New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
I just applied to sponsor a child I went with the Foster Parents Plan of Canada, as I wanted something reputable but non-denominational. Now I'm excited to get my package in the mail and learn about this kid. The only thing I specified on the form was that I'd prefer a girl, so I'm curious to see what country she'll be from, how old she'll be, what her name is. etc.
 "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Very noble of you. I deeply respect your decision. Whenever I hear about child sponsoring though, people always seem to have asked for girls. I fully understand that girls in developing countries are far more exposed to violence, rape etc, but I sometimes wonder if anyone ever thinks to help the boys? Even though they might not be as cute as the girls or draw as much sympathy as the girls do, they're still in great need of help. I just wish these programs/plans didn't allow gender preference, that's all. A child in need is a child in need. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
retina said: Very noble of you. I deeply respect your decision. Whenever I hear about child sponsoring though, people always seem to have asked for girls. I fully understand that girls in developing countries are far more exposed to violence, rape etc, but I sometimes wonder if anyone ever thinks to help the boys? Even though they might not be as cute as the girls or draw as much sympathy as the girls do, they're still in great need of help. I just wish these programs/plans didn't allow gender preference, that's all. A child in need is a child in need.
I decided to choose a girl because my mom and grandma have both been sponsoring boys only for over 30 years. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dont you go hurting her now you! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
retina said: Very noble of you. I deeply respect your decision. Whenever I hear about child sponsoring though, people always seem to have asked for girls. I fully understand that girls in developing countries are far more exposed to violence, rape etc, but I sometimes wonder if anyone ever thinks to help the boys? Even though they might not be as cute as the girls or draw as much sympathy as the girls do, they're still in great need of help. I just wish these programs/plans didn't allow gender preference, that's all. A child in need is a child in need.
We've sponsored both boys and girls. Give her a break, better sponsoring a girl that no kid at all; | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
meow85 said: I went with the Foster Parents Plan of Canada, as I wanted something reputable but non-denominational. Now I'm excited to get my package in the mail and learn about this kid. The only thing I specified on the form was that I'd prefer a girl, so I'm curious to see what country she'll be from, how old she'll be, what her name is. etc.
This is fantastic. Good for you. I'm sure you be helping the child more than she will ever know. Let us know where she's from when you find out. Good luck. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MarieLouise said: retina said: Very noble of you. I deeply respect your decision. Whenever I hear about child sponsoring though, people always seem to have asked for girls. I fully understand that girls in developing countries are far more exposed to violence, rape etc, but I sometimes wonder if anyone ever thinks to help the boys? Even though they might not be as cute as the girls or draw as much sympathy as the girls do, they're still in great need of help. I just wish these programs/plans didn't allow gender preference, that's all. A child in need is a child in need.
We've sponsored both boys and girls. Give her a break, better sponsoring a girl that no kid at all; Pfft! I am giving her a break (just reread my post). I was speaking in general terms. This is an important issue. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
retina said: MarieLouise said: We've sponsored both boys and girls. Give her a break, better sponsoring a girl that no kid at all; Pfft! I am giving her a break (just reread my post). I was speaking in general terms. This is an important issue. I never heard about this boys-issue. You might be right, I just don't know. I heard the most important thing is to look for a way to support the community. If the money goes to one kid only, this kid often get pushed away because of the help it receives in the community. So organizations that help the whole community are supposed to be better. I guess Foster Parents Plan belongs to them. But again, I don't know too much about these issues. It's just a noble thing to do. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MarieLouise said: retina said: Pfft! I am giving her a break (just reread my post). I was speaking in general terms. This is an important issue. I never heard about this boys-issue. You might be right, I just don't know. I heard the most important thing is to look for a way to support the community. If the money goes to one kid only, this kid often get pushed away because of the help it receives in the community. So organizations that help the whole community are supposed to be better. I guess Foster Parents Plan belongs to them. But again, I don't know too much about these issues. It's just a noble thing to do. Interesting point about helping the community instead of one individual. Resentment/envy is one of those very influential factors that are often disregarded by aid organizations because they're "soft" values. If they really want to help, they should take these factors into consideration. What good is aid if it does more harm than good, all things accounted for? I'm not sure if sponsoring the "community" is the right way either though. Some people are more in need than others and the strong usually find a way to get a bigger chunk of the benefits if they're distributed to a collective rather than 1+1+1+1... individuals (just remember the "jungle law" distribution methods in some children's day care centers). The more general the distribution method is, the less likely it is that the aid will target the right areas, in my opinion. Aid organizations should: 1. Target the people that need it the most: the young, weak, sick, starving and/or dying. Once that need is satisfied, move to the "next in line". The further you get from those in desperate need, the more general the distribution can get. But it should always be motivated and have a specific purpose. 2. Disregard skin colour, gender, background and other factors that are meaningless in this context. If, in an African village of black people, a white male needs the aid the most (however unlikely that might be in real life), then focus on him first. 3. not just put "economical bandaids" on the problem. Try to heal the wound! In a lot of countries where aid is needed, the problems have arisen from political unrest or war. As long as the war is going on, nothing will improve. Use some of the funds to fight the war (through media attention etc). If you just keep pumping in money for food and medicine, the region will start to depend on that and it will be a neverending cycle. 4. Gain a deep and detailed understanding of the problems on a local level. Don't distribute the standard aid package with food, water and medicine if only one or two of those things are needed. If disease is the main problem (which may or may not have led to starvation etc) then focus most of the funds on curing the disease. Some of the above points overlap. My point is that it all depends on the specific and most critical needs. Aid without a proper plan will be wasted, despite all the good intentions that is backing it up. Most aid organizations would agree with this statement, but they have yet to fully understand the meaning and consequences of it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
