Humanism Now | Secular Ethics, Curiosity and Compassionate Change

43. Katherine Lacefield on Moving from Confrontation to Connection & Campaigning for Causes that Welcome Everyone

• Humanise Live | Hosted by James Hodgson • Season 1 • Episode 43

Share episode

"Compassion has no borders"  - Katherine Lacefield

Katherine Lacefield—founder of Just Be Cause Consulting—shares why swapping confrontational animal-rights tactics for compassion-first community building creates deeper, lasting change for animals, people and the planet.

Connect with Katherine

Topics we cover

 ✔︎ From “I hate people” to human-centred advocacy
 ✔︎ Closing the values–action gap
 ✔︎ Why confrontation backfires—and what works instead
 ✔︎ One Health: linking human, animal & environmental wellbeing
 ✔︎ Letting go of perfectionism in activism

Resources & further reading

Send us a text

Support the show


Support Humanism Now & Join Our Community!

Advertising Opportunities

Follow Humanism Now @HumanismNowPod

This Podcast is produced by Humanise Live. Humanise Live makes podcasting easy for charities and social causes.

Contact us to get starting in podcasting today at www.humanise.live or hello@humanise.live

Music: Blossom by Light Prism

James Hodgson:

Today, we'll be discussing choosing causes, measuring impact and building sustainable, supportive communities. K atherine Lathfield, thank you so much for joining us on Humanism Now.

Katherine Lacefield :

My pleasure. I'm excited to dive in.

James Hodgson:

Wonderful. So, as mentioned, you've had quite an impressive career in charity campaigning, fundraising and activism, and I guess now more from listening to where you are currently community building. So I'd love to understand your route initially to getting into the charity space. What appealed to you about being an activist and being a campaigner?

Katherine Lacefield :

That's a long story but I'll try to summarize it as much as possible. From a very young age I was very involved in social causes. So in my school program we had to make that connection to social causes in every single project we did, be it almost from like math all the way to like history, and how does that affect our day to day. So of course, that was that made me very sensitive to social topics like climate change, the environment, animal welfare, animal rights, human rights, etc. So from a very young age I started volunteering with different organizations and getting involved with my community and as things evolved, so at the tender age of 15, I got to watch firsthand one of the famous animal cruelty videos by PETA and, of course, felt like a complete hypocrite of how can I say I love animals when I'm directly supporting these industries? So I decided that day to become vegetarian, to the very sad mother that had to now cook vegetarian food for me. So, anyways, that was a bit that caused conflicts we can start right there with my family of I started having to almost fight for what I wanted to eat. I ended up having to cook for myself.

Katherine Lacefield :

So right away when I started getting into more of the activist space. It caused some conflict with my family and with my friends of having to constantly defend why we're making these decisions, but that didn't deter me. I continued being that social activist throughout my high school and then throughout what we call CGEB or college in Quebec, and more and more I was getting involved into the activist space and I went from working in an animal welfare charity so a local animal shelter and I felt this hypocrisy once again where on the one hand, people would cry and be so distraught about us having to euthanize kittens because of lack of space, but then on their lunch hour would be eating meat and animal products. And I started feeling this big confrontation of how can we be so hypocritical? And that got me very angry and that's what led me to start working for an animal rights organization which I felt was more aligned with my values.

Katherine Lacefield :

So that was how I shifted away from animal welfare into animal rights and once you get into that world you're just surrounded by people who share those values. So it builds you up onto this breed. I would almost say it's a very angry space of needing to fight people that don't necessarily agree with what you're fighting for.

James Hodgson:

Yeah, and it's interesting. I think there are definitely uses of anger. It's not a negative in itself, but I know you've taken somewhat of a shift in your approach throughout your career. Now you take more of a different approach, more of one of a bridge builder, community builder and trying to reach across the aisle. What instigated that shift for you, and do you still see a role for anger and some element of righteousness in putting forward the campaigns that you want to change people's minds on?

