I have watched the world receive constant updates on the genocide in Gaza, the wars across the Middle East, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, yet the media remains largely silent on the genocide in Sudan. Mainstream media in Africa has long been inadequate, and the Global South has yet to fully grasp the power of media. The Middle East has Al Jazeera, Europe has the BBC, the Americas have CNN and ABC yet Africa still lacks a major media presence of its own. We must invest in telling and amplifying our own narratives. Visibility must be given to the genocide in Sudan.
I am trying to raise awareness about the disproportionate and growing neglect of the boy-child. While the data may appear balanced on the surface, deep systemic failures are leaving many boys impoverished across every sector of society. An affirmative bill already exists, yet Kofi ignores it and instead chooses to attack Bright.
Who is Kofi?
Bright Goku will tweet this but won’t talk about the system that has kept women severely underrepresented in Parliament.
He won’t talk about the men who openly said they would never vote for Mahama because they wouldn’t “allow” a woman to lead them...
1/4
If this initiative is successfully realized and achieves 80% of its intended results, we’ll be on the verge of fixing many systemic problems. I’ve never been this excited about digitalization.
From September 2026, police in Ghana will stop regularly stopping drivers to check their documents.
Instead, cameras will record traffic offences, such as driving without insurance or not wearing a seatbelt.
Police will review the footage, and drivers who break the rules will receive a fine on their phones.
The government says this will make road checks easier and reduce roadside bribery.
I’ve had mothers with male children call to appreciate the work I’m doing for the boy child beyond social media hashtags. Many may not follow the work but are quick to judge. We see the bigger picture, and we’re committed to making real impact. #BoysLivesMatter
You’ll be amazed at how pissed most feminists are about my submission, yet the message was never directed to them but rather to policymakers and heads of state-owned institutions. The toxicity is glaring.
During my time at university, three scholarships were available to students. Two were exclusively reserved for female students, while the third gave 60% priority to girls. I saw many male students drop out because of financial difficulties. The underlying trend is clear: in the effort to close gender gaps, we are creating a deeper systemic problem by neglecting boys and disproportionately prioritizing girls. There was even a period when the CGPA requirements for scholarships were set lower for female students than for male students. The boy child is being overlooked, and the evidence continues to highlight this imbalance. Many young men are turning to drugs for comfort or engaging in cyber-crime. At the primary-school level, skills workshops and career-guidance programs specifically for boys are virtually nonexistent, yet countless organizations focus exclusively on advancing the girl child. We need balanced interventions if we are serious about addressing gender-based inequalities.
@ZbynekDrab@sullakosmo I never fucked a professor until I was out of grad school, so I didn’t either. Sorry nobody liked you enough to take an interest in your academic development, though. That sounds rough.
There was a time when there was a clear and undeniable educational gender gap. Girls faced cultural resistance, limited access to education, domestic responsibilities, early marriage, inadequate support and a general social preference for educating boys. That reality justified deliberate intervention.
And we should acknowledge that those interventions mattered.
For years, governments, NGOs, schools, communities and development organizations deliberately invested in the girl child. Scholarships were created specifically for girls. Mentorship programmes were established. STEM initiatives targeted girls. Sanitary-product interventions were introduced. Campaigns encouraged parents to educate their daughters. Policies were designed to remove barriers that disproportionately affected girls.
There was a reason for all of this was that there was a problem that needed correcting.
But equity has never meant permanently favouring one group. Equity means recognizing disadvantage and providing the support necessary to overcome it.
So “Did girls suffer educational disadvantages in the past?” They did.
And “Where is the educational disadvantage today?”
If the evidence now shows that girls are outperforming boys in important academic indicators and, in some contexts, outnumbering them in educational participation, then we cannot continue designing every gender intervention as though we are still living in the era when girls were systematically excluded from education.
That does not mean we should stop supporting girls but rather our interventions must become evidence-based rather than permanently gender-based.
A girl who struggles because she lacks sanitary products deserves support, one who faces cultural pressure to abandon school deserves support same as the girl who is discouraged from pursuing STEM deserves mentorship and encouragement.
But a boy whose family cannot afford his education also deserves a scholarship, the one struggling academically deserves intervention, a boy without mentorship or career guidance deserves one, a boy growing up in an environment where he is vulnerable to drugs, crime or other destructive influences deserves support too.
We cannot respond to one form of vulnerability by pretending another does not exist.
I also find the argument that historical disadvantage automatically justifies present-day preferential treatment problematic. History should inform policy, but current evidence should determine policy.
If we use historical discrimination to justify present-day inequality indefinitely, then we have misunderstood the purpose of corrective intervention.
The objective of girl-child advocacy was never supposed to be that girls would eventually receive preferential treatment forever. The objective was to create a society where being a girl would no longer be a significant barrier to educational opportunity.
And if we have made substantial progress toward that objective, then that should be celebrated and not used as a reason to ignore emerging problems affecting boys.
This is where we need to understand the difference between equity and equality because equity asks who is disadvantaged, and what support do they need? but equality asks that once we identify that disadvantage, are we giving everyone a fair opportunity?
We need both.
I am not arguing for the abandonment of the girl child. I am arguing against the assumption that every educational problem must still be interpreted through the lens of female disadvantage.
A scholarship should primarily respond to the disadvantage it is intended to address. If it is poverty, let poverty be the criterion. If it is academic excellence, let academic excellence be the criterion. If it is a specific barrier affecting girls, then address that barrier specifically.
If we are genuinely committed to gender equity, then we must have the courage to follow the evidence even when the evidence tells us that the group requiring greater attention has changed.
Some of you ladies do not know what feminism is. Feminism isn’t gender war.😅
And I can’t believe the most reasonable thing someone brought up to why women indeed need the push is because they go through menstruation.😂😂chale
Women needed the push because there was a gap then.
If a state-owned university requires boys to achieve higher grades for admission than girls in a program, how else can this be effectively challenged besides simply raising awareness? Or perhaps you expect males to build their own all-boys tertiary institutions which is completely unrealistic.
Men do this when women are celebrated. They never take into account the decades of systemic setbacks women faced or remember how we fought to get to where we are. They cry about the male child being overlooked yet take no actionable steps to address the problems they care about
Yes, period poverty can affect a girl’s ability to concentrate, attend school, or perform well in an exam. That is a legitimate reason for targeted support. I agree with you to some extent. but that does not mean Bright Goku’s challenges are automatically less important simply because he doesn’t menstruate!
Between the boy and the girl child, the boy is more likely to be tasked with weeding or clearing the compound or yard, washing household vehicles, helping with heavy loads, and assisting in farming, fishing, or herding livestock. Most boys are also usually assigned to run errands, especially those that appear dangerous at night and at no point are they allowed to give excuses coz they're deemed to be MEN. The 21st century narrative of the boy child has changed .
Between the boy and the girl, who likely spent more time washing dishes, sweeping the house, running errands, helping with cooking and managing the home while keeping up with schoolwork? Before you ask why girls are given opportunities, ask whether they’re being given the same amount of time and freedom to study.
There is an entire scholarship scheme dedicated exclusively to females. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but we can’t ignore the fact that the boy child is increasingly being neglected. Even with general scholarship opportunities, females are often given priority.
@favLabscientist@Emporerpheelz Even basic education on how to prevent teenage pregnancy, personal hygiene, and others are being deprived from the male child Herh 💔