been the culprit.

Only many years later, were these women told they had been guinea pigs in an experimental drug trial. Turns out, the pill they were given contained ten times the level of hormones needed (about 100 to 175 µg of estrogen and 10 mg of progesterone, while the current dosages are respectively 30 to 50 µg and 0.3 to 1 mg). Over the years, many of these women have faced severe side effects linked to the hormonal overdose; including permanent infertility, cancer, blood clots, and strokes. But the hormones they were given were effective in preventing pregnancies. So the study was considered to be a "success".

You’d think it couldn't get any worse than this. But it did! A second round of testing was carried out on women in mental institutions. Without consent or proper information, male scientists continued to exploit vulnerable patients with unethical methodologies. Eugenics was the guiding principle behind the testing — it makes one shiver to think that so recently, human beings were still being experimented on for this purpose.

Only in 1970 was the American Congress was forced to hold a hearing on the pill’s side effects thanks to the work of feminist activists, including Barbara Seaman, a famous journalist and symbol of the fight for women’s health rights. Outrageously enough, only men were invited to the hearing. And so women, inviting themselves, showed up on the day of the hearing. It’s in part thanks to the case these women made that day, that the discussion on hormone levels in the pill brought us to where we are today.

Blood Clots

Although hormone levels in oral contraceptives have been lowered over the years, women using them still face a number of side effects. Almost everybody who has been on the pill knows this; having lived through nausea, moodswings, water retention, and spotting. But that’s not all. Blood clots are, for a small percentage of users, still a risk related to contraception based on estrogen (both oral and local). According to FSRH Clinical Guidelines, the absolute risk of blood clots is estimated to be between 5 - 12 per 10,000 users annually (compared to 2 per 10.000 in non-users.) This doesn’t take women with previous experience or family history of blood clots into account — for them, the risk is much higher.

Since millions of women around the world are exposed to these risks, it’s somewhat surprising to witness uproar about blood clot risks related to the AstraZeneca and Johnson vaccines. In fact, although the types of blood clots caused by the pill and the vaccine are different from one another, the risk is much smaller with the vaccines than it is for mixed hormonal contraception users. It is in fact estimated that Astrazeneca’s recipients have a 1 in every 250,000 chance of getting blood clots, whereas the numbers are much smaller for pill users: 1 in every 1,000 women. So why then aren’t we as shocked by the pill-related blood clots risks?

That female drugs — and products in general — are less and improperly tested is not news. This discrepancy ranges from airbag testing on male-like mannequins to adjusting the universal office temperatures to the body temperature of male colleagues. Yet, although women constitute more than half of the world’s population, there is little incentive to innovate birth control. Because producers know that women cannot go without it. As long as there are no alternatives — male birth-control options, for example — women will have to keep buying current contraceptives, even when they are faulty, and don't respond to women’s needs.

How you can help

We need proper and ethical testing of new products to turn the situation around. It seems that women are once again in the position where they need to push for change themselves. One glance at the news will confirm this. But women’s rights should matter to everyone. That’s where you can help: by getting informed on the topic, talking about it to people around you, and supporting Kinder’s United Action for Women’s Rights.

This story features:

Women's rights / contraception / reproductive rights / Equality & Justice

Read more
What instagram account @barbiesavior teaches us about White Saviour Complex

Solutions

Written by
Karenita Haalck

on
21 July 2021

“You inspire me to be the best person. One of the happiest moments in your life was definitely when you met me. You asked me when I was coming back. I am sorry to tell you that there is a very small chance we are ever going to meet again. I have a lot of other children to take selfies with. It keeps me busy. Something you may not know about saviours is that we can see the future...in two years you are going to meet a grown-up man that you have never met before, you two are going to have a child. And then, a white woman will come to your child and give her the best day of her life. Just like I have given to you. Ah, the circle of life.”

With fictional stories like these, @barbiesavior offers an exaggerated version of the stereotypical — and often self-serving — intentions behind short-term volunteers in developing countries.

Although meme culture might not be the ideal medium for challenging bigotry, the account is surprisingly eye-opening. Aside from the entertainment value, the posts capture the problematic, swept-under-the-carpet dynamics of white voluntourism. Voluntourism is shorthand for the voluntary work privileged people do in foreign countries. Their missions have an aftertaste of sensation-seeking — especially when they crop up on social media channels.