Katherine Lacefield :

It's definitely a delicate balance to find and I'll give you a couple examples. So one even before I started being animal rights, when I was working in an animal shelter, one of the sentences that we could hear the most often in the shelter was I hate people, and especially in the animal and I would say even environmental spaces, when we're trying to protect something from humans, right. So there's this big gap and distinction of humans are bad and we're trying to protect what is good or what we want to protect, which is the environment and animals.

Katherine Lacefield :

So there's this huge gap and after hearing that sentence enough times, it got me to realize wait a second here, like I'm a human, all of us that are working here busting our butts if I can go straight to save these animals, we're all humans. Our donors are humans, our volunteers, our foster families, our adopters the list goes on of how many amazing humans are actually helping us accomplish our mission. So I ended up creating this mural of photos of all the happy endings of animals that were being fostered or being adopted. I took them live like at the counter at the shelter and I transformed it into a fundraiser. And that mural stayed in the foster family office for I don't even know how many years, but it got people to realize you can't hate people when you're trying to make a social change, because if you hate people, you're pushing them away and you're not allowing them to join the movement. So that was before I got involved in extreme activism, if I could say. But it's still. That's a big memory of mine of how I was able to shift that perspective of I don't hate humans, I don't hate who we are and the amazing things we're doing. So that really gave me kind of more faith, if I could say into we can actually change it if we change our perspective. So that was one of the shifts that got me thinking about it. But then I got involved in the more I would say extreme, and extreme not in the sterling bad way, just it was a very all or nothing vision. Animals should never be used or exploited for human benefits. That was the perspective, the vegan animal rights perspective. And I do believe that when you're fighting against an industry, so this is not a person, you're fighting against an industry that bottom line is about making profits. You're not talking about the individuals, you're talking about the company, which is its own entity.

Katherine Lacefield :

I do believe that having that frustration, that anger at a system that continuously exploits this is not just for animals. There's systems that exploit humans, there's systems that exploit children, the systems themselves. Yes, I think frustration has its place trying to change that system. But when you're trying to fight with an individual, when you're trying to fight them, I think that just causes more defensiveness. They'll push back and they'll just try to protect themselves, which doesn't lead to the solutions that we're looking for. So, to answer your question, that frustration, that anger can act as a motivation to get people to take action.

Katherine Lacefield :

I do agree, but in the term of you're doing this against people, trying to convince people or trying to inspire people, which I believe is much more useful. You can't have that confrontational approach because you're just pushing people away. So when you're trying to create a movement, people need to feel welcomed. If they don't, if they feel like you're attacking them because you're not perfect enough or you're not good enough, that just pushes people away. But when we're talking about the industry, we're not attacking an individual. So we can use that frustration more in that sense than we could. If we're trying to fight, let's say, against a CEO, then we would probably take a different approach.

James Hodgson:

I guess, the contradictions that exist within this as well, which is, yes, it is. I totally accept, and I think most people would agree with the distinguishing between the systems and the individuals and certainly trying to bring people into your movement. But systems are made up of individuals and so you do have to engage with people and a lot of their identity, their livelihoods, may be tied up within that system. They may be remunerated or get some purpose out of ensuring that system persists or develops in some way. So I guess how do you approach there, as you say, that balance of demonstrating the frustration at the system, the anger at the system, whilst trying to be collaborative and bring people along with you who might be in there? Does that involve sort of shifting, changing the type of argument that you make to them? To put it more in terms that's going to be beneficial to them?

Katherine Lacefield :

Exactly. You definitely have to. First of all, you have to stop talking and you have to start listening. A lot of times, we have this vision that the people that don't agree with us must be these evil psychopaths that just want to hurt or cause harm, especially in I'm talking about in the charitable sector. Right, so this industry, anyone that works in the farming industry, must be a psychopath that wants to abuse animals, Whereas that's evidently not true. You can't have so many people working in industry. Then they all be psychopaths.

