"I did not sign up for THIS."
"I did not sign up for THIS."
Societies would collapse without volunteers
According to the dictionary, a volunteer is a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task and/or a person who works for an organization without being paid.
There are many reasons why people volunteer their time (and often more than just their time) including everything from filling in their day to adding to a CV to feeling really passionate about a particular cause they believe is valuable. This article lists the pros and cons of volunteering because all the positives around volunteering need to be balanced against some of the more negative outcomes that can occur.
In my experience, women who volunteer their time to groups involved with birth and breastfeeding are motivated primarily by two factors: to be part of this specific community and to make a positive difference in this world through supporting individuals to meet their self-proclaimed goals and outcomes. Volunteering for these non-profits/charities normally is predicated on having had the embodied experience of birth and breastfeeding, which is a useful starting point for building an effective team atmosphere.
Volunteering may appear to be “free”, but this is rarely true. It has a cost that must be borne by those who choose to participate and can manifest in the use of family resources (like using the family car or paying to attend mandatory training) all the way to the volunteer having less time for home duties they might otherwise have engaged in. Most of these groups also have some sort of membership fee that must be paid to allow participation.
Most volunteers have to “pay to play”
I am presently a volunteer for several very different groups and have been volunteering in a variety of organizations for really, my entire life. Some positions have placed me working alongside only other volunteers and other more well-funded groups may have one or more paid staff who are financially compensated for their time and their labor.
This has caused me to think about what it is reasonable to ask of a volunteer -- and what are absurd, unfair and sometimes downright ridiculous expectations. And on the flip side, what should volunteers be expecting to find when it comes to managing their position as an unpaid worker?
Some of the expectations that volunteer managers may expect from those who volunteer are reliability (turning up when expected), not doing anything that could impugn the reputation of the group when acting in a volunteer capacity (or doing anything illegal) and in some positions, pledging a certain amount of time or duration of service for planning and resourcing purposes.
A few of the more reasonable expectations that volunteers have for their “employers” include a welcoming work environment, the resources and tools needed to complete their job, training, and support, accommodations and scheduling flexibility, and ongoing communication.
What motivates women to give their time and energies – and what won’t
What are some of the questions that women ask themselves before they volunteer?
Three top concerns are:
--Is this something I will get satisfaction doing?
--Is this a good fit with my skills?
--And will I be SAFE doing what is being asked of me?
Societal expectations on women are higher than ever. Most women now are expected to work in paid employment as well as carry the bulk of the parenting, along with being the “domestic manager” of their home. Don’t forget that many women in marriages/partnerships with men are also expected keep themselves looking attractive and available, while carrying the burden of the emotional life for the couple. So, if a volunteer role is feeling unsatisfactory at any level, it is going to be jettisoned as expendable.
Today, women’s tertiary educational degrees outstrip men’s. The majority of women in industrialized countries have marketable skills. Women volunteer either because they can use their skills or to learn something new that will enhance what they can already competently do.
Women in paid employment will put up with a lot, especially when they and their families need that paycheck to pay their bills and to eat. Volunteers will head for the exit rather than work in a position that feels precarious or dangerous to them. This is not just true of physical safety, but around their mental health as well. Being bullied by staff or other volunteers will have them heading out the door without a backward glance.
Social Justice Warriors (SJW) are engaged in a fantasy world of their own imagination that can never exist. Their “truth” of reality, the belief that knowledge they hold is the solution to the suffering of some marginalized group, is enmeshed with their sense of entitlement to power alongside the importance of others’ appreciation of their greatness, and this is what drives them to mercilessly bully those who fail to meet their unattainable standards.
In today’s world, many volunteer groups are riddled with SJW who are there to save the world on their own terms, even if the actual aims and objectives of the group are not compatible with the beliefs of the “savior”. Yes, you will find employed SJW, but it’s easier to get a gig as a volunteer.
Once this is understood, it is clear to see what has happened and what is still happening to the volunteer ranks of women who just wanted to help out but are now being forced out.
Women like Fran Itkoff, who hit the international media recently when she was forced out of her volunteering role with the National MS Society after working for free for them for 60 years. Aged 90, she queried the new “inclusivity policy” that required her to add in compulsory pronoun indicators in her email signature. She was oblivious to the social changes around her and did not actually understand the new “rules”, so for simply asking for clarification, she was informed that her services would no longer be required.
I have recently written about what is happening right now in the UK between La Leche League Great Britain (LLLGB) and the LLLI Board here
and here.
So how have the SJW of the breastfeeding world managed to eliminate women, mothers and even babies from this sexed activity? Just follow the playbook and they were good to go!
