2 ms·

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. Supp

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.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Perhaps families make those choices because it is more efficient to send boys to school? I'm sure they do. Nobody is trying to demonize families and claim they hate their girls. In fact, Camfed itself says that the reason boys are chosen is simply because they're more likely to find a job after graduation. 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". Yes, if the organization had unlimited resources, I'm sure they would be glad to pay for every child's education. That's not the reality, though, so they have to prioritize by focusing on those who wouldn't get an education otherwise. And for the most part, that's girls. In any case, I think if an organization also helps boys, it shouldn't claim to be a "help the girls" organization. Seems like a pedantic objection to me.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      "Seems like a pedantic objection to me." Well it's a different kind of signal to send out, "girls matter" vs "kids matter". The article here goes even farther by saying the number of boys in existence should be reduced by educating girls. I'm just saying how I feel about it. I wouldn't donate to a "help the girls" cause, but to a "help the kids" cause. But presumably the charities themselves know how to rake in the most bucks. So perhaps girls work better.

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.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Perhaps families make those choices because it is more efficient to send boys to school? I'm sure they do. Nobody is trying to demonize families and claim they hate their girls. In fact, Camfed itself says that the reason boys are chosen is simply because they're more likely to find a job after graduation. 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". Yes, if the organization had unlimited resources, I'm sure they would be glad to pay for every child's education. That's not the reality, though, so they have to prioritize by focusing on those who wouldn't get an education otherwise. And for the most part, that's girls. In any case, I think if an organization also helps boys, it shouldn't claim to be a "help the girls" organization. Seems like a pedantic objection to me.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    "Seems like a pedantic objection to me." Well it's a different kind of signal to send out, "girls matter" vs "kids matter". The article here goes even farther by saying the number of boys in existence should be reduced by educating girls. I'm just saying how I feel about it. I wouldn't donate to a "help the girls" cause, but to a "help the kids" cause. But presumably the charities themselves know how to rake in the most bucks. So perhaps girls work better.