Katherine Lacefield :

There's issues that go so much further into it, and this is where the system yes, it's made up of individuals, but those individuals might not feel like they have a role to play or that they understand the larger systems and how they can actually change anything. How many times have I heard well, does it make a difference what I do? Everyone feels that it doesn't matter if I drive my car alone, like it's just one car. But then, obviously, if you multiply that by all of the people that are thinking the same thing, yes, there is an issue, but we have to understand that there is a small portion of people at the top in these big industries that are making those big decisions. Everyone else. That is part of it. I do believe that they're just pawns to a certain degree in the system, but they have a role to play as well. The pawns can still move, they can still make changes and once you start getting them to understand, okay, this is why we believe this way and why do you feel this way.

Katherine Lacefield :

And I actually remember very clearly, when I was doing fundraising for the animal rights organization, this man that I called his wife had actually forced him to sign our petition. So it wasn't even him that had wanted to sign the petition against puppy mills, and puppy mills is pretty safe topic. It's dogs, people like dogs. But we ended up talking about veganism. I don't feel comfortable supporting an organization that is pro vegan, because I'm not vegan and I actually work in the dairy industry. And I was like okay, let's unpack that. And we started having a conversation. I was like you know, what we're trying to understand here is why does it have to be in such cruel conditions? And like the welfare of the animals? And he was like no, I agree with you on that. Like it's, definitely there could be things that can be improved. I'm like, okay, so then we do have common ground here.

Katherine Lacefield :

We both agree that In an ideal world, the animals would be well treated or better treated. At least Can we agree on that? Yes, okay. And what about the conditions of the humans working in the industry? They ended up. A lot of them are in horrible conditions as well. That was another point in common. So instead of me saying, oh, you don't care about animals, you're a horrible person, we started trying to find those points of connection where we can actually both agree on certain points. I do believe that humans are inherently wanting to find a good solution that works for the most amount of people. I do believe maybe it's a bit naive, but I do believe that most people have good in them and that they would like to do what's considered the right thing. What we have to understand is that the right thing might be very different for different people, depending on where they grew up, how they grew up, what they work in and what they've been taught, and that is not necessarily their fault if we could say it's just different systems.

James Hodgson:

Yeah, and it sounds like what you're saying as well. For the majority of people, they may not even be aware of the impact of some of their actions, or even if they are, they might feel powerless within the system. So does your work entail a lot of empowerment of individuals to make some of these changes, that then, lots of small changes, can have that larger impact going forward?

Katherine Lacefield :

I think that it's hard because, yes, I do believe and I would like to believe that every individual has power to change. But we have to be honest that the bigger players so the industries, the companies, they do have the most potential for. But what I see as the individual power is if you start changing your own behavior, for me I see the exponential power. I'll take my own family as an example, where I was that annoying 15 year old, as I mentioned earlier, that was fighting to become vegetarian. Fast forward another 15 years. My sister's vegetarian. My brother is vegan. He's with another vegan girl. They're super environmentally friendly and conscious.

Katherine Lacefield :

I'm not saying I wouldn't be, I was, I planted that seed, but I would say I did. And so I think that when we live by what we feel is right and when we show the example in an inspiring way and would become that role model for other people, that's where I believe the exponential power comes from and I do believe that people will follow what they consider is the right thing to do with others. And in fundraising it goes the same way. And there's actually I'll share this funny story. It was actually based in the UK where someone was hired a copywriter was hired to change the letter that they sent to people who didn't pay their taxes and they they said please, we want you to improve this letter because we want to get more people to pay their taxes. So he changed one sentence and it was the majority of UK citizens pay their taxes on time and it worked, and this goes to show that people want to do what is considered the right thing to do. For others.

Katherine Lacefield :

I'm not saying every single person. My husband definitely doesn't agree with that. He likes being the black sheep, but the majority of people will follow what is considered the right thing to do. So if you become that example of yeah, I started reducing my meat consumption because it does cause a lot of damage to the environment. It's very resource intensive, so I started switching. Then if you're this like big bulky farmer guy that's saying that, then your big bulky farmer guy friends are going to say, oh, then it is something that could be possible for me. Maybe I'll think about it now because you're like me and that seems like a valid argument. So that inspirational tone of inviting people to meet you where they can leads to more and more steps in that direction. If you ask someone to go from couch potato to running a marathon, that's too big of a gap. You have to understand that there's a training process and that happens with social causes as well.

