4 ms·

Yes, boys are worthless. The reason the article cites for educating girls is that then they'll have fewer kids, especially fewer boys who could end up making tr

Yes, boys are worthless. The reason the article cites for educating girls is that then they'll have fewer kids, especially fewer boys who could end up making trouble. And frankly the specific organizations for sending girls to school make me feel uneasy. I hope similar organizations exist for boys? I am sure there are lots of bright boys in the world who also can't afford an education. Why make it gender specific? Why not just sponsor kids education, irrespective of gender? I could imagine in some countries it is more difficult to send girls to school than boys. But a "send kids to school" organization could simply spend more effort there to send the girls to school. No need to make a "girls education" organization.

seanccox 12y ago
There is a need for "girls education" organizations. How else do you propose humanity overcome the statistically significant difference between the number of girls being educated and the number of boys? Girls aren't getting special treatment, they are being singled out for specific support to overcome patriarchy(ies) that would keep them undereducated, isolated, and disenfranchised from power. That isn't an issue that a "send kids to school" organization would be addressing.
- facepalm 12y ago
  I don't think those patriarchy issues or whatever are any consolidation for a boy who can't afford to go to school. Why does he deserve less help than a girl? It's not his fault if fewer girls are being educated.
- hueving 12y ago
  You missed the latter part. They would focus on girl shortages where it was relevant and general shortages in other places.
hessenwolf 12y ago
"You educate a boy, and he’ll have fewer children, but it’s a small effect. You educate a girl, and, on average, she will have a significantly smaller family." Limited resources, maximise the effect. Also, the girls go on to be the caregivers traditionally, meaning the education has a knock-on effect. Thinking long term.
- facepalm 12y ago
  "Also, the girls go on to be the caregivers traditionally" Not if they are educated, presumably. Or if so, then maybe the education was wasted after all? The logic of the article is to educate girls so that they have fewer children. And why shouldn't educated boys take care to educate their offspring?
- Dewie 12y ago
  > Also, the girls go on to be the caregivers traditionally, meaning the education has a knock-on effect. Thinking long term. - "We must help these women more, because they must overcome the expectations of <gender stereotype>." - "We must help these women more, because it would be more useful since they are <gender stereotype>." Gender stereotypes: both oppressive and useful, depending on what you want to sell.
icebraining 12y ago
I could imagine in some countries it is more difficult to send girls to school than boys. But a "send kids to school" organization could simply spend more effort there to send the girls to school. So your suggestion is that they could do the same as they're doing now, but pretend otherwise?
- facepalm 12y ago
  No - they should simply aim to give all kids a good education. For some kids it takes more effort than for other kids. No need to differentiate by gender. Suppose there was an organization that only sent boys to school. Now if for one boy it is very cheap to go to school, and for one boy it is expensive (maybe he lives further away or he is poorer or whatever), should the organization only send the boy to school for whom it is cheap? I think the organization should try to help both boys. Likewise an organization that helps kids should help both boys and girls, no matter if helping one gender is more difficult than helping the other gender. Suppose you are in hospital with cancer. Should they deny you treatment because other men only need a cheap circumcision? What does the illness of any other man or woman have to do with your specific problem?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Camfed actually also helps boys. The thing is, when the disparities in school attendance are so great (7:1 in some places), because families almost always choose them when they can't afford to send all children to school, claiming to be gender agnostic would be almost ridiculous.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      Perhaps families make those choices because it is more efficient to send boys to school? If you can only afford to educate one of your kids, educating the girl might be less efficient because she might end up being a mother and unable to put her education to good use. So they would be acting with the same logic as the "girls education" organizations. Those are the results if you go by efficiency, rather than equality. Maybe some other solutions could be found, for example "we pay for your boy's education, but only if you also let us educate your girls". In any case, I think if an organization also helps boys, it shouldn't claim to be a "help the girls" organization.

seanccox 12y ago

There is a need for "girls education" organizations. How else do you propose humanity overcome the statistically significant difference between the number of girls being educated and the number of boys? Girls aren't getting special treatment, they are being singled out for specific support to overcome patriarchy(ies) that would keep them undereducated, isolated, and disenfranchised from power. That isn't an issue that a "send kids to school" organization would be addressing.

facepalm 12y ago
I don't think those patriarchy issues or whatever are any consolidation for a boy who can't afford to go to school. Why does he deserve less help than a girl? It's not his fault if fewer girls are being educated.
hueving 12y ago
You missed the latter part. They would focus on girl shortages where it was relevant and general shortages in other places.

hessenwolf 12y ago

"You educate a boy, and he’ll have fewer children, but it’s a small effect. You educate a girl, and, on average, she will have a significantly smaller family." Limited resources, maximise the effect. Also, the girls go on to be the caregivers traditionally, meaning the education has a knock-on effect. Thinking long term.

facepalm 12y ago
"Also, the girls go on to be the caregivers traditionally" Not if they are educated, presumably. Or if so, then maybe the education was wasted after all? The logic of the article is to educate girls so that they have fewer children. And why shouldn't educated boys take care to educate their offspring?
Dewie 12y ago
> Also, the girls go on to be the caregivers traditionally, meaning the education has a knock-on effect. Thinking long term. - "We must help these women more, because they must overcome the expectations of <gender stereotype>." - "We must help these women more, because it would be more useful since they are <gender stereotype>." Gender stereotypes: both oppressive and useful, depending on what you want to sell.

icebraining 12y ago

I could imagine in some countries it is more difficult to send girls to school than boys. But a "send kids to school" organization could simply spend more effort there to send the girls to school. So your suggestion is that they could do the same as they're doing now, but pretend otherwise?

facepalm 12y ago
No - they should simply aim to give all kids a good education. For some kids it takes more effort than for other kids. No need to differentiate by gender. Suppose there was an organization that only sent boys to school. Now if for one boy it is very cheap to go to school, and for one boy it is expensive (maybe he lives further away or he is poorer or whatever), should the organization only send the boy to school for whom it is cheap? I think the organization should try to help both boys. Likewise an organization that helps kids should help both boys and girls, no matter if helping one gender is more difficult than helping the other gender. Suppose you are in hospital with cancer. Should they deny you treatment because other men only need a cheap circumcision? What does the illness of any other man or woman have to do with your specific problem?
- icebraining 12y ago
  Camfed actually also helps boys. The thing is, when the disparities in school attendance are so great (7:1 in some places), because families almost always choose them when they can't afford to send all children to school, claiming to be gender agnostic would be almost ridiculous.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    Perhaps families make those choices because it is more efficient to send boys to school? If you can only afford to educate one of your kids, educating the girl might be less efficient because she might end up being a mother and unable to put her education to good use. So they would be acting with the same logic as the "girls education" organizations. Those are the results if you go by efficiency, rather than equality. Maybe some other solutions could be found, for example "we pay for your boy's education, but only if you also let us educate your girls". In any case, I think if an organization also helps boys, it shouldn't claim to be a "help the girls" organization.