Neocolonialism, White Saviour Complex, and volunteering

Hidden beneath @barbiesavior’s humour lies a serious issue – neocolonialist attitudes. Neocolonialism, in the broadest sense, is the result of Western interference in developing countries. It implies the superiority of ‘first world’ countries – through enforcing their economics, education, or infrastructure – disguised as a token of generosity. Ignorance is cloaked under good deeds and improvement plans, which tend to cause more harm than good: because a one-size-fits-all approach rarely works.

We see this play out with some volunteers. Their social media accounts suggest they’re contributing to the salvation of an entire country— all through a temporary, self-serving volunteer experience. @barbiesavior perfectly captures ‘White Savior Complex’ —“It is not about me but it kind of is” a term coined by Teju Cole in 2012.

White Savior complex stems from the racist, brutal history between Western and developing countries. While the intention of voluntourism itself might not be demeaning; like colonialism, White Savior Complex dehumanizes and infantilizes third world countries. The term doesn’t criticize the work itself — which may fragmentally eradicate poverty — but rather the power dynamics that it represents.

The dark side of volunteering

In the West, charity revolves around the idea that even the smallest acts are worthwhile. While volunteer work certainly contributes to the bigger picture, its fugitive nature is often counterproductive. The crux of the matter lies in its inconsistency. I.e. teaching children English might improve their language skills, but the continuous rotation of caregivers can leave them with psychological dents, like attachment issues.

Lack of professional skill is sidelined by the carte blanche (quite literally) of being a Westerner: “Who needs a formal education to teach in Africa? Not me! All I need is some chalk and a dose of optimism. It’s so sad that they don’t have enough trained teachers here. I’m not trained either, but I’m from the West, so it all works out.”

Voluntourism has the dangerous side effect of encouraging charities to focus on money; favouring profit over doing good. It deliberately maintains poor conditions to create ‘tasks’ for volunteers. Blatantly put: projects are created to appeal to volunteers, who are willing to pay money for the ‘experience’ of seemingly selfless acts, rather than to help people.

We can reverse this harm by closely examining charities with volunteer opportunities. Consistency and long-term improvements are hugely important for the evolution of local communities.

Drawing the attention away from the foreign saviour who rushes to save a seemingly doomed land is another way to cure this dynamic. As the Instagram Account @nowhitesaviors run by Olivia Aalso and Kelsey Nielsen puts it: “We never said no white people, we just know you shouldn’t be the hero of the story. If you are not uncomfortable you are not listening.”

How can I volunteer without encouraging white saviourism?

The crux lies in intention. Sincerity, integrity, and most importantly respect should be the driving force behind philanthropy – rather than self-development, self-presentation, or seeking a ‘calling’, ‘purpose’ or ‘mission’ or a feeling of superiority.

As @barbiesavior says: When I first walked through the gates of the orphanage, a flood of children ran to me. I have never felt more loved or needed. My cup is full and I am forever changed. These precious little ones, who laugh in the face of much trial, who choose joy despite their circumstances, inspire me”.

But sincerity, integrity and respect are fragile subjects. Relying on someone's moral compass can nourish self-justification, personal biases, and ‘not all White volunteers … ’ narratives. Here’s how to do it right:

1. Inform yourself about volunteer dynamics in developing countries

Evolving from outdated beliefs always starts with a reset of ideas. Reading up on topics surrounting voluntourism and White Saviour Complex (like neo-colonialism), questioning your views and dogmas, and educating yourself with reliable sources, is a step in the right direction. You can’t go wrong when you reflect upon and reevaluate former decisions.

2. Realise there is more than one picture of third world countries

It’s easy for volunteers to reduce countries and communities to a picture drawn by the media and the charity world. But these places are just as rich in culture, traditions, beliefs, and values, as everywhere else. Communities have their own unique perspectives and visions. They’re not ‘in need’ of helping hands to civilise, industrialise, and digitise them. Denying countries sovereignty (power to govern themselves) is a form of oppression, just as we saw in colonal times.

3. Don’t spread images with (unironic) @barbiesavior vibes

Instead, share content that communicates the purpose or root causes of a project. This can take on many forms: collecting money through posting donation links, sharing first-hand information from local communities, or highlighting their stories, missions, visions, and accomplishments — instead of your own.