retina said: MarieLouise said: I never heard about this boys-issue. You might be right, I just don't know. I heard the most important thing is to look for a way to support the community. If the money goes to one kid only, this kid often get pushed away because of the help it receives in the community. So organizations that help the whole community are supposed to be better. I guess Foster Parents Plan belongs to them. But again, I don't know too much about these issues. It's just a noble thing to do. Interesting point about helping the community instead of one individual. Resentment/envy is one of those very influential factors that are often disregarded by aid organizations because they're "soft" values. If they really want to help, they should take these factors into consideration. What good is aid if it does more harm than good, all things accounted for? I'm not sure if sponsoring the "community" is the right way either though. Some people are more in need than others and the strong usually find a way to get a bigger chunk of the benefits if they're distributed to a collective rather than 1+1+1+1... individuals (just remember the "jungle law" distribution methods in some children's day care centers). The more general the distribution method is, the less likely it is that the aid will target the right areas, in my opinion. Aid organizations should: 1. Target the people that need it the most: the young, weak, sick, starving and/or dying. Once that need is satisfied, move to the "next in line". The further you get from those in desperate need, the more general the distribution can get. But it should always be motivated and have a specific purpose. 2. Disregard skin colour, gender, background and other factors that are meaningless in this context. If, in an African village of black people, a white male needs the aid the most (however unlikely that might be in real life), then focus on him first. 3. not just put "economical bandaids" on the problem. Try to heal the wound! In a lot of countries where aid is needed, the problems have arisen from political unrest or war. As long as the war is going on, nothing will improve. Use some of the funds to fight the war (through media attention etc). If you just keep pumping in money for food and medicine, the region will start to depend on that and it will be a neverending cycle. 4. Gain a deep and detailed understanding of the problems on a local level. Don't distribute the standard aid package with food, water and medicine if only one or two of those things are needed. If disease is the main problem (which may or may not have led to starvation etc) then focus most of the funds on curing the disease. Some of the above points overlap. My point is that it all depends on the specific and most critical needs. Aid without a proper plan will be wasted, despite all the good intentions that is backing it up. Most aid organizations would agree with this statement, but they have yet to fully understand the meaning and consequences of it. I would add to that; learn them to help themselves. If they get to build a water well for example, or get education in one way or another, if they acquire certain capabilities, this will help them more on the long run. This is also a way of helping them that is far better for their self-respect. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MarieLouise said: retina said: Interesting point about helping the community instead of one individual. Resentment/envy is one of those very influential factors that are often disregarded by aid organizations because they're "soft" values. If they really want to help, they should take these factors into consideration. What good is aid if it does more harm than good, all things accounted for? I'm not sure if sponsoring the "community" is the right way either though. Some people are more in need than others and the strong usually find a way to get a bigger chunk of the benefits if they're distributed to a collective rather than 1+1+1+1... individuals (just remember the "jungle law" distribution methods in some children's day care centers). The more general the distribution method is, the less likely it is that the aid will target the right areas, in my opinion. Aid organizations should: 1. Target the people that need it the most: the young, weak, sick, starving and/or dying. Once that need is satisfied, move to the "next in line". The further you get from those in desperate need, the more general the distribution can get. But it should always be motivated and have a specific purpose. 2. Disregard skin colour, gender, background and other factors that are meaningless in this context. If, in an African village of black people, a white male needs the aid the most (however unlikely that might be in real life), then focus on him first. 3. not just put "economical bandaids" on the problem. Try to heal the wound! In a lot of countries where aid is needed, the problems have arisen from political unrest or war. As long as the war is going on, nothing will improve. Use some of the funds to fight the war (through media attention etc). If you just keep pumping in money for food and medicine, the region will start to depend on that and it will be a neverending cycle. 4. Gain a deep and detailed understanding of the problems on a local level. Don't distribute the standard aid package with food, water and medicine if only one or two of those things are needed. If disease is the main problem (which may or may not have led to starvation etc) then focus most of the funds on curing the disease. Some of the above points overlap. My point is that it all depends on the specific and most critical needs. Aid without a proper plan will be wasted, despite all the good intentions that is backing it up. Most aid organizations would agree with this statement, but they have yet to fully understand the meaning and consequences of it. I would add to that; learn them to help themselves. If they get to build a water well for example, or get education in one way or another, if they acquire certain capabilities, this will help them more on the long run. This is also a way of helping them that is far better for their self-respect. Absolutely! This would fall under point 3. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |