Would you consider someone who only helps disadvantaged boys to be sexist?

Question

They don't help girls.

Answer 1

I think that's fair,seeing how no teacher help boys out, isntead girls get the attention,so no it's not sexist it's the right thing to do.

Answer 2

Yes.

Answer 3

Absolutely not. We all have a part to play in improving the lives of those around us. If that involves focusing on disadvantage boys, then play your part to the best of your ability. God values all contributions.

Answer 4

Not really - I think we each have different passions, and surely for some their passion might be helping disadvantaged boys.  I remember some criticism of the Million Man March for having a sexist undertone, but that criticism was very specific to the reasons provided by the people attached.  Anyway, no, I think anyone helping anybody is great!

Answer 5

Only helping boys is better than helping neither s*x in the interest of fairness.

Answer 6

I'd help them both.....Pull them together.

And throw a homeless wedding under the 6th street bridge.

Answer 7

Absolutely

But remember... sexism only exists when MEN or MALES are favored. Anytime women or females are favored.. thats called "empowerment" or "fairness" or "equality".

Answer 8

My personal experience in volves a number of different situations: I help out at a project in the Philippines, as both a teacher and carer that caters specifically to homeless boys.  The woman who runs the centre is pressured all the time to accept girls, but it is a question of resources: girls are, at least in her experience, more difficult to counsel, educate and care for, and having girls in close proximity to boys is problematic.  Despite western ideas that boys are the sexually challenging ones, in the Phinippine situation, it was found that the girls were even more likely that the boys to get up to shennenigans.  Nevertheless, there in one cottage on at the project that houses some girls, sisters of boys housed there mostly.

I have no issues with the idea of helping boys in preference to girls, such as in the case above, because I think there is an attitude that boys will be okay, and this is simply not true: crime and drug use (mostly glue sniffing) is common, and mostly seen in boys.  Helping both sexes equally is not sensible in this sort of situation, especially with limited resources.  The lady who runs the project has a vision to help homeless boys specifically.  As she comments, there are others who help girls, and she also works with them.

Sexism in this area is a difficult concept to claim: some people are simply better suited, or better resourced, to help one gender over the other.  I also work at a home near Chiang Mai in Thailand and this one houses orphan girls from the Akha peoples.  Nobody ever questions the validity of a place that helps girls only.

Bro, this is a good question, and I hope that I have been able to grant a different perspective.

Answer 9

I wouldn't necessarily say sexist, I would say bias myself. I don't see where gender should be an issue in helping disadvantaged children, teens, or adults for that manner.

Answer 10

That would depend.  Are the boys you are referring to more disadvantaged than the girls in the same place?  If so, then no, that's not sexist at all.  That's a perfectly common-sensical thing to do.

Answer 11

Saw this one after I answered the only about girls. Same answer.... Why only boys? I would think that people who really wanted to help would do so for everyone!

Answer 12

In the purest sense, yes, but it is more important that they are doing some good for some people.  You cannot save the world and you have to chose what causes speak to your heart.

Answer 13

If the person was a man, I would applaud!

What disadvantaged boys everywhere in the world need more than anything else, is men with no hidden agenda who are willing to work with and support these future men to become all they can be.

Otherwise, well, people have only so much time and energy. Everyone directs their efforts where they can. It's not necessarily sexist, it's about prioritising what each of us can reasonably do, in order to do some one thing.

Cheers :-)

Answer 14

No, maybe they're better at helping out disadvantaged boys than girls and they just want to help people as best as they can.

Answer 15

well, if their interests lied in young boys, then no. we don't cal g*y rights activists heterophobes and we don't tell  black civil rights activists that they need to help white people.

it wouldn't bother me as long as this person didn't hurt others while trying to help.

EDIT: why the h**l am i getting thumbed down? i don't think it's sexist! it's not! and any feminist who says it is, is a hypocrite i have to say.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HELPING PEOPLE AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HURT SOMEONE ELSE IN THE PROCESS.

Answer 16

I would need more information to answer this correctly.  It would depend on whether that person is working in an agency that focuses exclusively on boy and the issues that they are facing that are exclusive to their s*x.  I would also want to know if that person would also help women and girls under similar circumstances.  I know myself that I deal with a specific client population however if someone asks me for help I broker them to another agency or to someone that is able to help them to deal with their problems and a place that has the resources to help them move into a better space and recognize their own strengths and needs.

Answer 17

If you believe that then any Boy Scout leader is sexist.

No, it isn't sexist to focus on one gender if you can make more of an impact on their lives by doing so.

For example creating a free sport program for only boys in an underprivileged school would be sexist, because the girls would benefit from it too and it wouldn't harm the boys by sharing the program.

Mentoring fatherless sons would not be sexist because they have a separate set of needs and some men may feel they would not be as effective mentoring girls.