Use language to deflect and confuse
As I wrote in my very first Substack post:
“In a nutshell, postmodern theory seeks to detach human nature from biology.” and “The power of language (the idea that words are powerful and dangerous and must be scrutinized according to theoretical frameworks).” are the two key ideas that are foundational to woke SJW.
Postmodernism is the beating heart of queer/trans and every other social justice movement we see around us today. And language use is the circulatory system that gives this ideology “legs” and allows it to infect everything. Linguistic tactics and tricks are the lingua franca of the wokerati and they excel at language games, verbal sleights of hand, avoiding accountability and especially in hiding the bits that they know are not going to fly with Joe and Jane Public.
I have been told that LLLI "does not use a sexed definition of mother".
A sexed definition of mother allows for the inclusion and respect of mothers who prefer gendered language. Because they are mothers - therefore they are encompassed and can have resources and services tailored as needed. They can determine their own identity, the fact that they are mothers is not prescriptive and does not put demands on them.
On the other hand, a gendered definition of mother does not respect mothers (and parents) who do not have a gender identity, in fact the opposite, it imposes gender onto them. There is no respect for the diversity of mothers and parents, or the ways in which their identity bears no relationship whatsoever to Western or theorized concepts of gender. It also allows men to access services that they have no need for, other than to “affirm” them in their womanface attire.
Were those Leaders who pushed for the LLLI inclusivity policy to include the words “gender identity” and “sex” upfront about their intention to include biological males and breastless women (neither of whom will ever need breastfeeding support)?
No, they were not.
Because if they had clearly explained their real aims and objectives, this policy would have died the death it deserves.
Cancel culture and call outs -- removing those who refuse to comply
Cancel culture works so well because you don’t have to actually remove someone to be effective. The threat of being canceled is enough in many cases to elicit - if not a change in attitude - at least a silence that feels complicit. The author JK Rowling has stated that she has had so many death threats that she could wallpaper her home with them; unfortunately for her detractors, her immense talent and wealth gives her a cushion that few people have available.
Most of us are not so well placed and dying on the hill of gender criticism can mean you lose your job.
The LLL Leaders’ Facebook page appears to be a sanctuary of like-minded women, but that is an illusion. The reason that that harmony appears to prevail is that all the dissenters have been either bullied away or deleted from the page. One of the first steps taken by the minority Leaders on the LLLGB Council of Directors was the immediate elimination of the Leaders who reported them to the Charities Commission from any LLLGB Facebook pages. Which of course also left those Leaders in the cult of gender ideology free to guide the narrative and further intimidate the ejected Leaders.
Calling out those who don’t share an ideology is a method designed to embarrass, humiliate and silence any dissenters from the chosen path. It’s artificially induced virtual social rejection, characterized by statements such as "you need to rethink this", “you need to educate yourself” and “are you telling me I don’t exist?”
A bit like ultra-processed foods, this is an artificial tactic designed for the illusory effects it can generate. Social rejection and disapproval are weaponized to silence any dissent and the outrage is fake.
Volunteers are a precious resource
Many Leaders are now saying "I did not sign up for THIS", with the “THIS” referring to a belief in gender ideology that excludes mothers and redefines women as anyone who feels like one. Every LLL Leader is a biological mother, even if they choose to identify as something else or have some sort of aversion to the word mother. Those who joined because they liked the concept of mother-to-mother help, are dismayed to be instructed that somehow this is an invalid point of view and are they are required to help “everyone”.
According to the UN, women are far more likely to serve as volunteers compared to men. Added to this is that women are also more likely than men to donate to charitable causes. Organizations like LLL only function at all because women are prepared to make sacrifices to do work they passionately believe in.
Volunteerism itself is being damaged by the ways women are being browbeaten into compliance of collaborating with a cult belief that ultimately, is unsustainable. And LLL without its volunteers is nothing but a ghostly specter of former greatness.
Lucy, you touch on so many important points here. I recently heard one of those great pearls of wisdom that I feel relates to the points you are so beautifully articulating in this article -- When you stumble upon something that feels like a great truth, stay with it. Taste it. Live it. And then pass it onto others.
I feel that this is what breastfeeding volunteers do. It is not easy to overcome societal obstacles to breastfeed, and when we do, and when we see how that feels, how it filled our hearts, and how our children grew healthy both physically and emotionally...We wanted other mothers to receive the information and support they need to be able to taste the same empowering truths.
But, how could volunteers possibly be asked to pass anything other than what we know to be true?
As always, you said all this best! Thank you so much for your work, Lucy!