Il Regno Unito può essere un impegno per spendere l’80% degli aiuti esteri per progetti di uguaglianza di genere

80% seems to be overly high target. Oh you want money to save disabled babies from death, oh no sorry that doesn’t meet out equality targets.

I had no idea that was the target anyway; I’d be surprised if most people knew this.

Jesus, no one in this thread read past the title

> Under the target, 80% of aid spending must go to programmes that have gender equality as a component by 2030, though it does not need to be the main focus.

It doesn’t need to be the main focus. And I’d be very suspect of any programme which does not include it as a component – women’s rights (particularly their reproductive and economic rights) are almost inseparable from poverty.

I did not know this was a thing, and it’s stupid. Scrap it. This blocks so many worthwhile projects.

Good god there’s so much ignorance on here.

Incase you aren’t aware, women in the 3rd world don’t have much reproductive freedom in general. They get married, then they are expected to produce child after child. Marital rape is generally not seen as a problem (it wasn’t even illegal over here until 1997), and rape is often used as a tactic of war, as well as the selling and trafficking of women and girls.

Then there’s health issues. FGM is still being practised at alarming rates in Northern Africa. This always involves total removal of the clitorus and often sewing up of some kind. Pain during urination is a life-long side effect, as well as pain during sex. I won’t even mention what giving birth can do to mutalited women and girls, but it comes with deadly risks.

Having children whilst in poor health, young, or malnourished is also very high risk. And seeing as women of reproductive age are often pregnant or breastfeeding in 3rd world countries, this means they may need further nutrition to keep their children alive.

When aid is randomly dropped, like it us in Gaza, the strongest men fight for it first. That’s what starving does to people, and I don’t blame them for it. But it does mean some women and children miss out, and extra aid may need to be set aside.

Then there’s lack of education. Having 50% of your population pepetually uneducated is terrible for economic growth. And yet money is needed to provide education so that women can escape the cycle of abuse the disproportionately face.

Yes, men have it hard in these countries too, no one is doubting this. But even poor men generally have the freedom to forge their own paths. Women don’t. And often poor women are victims of abuse from poor men.

It takes liberation of women and girls to make the world a better place. It’s that simple.

It seems that the aid was for causes that had an *element* of sex equality considering the disproportionate violence against women and lack of representation in their country’s politics.

And a fifth of aid for things that didn’t need to relate in any way to sex equality.

It’s very difficult to disconnect women’s issues, even in simple child bearing and rearing, from improving a country’s prospects long term.

Great to see Labour positioning themselves to the right of the Tories, again.