Here's the thing. While I'm sure I'll come off as biased against, I know there are pros as well as cons to the whole "street fundraisers" phenomenon. In general I assume these people are trying to spread the word about potentially important issues. Sure, it's not just out of the kindness of their hearts; they're being paid to do it. But can you blame them? Money's money. People (poor students) need jobs.
My problem is that, at least in Boston, they seem to be EVERYWHERE. I encounter them no matter what I'm doing. Walking to work. Walking around on my break. Walking home. Walking to the grocery store, to the gym, to the subway. And they always seem to single me out. I'm sometimes able to (not too obviously) evade them. Usually I get stuck. I've gotten decently good at knowing the right ways to get beyond their spiel, but sometimes I mess up and can't get out. The problem is, I'm not the kind of person who can be directly rude. I can't ignore them. I wouldn't flip them off. I don't want to make noises to block out what they're saying until I'm a safe distance away. They know there are nice people like me. They can probably tell, looking at my semi-friendly, girly face that I'm that kind of person. Blast.
The times I am roped into a conversation, I generally feel like it's an opportunity for the individual to grill me on how much I like the environment/children/ponies/etc. and for me to feel guilty because I don't have enough money to give to them, even though maybe I look like I do and am just being selfish.
Here's a sample, fairly-fictionalized interpretation of what's actually being said in these interactions:
Dude: You look like a friendly face! Do you have a moment for children?
Me: Uh, not right now, sorry.
Dude: (sneering) Don't you like children?
Me: No, I do! I just have to...
Dude: You pretty much hate kids, don't you?
Me: It's not that. I just have no extra money right n...
Dude: I noticed you're wearing nice clothes and you have a designer purse and your shoes made clicking sounds when you walked.
Me: Actually, that's just because these shoes are old and the soles are worn down.
Dude: Please! You spend your money on things for YOURSELF! Don't you want to set aside your self-indulgent nature and save CHILDREN!?
Me: That would be nice, but I honestly already give as much money to the world as I can right now.
Dude: (Looking disappointed, maybe accusatory, like I've just stolen bread from an impoverished child.) I'm sure you do. Have a nice day.
Me: ...
What's worse is when I actually am on my way to do something self-indulgent. Like buying coffee. I'm always petrified they'll see my purchase and reprimand.
Dude: WHAT IS THAT!?!
Me: Uhm, coffee?
Dude: You'd rather spend 5 bucks on bean juice than spending 5 bucks on CHILDREN?
Me: Actually, it was $3.05.
Dude: You know what, if you stopped getting coffee all the time you could totally save lives.
Me: How do you know how often I get coffee...?
Dude: Silence! If you stopped feeding your Americanized caffeine addiction, you'd have more funds for the world.
Me: But... I only get coffee once a week now...
Dude: Liar!
No one's actually called me a liar. But I've heard stories where the street fundraisers are pretty darn accusatory and rude. One time I actually took an alternate route back to the office when I had run out for lunch because I didn't want them to see me with my lazily-procured meal.
I did a bit of research mostly because I didn't know how to refer to them. Their general title is "Street Fundraisers" (which to me doesn't sound right - like it should be Street Fundraising Workers or something like that). But they've also been tagged with, what I consider to be fairly rude, the term "chuggers" which is "charity muggers" smooshed together. I'd like to avoid being that harsh and will stick to "street fundraisers" for lack of a better term.
I figured this occupation was not limited to Boston alone, and indeed, it's a far more global trend. The Guardian did a video piece taken on the streets of the UK that's pretty interesting: http://bit.ly/czZu59
To avoid further ranting, my issues, in brief:
- The sheer quantity of street fundraisers plaguing the streets is overwhelming. Be it one or five different foundations, having them everywhere is just too much. One day I ran into no less than seven different fundraisers all for the same foundation, all within a three-block walk. I was "singled-out" by them three times.
- I don't like having to explain to strangers that I don't have any extra money. Not only that, but that I already give what I can to various foundations.
