I wish I had time to dig into this, but I'm hosed.
EDIT: The exact comments under question are that HIV/AIDS in Africa is:
a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem
The part about condoms sounds reasonable to me. The part about money is pretty non-sensical. He asserts a bit of wackoness right after, when he claims:
the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids
That is bull$#!+.
8 comments:
Ouch. Well, hopefully any Good Catholics that would take the pope at his word and not use condoms would also go along with no premarital sex. Somehow I don't think that will be the case, though. This could definitely cause a blip in spread of AIDS. Somehow, I don't think that the pope was thinking about it from a statistics standpoint when he was talking. Plus, think about it from a young man- or woman- trying to convince their partner: "Even God doesn't think that condoms are good!"
Hmm... condoms may not be the solution at the societal level, but they are still a valid solition at a citizen level.
Society level solutions such as monogamy and abstinence only work if both partners have the power to say no. In many of these countries women don't have that power. Whether it's economic, political or physical, the power usually rests in the hands of men. Until that reality changes or until we start breeding an immunity, AID's isn't going anywhere.
Blaming condoms for failing to fix the underlying power inbalances doesn't seem very fair. Condoms do very well at their designed use, impeding the transmission from person to person during intercourse.
iJenn: I will edit my original post to be a bit more explicit.
Jennie: I don't have a lot of time to respond to your comments, but here is my two cents.
Re: power of women and HIV transmission, I think this is a very complex statement. While I support the goal of women's rights, I think the problem of AIDS could be mitigated or eliminated without any changes in women's rights.
The clearest example is a vaccine. If someone came up with an HIV vaccine tomorrow (which is possible), then your statement is clearly false. We've eliminated AIDS with few to no changes in women's rights.
My second counter-point is that in America there is evidence that the spread of HIV and AIDS has more to do with tensions about homosexuality than women's rights. If you're looking for a specific example:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/three_percent_of_dc_residents_have_hiv.php
Finally, I do not share your assumption that increasing women's rights will mitigate the spread of AIDS in the short term. This could be the case, but it seems possible that there could be another risk compensation - women are no longer forced to engage in a few, dangerous acts of sex, but instead choose to engage in more, less-risky sex. It seems to be a possible situation (unlikely but possible), similar to the current argument about condoms.
Is increasing women's rights the best way to mitigate the effects of HIV/AIDS? I don't know. The benefits of a less-distorted society in the long term certainly make it an appealing option. But why isn't the best way forward instead scientific research or dealing with tensions about homosexuality?
Also, TBC: I support nearly all pushes for gender equality. Most of my rants towards feminism are the outliers, rather than the rule. It hurts us all when we don't allow talented people to produce. I simply disagree with the argument that "Whether it's economic, political or physical, the power usually rests in the hands of men. Until that reality changes or until we start breeding an immunity, AID's isn't going anywhere."
Re: "blaming condoms", why should we praise condoms for their modifications to single instance behavior of lowering risk but not blame condoms for their modifications of increasing the risk in general behavior?
The spread of AIDs in America has nothing to do with womens rights, I agree there, I was speaking about africa, but I should have been more clear.
----Re: "blaming condoms", why should we praise condoms for their modifications to single instance behavior of lowering risk but not blame condoms for their modifications of increasing the risk in general behavior?-----
Well... :-D that's a good question.. if you'll allow me to answer your question with another question, what makes the scientific pursuit of a vaccine any less problematic? Vaccines are never 100% effective, and viruses being what they are, it's possible vaccines would only present the opportunity for faster mutation. You'd have the same problem, a decrease in risk and a corresponding uptick in risky behavior.
Addressing the imbalance of power at least gives women the opportunity to persue behaviors that are less risky. They'll have the ability to choose. Right now in many of these countries they don't even get that opportunity.
Yes, they could choose the risky behaviors. They could also not.
Hmm..
Maybe if I put it another way.
It seems like the church is just interested in reducing choices. They seem to prefer that people blindly follow their mandates and get upset when people want to make their own decisions. They can't get upset at people, because they desperately need the people to fund/legitimize their organization. So, they blame the thing that somehow influenced the people. Can you imagine the reaction if the article had said, "Church blames spread of AIDs on stupidity."
If it's human nature to increase risky behavior with a decrease in risk, then why blame the thing that did the decreasing? Do you blame seat belts for increasing speeding? No, you just buckle your seat belt becuase you want that option of safety and you know that people are going to drive how they're going to drive. The increase in your personal safety far outweighs the increase in risky behaviors from others.
Hopefully I made a bit of sense in there. If not, I blame baby hormones. :D
I agree with the power of free choice. I'd never debate that increasing women's rights is a positive thing to do. I simply disagreed with your reasoning about increasing women's rights being a pre-requisite to abolish AIDS.
I didn't explicitly state that I support scientific research to help eradicate HIV/AIDS, however I do believe in the scientific method. If the end goal is the eradication of HIV/AIDS, then I think it would be far more effective to support finding a vaccine than increasing women's rights. There are certainly risks, but when was the last time you heard about a vaccine having adverse effects? Also, preventative measures don't need to be 100% effective, just look at condoms!
I have seen how a few, smart scientists and engineers can change the world. I have yet to see collective social action work so well. It is certainly possible that my background has poor indicators of how the world works, but that is what I know. Show me something else and I'll change my mind :)
Also, JTBC, I don't think the point of life is just eradicating HIV/AIDS, though. So please don't misinterpret my statement to mean I think we should fund science at the expense of all else; I'm simply stating that for the single problem of eliminating AIDS, I think science is the most powerful tool we have.
I agree that increasing choice is usually the best thing to do in very unconstrained situations. Hoo-rah for personal choice, and yay for people being able to try things. I just disagreed with your statement in the context of this problem.
Re: blame human nature, perhaps attribute is a better word than blame. There are some oddities in human nature, like risk compensation, but overall human nature is an awesome and complex subject. I think it would come down to how one defines blame.
(also, FYI, I don't think the government should mandate wearing a seatbelt)
Re: church removing choices, I disagree about the church not being able to blame people. The church has gone through many periods, and from my vague knowledge, scaring people or tormenting them has worked in the past.
The Roman Catholic Church has existed for almost 2000 years. How many institutions do you know that have existed this long? I think the church knows a thing or two about human nature, even if it cannot justify and quantify this knowledge like science requires.
If I didn't make sense, I blame sleep deprivation. And baby hormones. At the same time.
you have baby hormones ??
I'm never making a joke again.
Post a Comment