4 ms·

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

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

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.