James Hodgson:

And that happens with social causes as well. No-transcript completely different than I do. But from their point of view they consider themselves a good person. So how do I appeal to their good nature to get them to change their mind? But I do encounter a lot of occasions where people say that they don't accept that they really don't. It really is sort of moral that they're immorally wrong or that they think the other person's intentions are bad faith, bad natured. And maybe we can be naive on the humanistic side. Maybe there aren't some that have bad intentions for sure. How do you?

Katherine Lacefield :

There's definitely some yes exactly so how do you, as someone who's really active in this space, active in the industry of changing hearts and minds, do you have any systems or techniques that you use to assess where someone's at to think is this a person that is at least worth engaging with, or know when probably this is, you need to put up a boundary of course you have to put boundaries and as someone who I did street fundraising, so I was that annoying person on the street that said, hey, do you have two minutes for green peas or whatever it was in my case it was for animal rights and I've had people that would literally come up to me and spit on me and say, how dare you be here protecting animals when there are children dying because of the war in Syria at the time? So those people that start with a confrontation, then I'm always the nice person who will like take a pause and I won't react. I won't go back into feeding that fire. I'll say I'm sorry you feel that way. I wish I could defend all the causes. But if they're not open to engaging in conversation, then I think that's when you have to protect yourself and put up a boundary. But imagine the opposite situation, where a vegan or an animal rights activist or environmental activist comes up to you and starts yelling in your face that you're a horrible person because you're driving a Hummer. Do you think that's going to lead to a healthy conversation?

Katherine Lacefield :

So both sides need to understand that the tactics we use to engage with people will greatly influence how the other person reacts and then engages with your cause. And this is where I think the ego has a huge role to play, where I've seen people, even in the face of proof of these confrontational tactics, push people away. They do not lead to behavior change. They lead to people increasing their negative behavior almost just out of spite. So if you start, look and this is like studies that have been done on this on like it actually gets people to do the opposite of what you want. So if your goal as an activist or as a change maker or whatever it is to get people to change their behavior, if you know that by being confrontational you're pushing these people to do the opposite, where's the logic of continuing these confrontational tactics? There is none. And in reverse, of course, you have to understand that if you're engaging with someone that is in this confrontation, then it's just going to lead to more and more frustration, which leads to a further divide between those two people, which is not how you're going to engage in conversation, like that initial guy that I had talked to I forgot his name because it's been years but what if I had said how could you want to support the dairy industry? Want to support the dairy industry. How, if I started with an angry, we never would have ended up having a 30-minute conversation where, by the way, he ended up donating and then he donated again six months later and then he became a monthly donor six months later.

Katherine Lacefield :

Yes, it takes time, it takes patience and it takes the person who wants to enact the change like, unfortunately. Maybe we have to carry that weight of calming down and trying to see okay, how can I engage with this person? But obviously, if it doesn't work, if you see that the person is defensive, take a pause. Let them express themselves. Let's try to see okay, I understand, I understand where you're coming from. And then, once they feel understood, usually people will calm down and you'll able to have a conversation.

James Hodgson:

But that's not what most people do, no, and I imagine most people who get into activism or want to campaign for a specific cause, they'll do it because they're very passionate about it, and it may well be that particular issue is existential to them, particularly when we talk about climate, of course, and some of the larger issues in the world. So that's going to be incredibly difficult then to lower your own emotions about that topic. But what advice would you give to someone you know to to make that shift instinct, maybe going back to the point of anger emotion, because it must be hard to say. We can all understand that, yes, the data says if you take this approach you will change more minds, but in the moment and when things feel very immediate as well, attention and I guess a release of the frustration must be a more appealing immediate solution oh, yes, it feels great on the moment, but the way I've tried to think about it is if you actually care or and I'm not.

