• streetlights@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I mean I’m not doubting the minister is a bit of a homophobe but I don’t think it’s wrong to focus aid on the disabled.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      It’s more about, in this case, how he’s openly sexist since that’s what this alliance seems to be against. But either way that’s a classic false binary. There’s no reason they cant provide aid for both groups at the same time, it doesn’t take away from either group to do that. This wasn’t even much additional funding, it was a policy oversight thing who’s stated goal decidedly wasn’t “care more about women than disabled people”.

      • streetlights@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        12 hours ago

        That’s true I suppose. His motivation does not appear to be altruistic but if it was a case of diverting limited funds, I can see his excuse not to fund this being reasonable.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I can see his excuse not to fund this being reasonable.

          “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” -MayaAngelou

          I believe you.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          Oh good, so you agree that his excuse is unreasonable then! I’m glad we had this little discussion.