- Money shouldn't be the end-goal. If the primary goal is to spread the word about a cause, do that, but don't press me to give money I don't have. Do I have two minutes to listen about a global cause? Sometimes. Do I have two minutes to be guilted and talked out of my money? Never.
I've twice been "sweet-talked" into signing up on the street. The first: Greenpeace. Once I was signed up, they started sending way too much junk mail. And I wasn't really sure I was Greenpeace (or financially well-off) enough to send them money every single month. So I wrote and sent a nice letter and a month or so later was freed. The second: Children International. The dude who talked me into this would NOT take no for an answer. Talk about a pro (conman). It was rather unsettling. I even explained that I was moving into a more expensive apartment and didn't have any money budgeted for extras. His response was something about how we all find ways to shift money for the important things. Really? In retrospect, I'm kind of angered that I relented. A month later I realized I really couldn't afford it, and wrote an email explaining my support of the idea of their foundation, but my inability to continue making contributions. They responded politely and I was let out of the commitment relatively guilt-free. The terrible thing about this case though, is that about a month or two later, I was running out for lunch and that same man confronted me again. He talked his talk, and when he finally paused enough for me to say something, I told him I'd already signed up once but had had to cancel because it was too much. Then he looked pointedly at my really nice jacket and purse (I'm not kidding) with a face full of skepticism.
It's not like anyone's lives are being ruined by having to talk to strangers about whether or not they're willing to donate to a cause. It's just the frustration and endless nature of the whole street fundraising business. In an ideal world, the interaction would be few and far between, and would go smoothly. Something like this:
Dude: Do you care to hear about such-and-such?
Me: Thanks, but not right now.
Dude: OK, here's a pamphlet with more information. Have a great day!
Me: You too!
But I guess in an ideal world, we wouldn't have need for charities, because everyone would be fed, animals would be unharmed and happy, and human rights would be unoppressed.
7 peep(s) talked back:
I'm glad I live in a small enough town that I don't have to deal with them.
Clearly, you and I are just too nice of people to just tell them off and leave. For phone solicitations (from college, etc) I've just been very polite but blunt: "I do not wish to make a contribution at this time." If they push it, I just repeat it. If they push it AGAIN (which the college peeps will try to offer lower donation amounts) I say no again and tell them I'm going to terminate the call. Polite but blunt to save me (and them, frankly) time.
Also, HI ANDRLE! *wave*
HI RICH! :D
Yeah, I've gotten so much better at being forceful on the phone or via email. But in person I'm still just too nice. Maybe I need to start walking around with an intense attitude and act like a punk. I can see it now...
Pfft, women get bored so easily. That can be taken in numerous ways though (far be it for me to want to defend the popped-collared, spray-on-tan axe demographic). "Women are capricious," seems to be the reading that you mentioned in your tweet (I am commenting here since this is where I saw it and plus I cannot comment on twitter.) The ad could also be saying that the viewer is not interesting enough for women, and thus must provide external stimulus.
I must have been sleepy when I wrote that. Many grammatical errors. I should be left for tot.
Yeah, I suppose. But it's still offensive. I'm not generally the kind of person who gets all riled up about things like this, but it hit me hard as way out of line and assumptive. But, maybe the Axe-wearing targeted demographic is only seeking air-headed ladies, in which case, it would be appropriate. However, the malice with which the phrase originally hit cannot be ignored.
you should really try sme ben-ice, just as cooling, but oh so much nicer of an icer. And you seem to have lost the ability to tell when I am baiting you. Or maybe you are falling into a more deadpan bait-and-switch routine, and I just fell for it. (capcha: "matholi." the most numerical of italian treats)
This may be too heartless for Andrle-cita, but how about the traditional headphones defense?
It's not like you have to actually listen to anything. (After all, you'd have to jack the noise up to ridiculous levels to hear anything over street traffic anyway.)
Even when I'm at work and I know I'm supposed to toddle up to people no matter what, I hesitate if they're on a cell phone or wearing headphones.
-Colleen
Post a Comment