I'm not surprised that people put animals over human beings -especially in the UK, where this kind of mental disorder is most common. I remember when the movie Patton came on TV when I was a kid. Everyone was upset when the general shot two donkeys and had them thrown off the side of a bridge. The people who were being slaughtered? Not at all.

My guess is that (in part) it's because people assume that domestic violence victims are somehow cared for by the government. And donkeys are not.

In my own research for something else I've been reminded also of the sheer numbers of little girls who raise money doggedly for animal sanctuaries. Perhaps because it's considered "acceptable" for children to do that, whereas a lemonade stall for battered women would ick some people out.

At my (all girls) school we had to vote once a term to decide which charity we raised money for. If you tried to suggest an AIDS charity, for example, you'd always be drowned out by the voices who wanted the cash to go to the local horse sanctuary.

I'm on a bit of a hobby horse now, but I also learned recently that more and more horses/donkeys are living to greater ages because of improvements in veterinary care. So these sanctuaries are now stuffed to the gills with horses that, twenty years ago, would have been put down or would've clip-clopped off this mortal coil.

Giving to charities is not a zero sum game. While people may give to some more than others, it doesn't mean that they are uncaring or unsympathetic to the other cause.

I'll admit, I like most animals more than I like most people. I am more likely to give my money to animal shelters and animal abuse causes. On the other hand, I'm way more likely to spend my time, energy, and work on women's issues.

Just because I write a check to the SPCA, but donate clothes and hours on the hotline at the DV shelter doesn't mean I don't value women's issues.

I find both the welfare of animals and the welfare of women as important issues. I can find ways to be involved in both without denigrating the other.

I am an Animal Rights activist. I am ALSO a Human/Womens rights activist. It's not the AR activists fault that people do not want to face the issue of violence. Most of the time you can only get people to donate for animals they find cute, so most AR work is left out in the cold as well.
Trying to demonize or ridicule one positive movement will not make people empty their wallets for victims of violence.

I don't think this is about those of us who know about and/or help two kinds of charities at the same time. I think it is a problem of the majority of people not wanting to recognize or admit that DV happens, and that it does not just happen to some "other(ed)" kind of population. Most people I know in the U.S. who are not actively engaged in feminism think of DV as something only drug addicts do (thus it is their own fault) or something only poor people do (again implying it is their own fault) or something that happens to any other population outside of their own safe haven.

Neither cause is more or less important.
Victims of domestic violence are having their societal contracts violated - abide by rules of society and you will have a reasonable life. Society has violated this contract for many people and especially women, even moreso for dv victims.

Likewise we humans have a contract with domesticated animals. We have taken away their ability to live in the wild and now we owe them reasonable lives. We also owe them reasonable ends to their lives with no suffering (which they can't understand). We humans violate this contract in many ways.

I can't put humans ahead of other animals, or other animals ahead of humans. If the donkeys' PR people are better at raising money, then that's where the money goes.

I'm disappointed to read that the author thinks that charitable giving to a donkey rescue is "fucking depressing" because it's greater in amount than what was given to anti-violence causes. This sentiment is elitist and speciest. Men look down on women in the same way. There is a well-established link between violence against animals and violence against women. Until we treat all sentient beings with dignity and respect, we haven't made much progress. I can think of hundreds of things that are more "fucking depressing" than kind people helping donkeys. Come on, now.

I'm disappointed to read that the author thinks that charitable giving to a donkey rescue is "fucking depressing" because it's greater in amount than what was given to anti-violence causes. This sentiment is elitist and speciest. Men look down on women in the same way. There is a well-established link between violence against animals and violence against women. Until we treat all sentient beings with dignity and respect, we haven't made much progress. I can think of hundreds of things that are more "fucking depressing" than kind people helping donkeys. Come on, now.

I highly doubt the difference in donations is due to the public "not caring" about women's shelters. Maybe the donkey sanctuary has more aggressive fundraising campaigns? And like others have said, people can only be so charitable.

I give money to the local Women's Center and time to the local animal rescue group, but does that mean I don't care about, say, diabetes research? No, I simply don't have the resources to "prove my commitment" to every cause.

Well, I'm disappointed that some commentators think this situation is okey-dokey.

Charity giving says a lot about a society's priorities and concerns. Donkeys deserve humane treatment, and deserve to have a sanctuary if they have no responsible owners.

However, take a little gander at these numbers. 12,000 donkeys get 3 million more than 7 million women? That's like saying that each donkey is worth more than 585 abused women.

People spend money on their priorities. They spend it where they think it will get them the most value. And clearly, British society has decided that 12,000 donkeys have more value than 7 million abused women. That's fucked.

Charity giving says a lot about a society's priorities and concerns.

Except that charity is probably distorted by taxation, so in a nation like the UK which has a large public safety net, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about why people give what they do. As was mentioned up-thread, people probably assume that their taxes are already funding DV programs.

Is it really necessary to tear down other causes to promote your own? This total lack of compassion for abused animals and prompted me to make a donation for the Donkey Sanctuary. I had never heard of it before, but I went to there website, and I was really touched by the good work they do:

http://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/site/1/home.html

One person's good cause is another's lost cause. For every sanctuary and shelter and Planned Parenthood, there is someone donating to organizations that work against the very things those sanctuaries, shelters and clinics stand for and in the minds of *both* sides, the other side is evil incarnate, pitiful and just plain wrong.

Donate to what appeals to you and in the end of the day, you will be able to look yourself in the eye. Just because you don't agree with someone else's decisions on where to donate their time and money does not make it less worthwhile or needed.

What's really depressing is more than half of these comments.

Wow, not surprising coming from a country that has single digit conviction rates for rapists.
I don't think animals should be mistreated but, the person saying that the article is "speciest" really needs to get off their elitist pedestal. Millions of PEOPLE around the world are being trafficked, abused, raped, tortured and used like animals. It is fucking depressing that animals are treated better then women pretty much across the globe. MEH!

Calling attention to speciesm equates to looking downward from an elitist pedestal? That doesn't even make sense. The unjustified feeling of superiority is, at its very core, elitist.

Racists are people who think that the members of their race are superior to the members of other races simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") race. Sexists believe that the members of their sex are superior to the members of the opposite sex simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") sex. Both racism and sexism are paradigms of unsupportable bigotry. There is no "superior" or "inferior" sex or race. Racial and sexual differences are biological, not moral, differences.

The same is true of speciesism -- the view that members of the species Homo sapiens are superior to members of every other species simply because human beings belong to one's own (the "superior") species. For there is no "superior" species. To think otherwise is to be no less predjudiced than racists or sexists.

Billions of animals are raised and killed in torturous conditions -- from life until death -- so that humans can use them however we see fit. How many women in this world are being raised in cramped quarters and then killed so that their flesh can be eaten? Everyone on this blog knows that women still have a long way to go to achieve equality, but we don't have nearly the uphill battle that animals do.

All violence, all elitism, all suppression -- is interrelated. No one is ever truly free so long as others are oppressed.