The word arrived in our documents without anyone choosing it. Beneficiary. It sounds neutral, even kind. But it quietly draws a line: on one side, the giver who decides; on the other, the recipient who waits.
We removed it. Not as a slogan, but as a test. If we could not describe a woman by what she does — farmer, trader, organiser, mother — rather than by what she receives, we did not understand her situation well enough to help.
The change was slower and more uncomfortable than a new logo. Programmes that had been designed for people were now designed with them. Budgets moved. Some of our assumptions did not survive the first conversation.
Call me by what I do, not by what you gave me. Then we can talk about what I actually need.
Programme participant, quoted with permission
A word is not the whole problem. But changing it forced a better question — who decides what help looks like — and that question changed the work.