Katherine Lacefield :

This is not to judge people that react that way, because I do understand where they're coming from. Like I've worked in an animal shelter where we've had to euthanize sometimes 50 animals in a day. Like being the person that stands next to these animals as they're dying is extremely frustrating. And then, yes, you leave and you're like how dare you abandon your animal here? How dare you? But when you take the time to try to understand, okay, if we actually want to stop this from happening, we actually want to stop climate change, if we actually want to get people to change their behaviors, and we know, like you say, rationally, that's the way to go.

Katherine Lacefield :

It's a lot about your self-development, I believe, like what helped me a lot and I will give a little shout out to my husband. He taught me a lot about meditation and calming down, really tapping into the energy that you're doing. When it's an angry energy, it just harms us most and it will definitely harm our cause most of the time. So I try to remember that whenever I think about how I'm going to react, I try to think how would I have liked someone to react with me, how did I get involved in the cause? And then just tuning it out, calming down, breathing. It sounds simple. I know it sounds simple, but it really does help to just relax and just try to find the things that help you.

Katherine Lacefield :

But of course, I need my venting circle. I need my couple people that are in the animal welfare space where we can just get together and vent, but between us, where it's not venting out to the public, it's venting between us of yes, there's frustrations, we can laugh about it, but then when we're dealing with actually trying to change people's minds, we can't have that energy, it doesn't work. To change people's minds, we can't have that energy. It doesn't work. And so I really try to tap into that whenever I'm thinking about why am I doing this? It's because I actually want to make a change, or it's because I think I'm a better person and so I'm allowed getting mad at everyone else, and so that's where it becomes like the collective effort versus my individual self and what I need to feel good about who I am.

James Hodgson:

I think that's a very important message that we can all reflect on, I think, with the class of debates that are happening. So I know that you now have built a career advising charities, good causes, and helping them to be more effective, to get their message across and to build their communities and support and we're all about building those positive communities here at Humanism Now. So I wondered, have you used your analytical experience as well? When you're working with charities and choosing causes that you're going to support, do you take an analytical approach or is it more built on passion when you think, when you're looking to be effective?

Katherine Lacefield :

For sure. I think this is where, when you mentioned like that passion, that drive comes really into play around motivation, right. So if I'm in, I'm working with an animal or environmental cause, I'll just be more into it. It'll be funner for me. I'll enjoy it more than no offense. If I'm working for a theater, I don't, it's not my thing, so I'll be less passionate. I'll be also less connected. I'm very connected in the animal environmental world, so so I have more information. It's also just more efficient way of using my time than when I have to completely learn a new industry, a new sector. It's just much more time consuming.

Katherine Lacefield :

So I really do try to focus my efforts on a certain aspect of the philanthropic space. But that doesn't mean that I still work with children's organizations. Even if I'm not a psychopath, I do care about children as well. It's just that I have less experience in that field. But after a couple years now I've accumulated my own type of experience in that space.

Katherine Lacefield :

Would that mean that I'm the best person for that charity in, let's say, completely out of right field? No, and that's where I also have to make that decision around. Okay, yes, it might be a big contract, but am I really the best person for this charity? Maybe not, because maybe there's someone else out there that has a bit less experience but are super passionate and they understand the art sector or they understand how a hospital foundation works and that that drive, that interest in care, is going to get them to be more interested and to give their all.

Katherine Lacefield :

So I do believe that passion has a huge role to play in that aspect of fundraising, especially because fundraising is 100 an emotional action. People do not donate out of rationality. If not we wouldn't have social issues, because people would understand the need to invest in social charity and they would be rational about their decisions and everyone would be happy. But that's not how fundraising works. Fundraising is emotional and so if I'm unable to feel emotional about the cause, how am I supposed to transmit that to a population? I can't tap into the motivation of a certain disease if I've never lived that reality. The messaging won't be as authentic feeling if it comes from someone who just doesn't care as much.

James Hodgson:

And I think there's a lot in that as well of also accepting that someone else might feel very passionate about another cause and that doesn't mean that they're necessarily belittling your cause in a way. But we should all be free to put forward and work on the areas that we're most passionate about and hopefully that has a cumulative effect on creating a better world overall, but with your focus particularly in the animal cruelty space. Have you found there's any particular unique challenges for fundraising when it comes to animal and environmental issues versus, as you say, more of the human related causes?