4. Support charities that work closely with local communities

Charities that do well in Kinder's evaluations fulfil this criteria. They have long-term plans, and are closely inspected for the presence of local spokespeople — who work with the kind of endurance and urgency that no temporary, foreign volunteer could match.

Evaluations ask charities to examine their intentions. Is there evidence that the solution they're offering will actually work? Is there a Plan B? Have they asked the locals if they even consider this a problem— or do they have other priorities? For those wanting to dedicate their time to a cause: charities on this platform are a great place to start.

Written by Karenita Haalck

This story features:

Charity / Volunteer / White / white saviour / white saviour complex / barbie savior / Equality & Justice / voluntourism / neocolonialism

Read more
This is what stops Millennials from giving to charity

Solutions

Written by
Cindy Zheng

on
15 July 2021

In terms of charitable giving, Millennial's remain significantly unremarkable. The generation was only responsible for 14% of all donations in 2018, with the average donor being 64 years old – much older than the oldest Millennial. Is their reluctance a sign of self-prioritization or can prosocial behaviour be found in alternative areas? To understand this diverse generation, let’s dive into their background and characteristics to search for possible explanations.

Who are Millennials?

If you have heard of Post Malone or David Guetta, but not of Roy Clark and Neil Sedaka, then you are probably a Millennial. For a more general categorization, they’re said to be born between 1981 and 1996— so between 25-40 years old in 2021.

As a wildly debated generation, Millennials have been called many things, like Generation Y (as they follow Gen X) or echo boomers (as the children of baby boomers). More subjectively, they have been coined the “me me me generation”, as they are supposedly more entitled and selfish than any other demographic cohort.

If anything, Millennials are incomparable in their achievements: boasting better education overall, as well as adapting to the drastic changes of the world, they are the first to grow up with computers, smartphones, and social media platforms. There are changes found within, too, as they are less likely to be married, or at least decide to do so at a much later age, and are characterized as needing more time to focus on themselves. Could that be a reason for the generational decline in generosity?

Self-obsessed and sceptical

Being self-focused does not necessarily take away from feeling socially responsible – in all seriousness, for younger generations, caring has become cool. A prime example is climate change activism: Millennials are more active than previous generations, rallying alongside the younger Gen Z.

So even if Millennials are more narcissistic, they are also the generation that deeply care: Climate change, poverty, political freedoms. With the world only one fingertip away, the information-seeking generation is more “woke” than the ones before.

This may be because it is becoming increasingly difficult to collectively diffuse information, and Millennials enjoy fewer restrictions in their information access. With the power to decide independently about what to consume, there are bound to be information asymmetries.

When choosing bloggers over newspapers, YouTubers over television, and podcasts over radio, they are creating a mind and world of their own. This preference can be explained through the lack of faith in traditional institutions – which also translates into scepticism towards establishments that are charities or foundations.

Lacking in charitable confidence

Despite ample evidence that administative/overhead costs makes projects much more effective, the number one reason for not donating to charities in the U.K. is still that 'money might be used on administration' instead of the cause — a worry that is found globally.

Charitable confidence has been declining for years, which is supposedly a sign of an even bigger decline in socially-driven values. People yearn for reasurrance and transparency. They want to trust again.

Seeing the direct impact of donations is critical for many of the younger generations. And although this makes sense, true positive impact is not something you can do overnight —measuring impact accurately takes many years. People who claim otherwise are usually measuring output (we built ten schools) rather than impact (literacy rates went up 45%).

It's not that Millennials are a particularly condemning generation — charities aren’t exactly innocent, either. There is a long list of charity fraud cases, giving way to guidelines and badges to ensure accountability and trustworthiness. But even established charities have faced criticism and made headlines with full-fledged scandals, like the Oxfam Haiti allegations, the Trump Foundation’s misused funds and the White Helmet fraud that involved the Dutch government.

While there are ways for charities to bounce back after scandals, many donors write them off as unreliable institutions, dissuading them from investing their hard-earned money. Many more have found ways to bypass this hurdle.

Crowdfunders instead of donors

Millennials are evidently and obviously more likely to donate online; on a website, through a mobile device, or a social media platform— even partly overtaking the younger Gen Z. Most interestingly, they are almost twice as engaged in crowdfunding than other generations; which is an especially disruptive force in charitable giving.

Powered mostly by Millennials, more than half prefer to use a crowdfunding platform to donate directly to an individual, rather than a charitable organisation. They believe that this way the money goes entirely to the actual cause, instead of getting lost in administration.

