I think that to call these charities "useless" is a step too far. They do SOME good, especially in the areas of children being abused and helping children with a wider view of the world than the poverty-ridden, television-indoctrinated rut that they could otherwise be in.

You are right (certainly in the UK and I believe in the USA and Germany, maybe elsewhere) that most of them have feminism entrenched. They may not realise it at the top level, or the top level may be where it starts - I'm not sure. They do little to prevent children from being abused and tend to follow society's lead in driving children toward the more harmful home environments.

Whether a feminist-ridden charity that puts some children more in the way of harm but tries to help all children when they are being abused is a net benefit to society or not, is hard to measure.

The NSPCC are well known for their anti-father attitude.

In the US there have been five million plus children born with a physical dependancy on cocaine due to mothers using it during pregnancy. These withdrawels can kill a child. Some then even give the children crack or cocaine then in tiny amounts to settle it, because it will cry non-stop for weeks while withdrawing otherwise. To date I believe only about six people have been charged with child abuse/endangerment for this. Has you ever heard of it in the news, the media? Of course not. The greatest epidemics of child abuse are all commited by women yet they are all but sanctioned. Abortion and drug use while pregnant being the two most wide-spread examples. A child is more likely to be killed by its own mother than anyone else. These charities are a farce; designed to extract gratuity via propaganda. Reality is irrelevant. Showing big mean men abusing poor widdle women and children evokes a gut reaction in primitive thickheads. These same thickheads vote, and give money.

The deception is calculated. It is not incidental. The predictable behavior of impulse-driven, hairless apes is counted on, and deliberately promoted and rewarded. It is of immense benefit to the state and the elite.

It's true that some of the major children's charities are sexist liars who do more harm than good. The NSPCC are clearly the worst of the lot by far and "useless" is too soft a term to describe them IMO. Here's some rightsofman article on them (none of them written by me):
The Rights Of Man : NSPCC FIGURES SHOW GIRLS MORE LIKELY TO BE PHYSICALLY ABUSED BY THEIR MOTHERS
The Rights Of Man : NSPCC PROPAGANDA INFLUENCES CHILDREN TO THINK MEN ARE SOLE PERPATRATORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The Rights Of Man : NSPCC ADVERT "EMILY'S CALL" BETRAYS FATHERS, GIRLS AND THEIR OWN CHILDLINE FACTS

In the UK the most obvious exception to the rule is Kidscape. Their founder Michelle Elliot has done pioneering work into exposing the problem of female paedophiles over many years and you'll often see her in the media talking absolute sense about all manner of child abuse type issues. She really does get it and realises both the importance of protecting children and also the harm caused by demonising men (for example she was quite vocal on the British Airways seating issue)

They really do care about everyone and unlike the others there's absolutely no hidden agenda at work. Please support Kidscape and encourage others to donate to them as an alternative to all the harmful "charities".

It is not just children's charities that have a lot to answer for.

Government Departments at local and State levels are the main abusers of children. Barely a week goes by here in Oz without a report of a child 'in Care', being sexually / physically abused or prostituted. The 'homes' that children are put into once taken from their parents are often not homes at all but collections of nascent criminals overseen, poorly, by moral criminals.

Yet do we EVER see the buck stopping on a Ministerial desk?

Do we EVER see a senior beaurocrat get her arse hauled into court?

No.

We jail priests but promote civil servants and give enormous pensions and freebies to Politicians.

In Tassie we had a case recently of a 12 y/o girl 'in care' prostituted out - by her mother. The Children's Commissioner ( a man) criticised the Minister (a woman) for failing in her duties. He also criticised the Children's Department, the Police and the main NGO that the girl had been farmed out to. This was in his obligatory, statutory Report.

The Minister promptly sacked him.

The Mother of the girl, who was the instigator and receiver of the money, and a man she had paid to be the pimp, were charged and jailed. Quite right too.

But the mother should never have been allowed to keep in her charge the child who had been 'taken away' from her becuase of her neglect. Here it seems 'being taken into care' means being left with the abuser if ithe abuser is the mother.

The Commissioner demanded (rightly) that the 'punters', all one hundred of them, be identified and charged, but a Police Inquiry was 'stopped' from on high. A lot of digging by the press with the help of a mole found that one of the punters was a local politician, so a court order had been sought by 'Someone' to block the release of the names and drop all charges. The court order is a new breed called a 'Super Injunction'; one which prohibits even the knowledge of the injunction itself and suppression of the name of the person (s) who sought it.

If you want to protect children, shoot a politician a day until one does the job they are paid to do.