Katherine Lacefield :

There's a few, and I think it really does depend on also legislation and how charities are organized or registered or work in different countries. So I'll give you a very specific example in Canada, where up until relatively recently so it was in 2018 that they changed the law but anything that was considered like political action so anywhere where we talk about activism that was not considered charitable. So when you're trying to fight to change legislation, you're considered not a charitable activity, so you couldn't benefit from the same charitable, like tax receipts and charitable benefits of applying for grants, because you weren't registered, because you weren't a lot. You were not allowed because of your activities. So that limited the industry a lot for many years. And when you're fighting against animal cruelty or for environmental protection, you're usually fighting against existing legislation because usually legislation is not in the favor of the environment or of animals. So that caused a lot of conflicts and limitations for the sector, which are still felt today, because most other charities have dozens and dozens of years of experience as a charity versus other ones that were considered not as legitimate because they didn't weren't able to get that. That like certification.

Katherine Lacefield :

So that's one number two is this feeling of it being in humans or animals, instead of us being able to be humans and animals, or and environment. We have this dichotomy of, as if it's against each other, that if you care about animals you don't care about humans, and if you care about the environment it's because you don't care about the economy. For example, we have this very dualistic vision of how charity works, whereas I believe that there's a huge interconnection between all of these causes. Human health depends very much on our environmental health, even if we can think about from a an animal agriculture perspective. If the animals are in better shape, they're healthier, they're not stressed, they're feeling better, the meat that you're going to be consuming is going to be better for you. So there's always this connection to these causes and the human component, but people tend to still have this vision that it's that one or the other, and that is something that actually, on my own podcast, I talk about a lot about the interconnection between these causes and we can't separate. But to go back to that story of that man who spat on me of like how dare you be protecting animals instead of children, we have this vision still of almost being like you're either the crazy cat lady or you care about humans. And that is so far from the truth. And more and more we're seeing that animal organizations and environmental organizations are making those connections with human well-being, animal well-being and environmental well-being. The whole one health movement is really building up that connection. So I would say those are two big factors that I would say.

Katherine Lacefield :

A third one that I find funny is around the fact, the sad truth, that a lot of people that go into animal cruelty organizations, they do tend to prefer animals over people. So that is a truth to a certain degree. I have noticed that it is true to a certain degree. That doesn't mean that they hate humans, but it is true. And what that does is that, because they focus so much on the animals, is that they tend to have a harder time building relationships with their donors, with their community, which creates this negative feedback loop where people are like, yes, I want to participate, I want to donate, and then they never hear back because they're like I'm so focused on making sure that these animals are okay that I'm not taking care of the human component. So I would say that's the third one that I think is changing, but from my experience in it, that's been a bit of a challenge.

James Hodgson:

And what's your view on secular humanist organizations, both in terms of whether you feel they're doing enough to incorporate environmental and animal cruelty related topics, and do you think actually we should be looking to expand, as they say, expand our moral circle and include animals more within humanist campaigning?

Katherine Lacefield :

I definitely think that we should expand. I believe that there's this beautiful quote I have it on my ipad. That's right over there is sometimes those that can teach us so much about what it means to be human are not human themselves. And I do believe that compassion has no borders, like we need to learn how to be more compassionate toward everything, because we live in a system and if you ever notice the healing powers of animals on people, we can know that the connection, the human animal bond, goes so much deeper than people can understand.

Katherine Lacefield :

They've even shown how when someone loses their pet, it's in many cases worse than losing a family member, because that animal, that companion, has been by your side, physically, literally, usually by your side for its entire life. You are their entire world. So that connection is really strong. So I do believe that animals make us better, like I love animals so much in the sense that they make us better humans. I do believe if we could be more like our dog, we would be in a much better situation in the world. Cats as well. Cats have their own temperaments. We love them as well. But, yeah, I think that building those relationships, understanding the interconnection, would just open up more horizons of action as well and you mentioned the one health movement.

