Then read David Brooks’ intolerable column on AIDS in Africa. Sure, everyone likes an optimist, but comparing AIDS clincis to dot-com start-ups in the Silicon valley? No thanks. It’s one of the most overly-simplistic, insulting things I’ve ever read. There doesn’t seem to be much compassion or even depth of thought; it’s like he met a few smiling people and walked away thinking, “Hey, this whole AIDS thing ain’t so bad!”
To his credit, he points out that there is still a long way to go. And if a “sense of optimism” is what it takes for the U.S. to give more money, then I’m behind it. But his view is just a little too unrealistically rosey for me, especially when he talks about the U.S. “pouring” money into Africa. We simply aren’t “pouring” money into anything abroad (well, except invading other nations and investing in oil), not when you look at the numbers as a total percentage of our spending. And all the money that Bush has promised to give to fighting AIDS in Africa? Stalled. And what isn’t stalled is being spent telling African women to wait until they’re married to have sex — and not telling them that marriage can actually be a bigger risk factor for contracting HIV. But don’t worry, folks, because David Brooks thinks all that “abstinence versus condoms” stuff is silly nonsense. Ugh.
Luckily, the Times editorial board is more sensible in their approach to decreasing HIV transmission in prison populations.
I really get irritated with my fellow conservatives on the Africa-AIDS issue. Whenever they start talking about how condoms will just encourage sleeping around and that what we should be doing is encouraging people to abstain till the wedding night, they forget that a lot of people bring the virus into their marriages in the first place–and that being a virgin won’t protect you from getting it.
They also forget factors like military-sanctioned rape, unsantitary medical conditions, and female circumcision–e.g., that things other than premarital/extramarital sex cause the virus.
I brought that up on a conservative board–that men who don’t wait can easily infect their virgin wives–and was met with, a) birth control is still wrong, b) well then, teaching both men and women to wait will slow the spread. They just can’t keep situations separate sometimes, between a U.S. middle class high school crowd versus a third world culture, and they’re so against helping those who are already sick.
And on one religious Catholic board, someone was actually arguing that an infected wife is “God’s mesage to the husband that he shouldn’t have slept around.” The person was arguing that the wife shouldn’t receive treatment and that they shouldn’t use condoms. Hmmph.
Once again Jill, on one of the sexual-related issues, you and I do agree.
Wow, was that post ever full of typos. That’s what I get for trying to sneak in typing while the boss isn’t walking by. :P
Aack!
I’m glad you have a reasonable stance on this issue, Marian. It seems to me to be the only reasonable stance (obviously).
This is one thing that gets me about the “waiting until marriage” deal — a wedding ring doesn’t protect anyone against sexually transmitted diseases unless there is some sort of invisible shield that I’m not aware of.
Thanks for posting this Jill.
I have to admit, when I first read this article, I was uncomfortable with the “the U.S. is the coolest!” vibe I got, but I thought the fact that health workers were feeling reinvigorated was really cool. So I appreciated the article in that respect. What I forgot was that not everyone is well versed on the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I know a lot about all the other shit that’s going on (like Bush’s ABC policy), so I didn’t take this article to mean that great strides were being made or anything like that. But when I read your post, it occurred to me that for people who are not really knowledgeable about the situation it can seem like the United States has a good handle on the situation. And that is just so far from actual truth. So thanks for helping me see how an article like this can mislead people into believing the situation is rosier than it actually is.
Yeah, thanks for clarifying the ickiness. You’re absolutely right.
This column is dedicated not to social consciousness or activism, but to complancency. David Brooks is brilliant at inspiring complacency. The point is to say that America is doing a great deal to stop the spread of this terrible disease. Some more money could be spent, certainly, but this is a very admirable effort. We should be very proud, and Africa should be very grateful.
There are also no significant problems with how America spends the money it contributes, or which organizations it allies itself with. Those are just quibbles, diversions, and they have no potential consequences for human lives.
Also, Free markets save lives.*
So stop worrying, America! You’re awesome!
*Was he kidding with the dot-com metaphor? Because that all ended so well.