Some say that Milennials have mastered the donation cycle on their own— by donating directly to the end beneficiary. But crowdfunding platforms are not regulated. Anyone can sign up; so inevitably scams, money laundering, and misuse of funds are commonplace. The rise of crowdfunding is said to potentially remove charities from the giving landscape altogether. But is removing experts and legal safeguards such a good idea?

Decision paralysis

The U.S. currently has almost 90.000 charities and the Netherlands, which is approx. 237 times smaller, boasts more than 10.000. Generosity has become a challenge, and we all know from our nightly Netflix scroll how decision paralysis can feel.

What binge-watchers and potential donors have in common, is that many need guidance — or at least a nudge into the right direction. In contrast to entertainment, choosing a trustworthy charity is even more taxing. The choice to help either a local or global cause, an environmental or humanitarian issue, financial matters aside– these decisions truly matter. People don’t want to make the wrong choice. It doesn’t help that Millennials are considered the most indecisive generation.

Considering the financial situation of the majority, some prefer not donating at all to donating to the wrong charity. Charities are dependent on generosity – but generous spenders usually have one common trait: they have something to give.

According to multiple reports, like this one in Canada, Millennials specifically are not as well off as you would think. Even though they might be better educated and informed, they were still subjected to two major crises (now three), and might be facing the scariest financial future of any generation since the Great Depression. Accounting for those drawbacks, does the statement that Millennials don’t give to charity still ring true?

Cash-strapped and cautious

The amount of philanthropic giving has been rising since 1978, but the actual number of people that give is contracting. In the Netherlands, generosity of households has steadily declined since 1999, according to a 2019 study. Reasons are decline in religiosity, and prosocial/altruistic values in general— all factors that aren't limited to the millennial generation.

A recent study used panel data from charitable organisations to reveal whether the assumptions about Millennials as the most selfish generation are true – yielding only limited results. While Millennials are less likely to make donations at all compared to their predecessors, considering socioeconomic factors, if they do choose to donate, they seem to give substantially more.

The researchers emphasize that the generation is not easy to put in a box – but recommend a more nuanced view. In conclusion, as a cash-strapped generation marked by historic misfortunes, they are remarkably generous, while remaining cautious enough to check out a charity before making a donation

Convincing through candour and convenience

So how do you appeal to Millennials as a charity? Next to considering their critical nature and lack of funds, they also value convenience — straight-forward services like the donation app ShareTheMeal or buying over Amazon Smile. These are examples of how donating can be done parenthetically and even in small amounts. Social media platforms have also jumped on the bandwagon, especially Facebook fundraisers, which are becoming more common.

These efforts are actively combating the growing mistrust and uncertainty troubling potential donors. At Kinder, we aim to mitigate mistrust by proving charities’ accountability and effectiveness, and encouraging them to be more transparent about how they spend their money. Because we believe that every person has a cause they care about and would like to support in some way, and often, the only barrier is the lack of knowledge about how to do so.

With our United Actions, you can deep-dive into the issues you are invested in, as well as read about our charity evaluations, to be informed in their transparency, organisational skills, and accountability.

While the ways Millennials engage and participate in prosocial behaviour may be different than in previous generations, the motivation remains unfazed. Younger generations may be less easy to sway for long-term contributions, but can be reached through digital channels in more convenient, one-click-away opportunities.

If enough information and satisfying details are provided, specifically that the donated money will be used consciously to make the desired impact, Millennials can be more easily reached than assumed. After all, they do believe that the world can become a better place for all of us – and that remains the most important trait a generous person carries.

Written by Cindy Zheng

This story features:

millennials / donate / donation / Charity / giving / philanthropy

Read more

To infinity and beyond

Dear friend,

More Stories

The dark origin story of the pill

Blood Clots

How you can help

Neocolonialism, White Saviour Complex, and volunteering

The dark side of volunteering

How can I volunteer without encouraging white saviourism?

1. Inform yourself about volunteer dynamics in developing countries

2. Realise there is more than one picture of third world countries

3. Don’t spread images with (unironic) @barbiesavior vibes

4. Support charities that work closely with local communities

Who are Millennials?

Self-obsessed and sceptical

Lacking in charitable confidence

Crowdfunders instead of donors

Decision paralysis

Cash-strapped and cautious

Convincing through candour and convenience