Why all this focus on the women?

Alaisa built a house with the money she
 made from Grassroots Uganda

I often said that while it is hard to be a rurally poor African man, it is even harder to be a rurally poor African women.

This is why the bulk of Meaningful Volunteer's program target women.

A report recently released from Oxfam looked into the practise of cash transfers.  Cash transfers (CTs) are small amounts of money given to people in disaster situations.  The report looked at CTs in Zimbabwe and Kenya.

90% of the CTs were given to women, while only 10% were given to men.  The men - contrary to all stereotypes - actually spent the money quite wisely.

I especially like Maxine Molyneux's comment on these findings:

"Men are usually completely marginalised from the activities of the cash transfer programmes, which sends the message that they have no responsibility for care in the family," Molyneux said. "I would recommend men are integrated into these programmes and encouraged to think of their role in the family in more positive ways."

This is something we try very hard to do with our Project Lifecycle project in the Philippines: Get the men involved as well.  Family planning is just as much their responsibility!  But - alas - we have had very little success getting men involved.

I'm off to Uganda in about two weeks, and not long after Mama Pamba will finally launch.  What lessons can we learn from the above findings?

If we specifically exclude men from Mama Pamba initiative - as we are planning to do - aren't we sending a subtle message to men that they aren't responsible for their family needs?  And - yet another thing - falls under the responsibility of the females giving the men plenty of time to drink the local brew (a very common activity in Buyaya).

I don't know the answer.  Any feedback and thoughts most welcome.