James Hodgson:

Would you mind just expanding on that and explaining what that is for our listeners?

Katherine Lacefield :

so the one health movement really is trying to showcase how, for every sector of our society to work, we need to work together. So there there's. It's usually about combining the human component, environmental component and animal component. So let's say, when we're thinking about climate change, let's talk about that for a second.

Katherine Lacefield :

Climate change doesn't isn't just about the fact that we're losing our forests. It directly impacts the species, of course, that are dependent on those resources to survive. And then what does that happen? Lack of biodiversity will create environmental damage, which will create lack, imbalance in ecosystems, which, of course, then ends up affecting human health if we lack natural resources, like we used to. So it's about understanding the connection between all of those parts and that we can't separate them. You can't have a healthy human society if you don't have a healthy environmental society, if you don't have a healthy environmental society. And animals obviously are part of that, because animals are a very intricate part of every single part of our economy and our world. So that's where the One Health movement comes. It's about seeing how we can partner and work together instead of fighting of no. We care about the animals and we care about the environment, we care about people. We need to work together, and it'll be much more efficient and successful if we do.

James Hodgson:

And if listeners would like to find out more about your work or they get some advice on fundraising and expanding their reach, how can they get in touch with you? And perhaps if you could just tell us a little bit more about what you do at Just Because Consulting, I want to make sure I'm pronouncing that correctly as well.

Katherine Lacefield :

Just Because, yes, my mom came up with that. My mom is amazing at coming up with names, so yeah, so you can always find me at justbecauseconsulting so that's my website. I mostly do fundraising, so anything to do with helping you be more efficient and find the best fundraising strategies for your organization, your capacity, your team. So I'm really good at building up fundraising strategies, building up prospect lists or even just getting you to get finally on board with a monthly giving program. So there's many things that we can talk about as well. I'm very active on LinkedIn, so you can always find me, Katherine Lacefield, on LinkedIn. I'm very active there. Send me an invite and we'll have a chat, no problem, I'm very open to having conversations with people and if you want to hear more about fundraising strategies and tactics and especially the whole intersectionality between causes, you can always check out my podcast, which is the Just Because podcast Very simple.

James Hodgson:

Listen to that one as soon as you finished listening to this episode of Humanism. Now, but just before we go, Katherine, Katherine, our standard closing question what's something that you've changed your mind on recently and what inspired that change?

Katherine Lacefield :

recently. So I had a. It's not very recently, but I want to talk about that one because I think it was important. So I used to be a crazy vegan and I stopped because it was harm, causing me more harm to myself and not allowing me to move forward in my own goals and my own physical well-being, which I never thought I would go back on.

Katherine Lacefield :

And I think I've since then had so many conversations with people that have had to be hiding who they were and hiding and pretending and trying to be these perfect people, and so I want to share with this that you don't have to be perfect, like we don't have to be hiding who they were and hiding and pretending and trying to be these perfect people.

Katherine Lacefield :

And so I want to share with this that you don't have to be perfect, like we don't have to be perfect in any cause that we're defending. Do the best you can and do what feels right. Of course, there's limits, but you do have to respect your own boundaries, and just wanted to share that with anyone. I'm probably going to get hated on You're a hypocrite, I get it, but I need to share this because so many people have come to me and said I have been hiding that I am not a hundred percent vegan. It's not the end of the world. I think it's about doing our best and moving towards a system that allows everyone to do what they need to do to feel better about themselves.

James Hodgson:

Well, that also includes the animals. Keep up the great work, Katherine. Thank you so much for everything that you do, and thank you for joining us on Humanism Now.

Katherine Lacefield :

And thank you very much for listening my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.

James Hodgson:

If you like the show, please do leave us a rating and review. It really helps to help others find the podcast. If you'd be so kind to also support us on Patreon it helps us expand what we do and you can follow us on all social media at humanismnowpod.

People on this episode

Head Shot

James Hodgson

Host
Head Shot

Katherine Lacefield

Guest

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.

What I Believe Artwork

What I Believe

Humanists UK