Wait, WHAT?
Indonesia's Papua province is set to pass a bylaw that requires some HIV/AIDS patients to be implanted with microchips in a bid to prevent them infecting others, a lawmaker said on Saturday.
How is it going to prevent them from infecting others? It's not like the chip is going to provide an invisible forcefield that prevents any fluid contact between the chipped person and another.
If a patient with HIV/AIDS was found to have infected a healthy person, there would be a penalty, he said without elaborating.
Also: Patronising plus. If a person is deliberately and wilfully infecting someone who is unaware of their HIV status, or someone is pressured into unsafe sex, that's one thing. Two adults making a decision to accept the consequences of their actions is something else. WOuld this mean a partnership where one member is HIV + would no longer be able to have any kind of contact in case they infect their partner? What about instances where the transmission was not deliberate or intentioned, such as an accident victim bleeding on someone administering aid?
Health experts say the disease has been spreading rapidly from prostitutes to housewives in the past years.
Dirty whores. Dirty, naughty whores, sneaking into people's homes and giving housewives TEH AIDS.
Unless the lesbian sex trade in Papua is live and well, or there is a disproportionately large number of male sex workers in the province, I think someone is missing from this picture. Anyone care to guess who? Im aware the intent is probably to indicate the virus is affecting a wide swathe of the community, but this can be done without removing the agent of this infection from the picture.
High rates of promiscuity, rituals in some Papuan tribes where partner swapping takes place, poor education about AIDS and lack of condoms are among factors that cause the spread of the disease there.
Promiscuity doesnt lead to infection. Partner swapping doesnt lead to infection. The last two? Spot on. THAT's why infection spreads.
So, you know, instead of addressing the issues that are obviously recognised as being the major factors in HIV spread (oh, really, poor education and lack of condoms lead to infection? Who'da thunk it), they're going to chip those already infected, like they're a pack of animals to track and cull.
If their aim is really to stop seropositive people from infecting others, why not address the education and condom availability issue? Teach people that they need to wrap it, teach them why and how to do it, and then make the bloody things available for them to use.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
It's your problem, too.
Occasionally, the SMH gives space to some amazing opinion pieces, such as this piece on violence against women by White Ribbon Foundation chairman, Andrew O'Keefe .
What makes Mr O'Keefe's piece stand out? He's focusing entirely on his behaviour, the behaviour of the men around him, and their influences on each other when it comes to stopping violence against women. And this is what we need. Whilst I begrudgingly see the logic in harm minimisation campaigns and education, we need more focus on holding accountable everyone who is complicit in violence of any kind against women, whether it is the perpetrator themselves, or the person who laughs off their friend's violent or inappropriate behaviour with a 'boys will be boys' or 'I shouldnt get involved' or 'it's not really doing any harm, is it?'
He not only identifies the issue, but he owns it. He understands that violence against women is HIS problem, too. He also recognises the massive role that men play in the attitudes of their friends, their brothers, their colleagues, and that it's up to each individual to stand up and say or do something when women are denigrated, or threatened, or subjugated.
Yes, he's plugging his foundation. But he's doing it in a way that is empowering and constructive and isnt at the expense of women's autonomy or self-esteem.
What makes Mr O'Keefe's piece stand out? He's focusing entirely on his behaviour, the behaviour of the men around him, and their influences on each other when it comes to stopping violence against women. And this is what we need. Whilst I begrudgingly see the logic in harm minimisation campaigns and education, we need more focus on holding accountable everyone who is complicit in violence of any kind against women, whether it is the perpetrator themselves, or the person who laughs off their friend's violent or inappropriate behaviour with a 'boys will be boys' or 'I shouldnt get involved' or 'it's not really doing any harm, is it?'
He not only identifies the issue, but he owns it. He understands that violence against women is HIS problem, too. He also recognises the massive role that men play in the attitudes of their friends, their brothers, their colleagues, and that it's up to each individual to stand up and say or do something when women are denigrated, or threatened, or subjugated.
Yes, he's plugging his foundation. But he's doing it in a way that is empowering and constructive and isnt at the expense of women's autonomy or self-esteem.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The system failed Evelina.
Shock murder case shows assholes dont pay attention to AVOs
Wow. I'm totally and utterly surprised at this. Not only that a violent man didnt pay attention to an AVO, but that her frantic plight wasnt taken seriously enough by police!
Sorry, my bitterness is showing. I was stalked quite extensively for a while, but fortunately my story didnt end with a couple of bullets in the skull. Over and over, we're given the impression that stalking is a lesser crime, that "unless you have bruises, we've got other cases to worry about" (and that's a direct quote from a police officer. Fuck you, buddy), that you should just ignore it and the problem will go away. The problem doesnt go away, though. It follows you every time you set foot outside your house. It stands outside your window at night, hiding when the cops turn up. It calls you so much at work you have to get your extension changed. It makes you change every tiny thing in your daily routine to try and avoid it (Sound easy? Think of what you do every day. The bus you catch, the time you take lunch, the shop you buy cigarettes from, the thai restaurant you love. Now change it. All of it. Every day). It tells you that you're property, that you're their property, and you have no right to existence outside of them.
And that's what the essence of this issue is: the belief that this woman is yours, that you have sovreignity over them, that they have no right to an existence without you. That they are your property, something you own, something you control. They are no longer a person; they're a posession.
this quote from Snr Constable Andrew Barnes really got to me
"I - nor anyone else - will never know if this incident could have been averted through more intervention by the police and the courts."
Aint that the kicker? The depressing thing is, unless they'd locked him up, it probably wouldnt change anything. Because an AVO really doesnt count for much if theyre determined to do you harm. Because cops are so reluctant to enforce the terms of an AVO unless you're getting the everloving shit kicked out of you on a daily basis. And because there's still this persistent belief amongst some men that women are commodities to be owned and destroyed at will.
Stalking needs to be viewed as a huge warning sign that something in the perp's attitude towards their victim is fundamentally wrong and dangerous, rather than the nuisance crime it tends to be seen as.
Wow. I'm totally and utterly surprised at this. Not only that a violent man didnt pay attention to an AVO, but that her frantic plight wasnt taken seriously enough by police!
Sorry, my bitterness is showing. I was stalked quite extensively for a while, but fortunately my story didnt end with a couple of bullets in the skull. Over and over, we're given the impression that stalking is a lesser crime, that "unless you have bruises, we've got other cases to worry about" (and that's a direct quote from a police officer. Fuck you, buddy), that you should just ignore it and the problem will go away. The problem doesnt go away, though. It follows you every time you set foot outside your house. It stands outside your window at night, hiding when the cops turn up. It calls you so much at work you have to get your extension changed. It makes you change every tiny thing in your daily routine to try and avoid it (Sound easy? Think of what you do every day. The bus you catch, the time you take lunch, the shop you buy cigarettes from, the thai restaurant you love. Now change it. All of it. Every day). It tells you that you're property, that you're their property, and you have no right to existence outside of them.
And that's what the essence of this issue is: the belief that this woman is yours, that you have sovreignity over them, that they have no right to an existence without you. That they are your property, something you own, something you control. They are no longer a person; they're a posession.
this quote from Snr Constable Andrew Barnes really got to me
"I - nor anyone else - will never know if this incident could have been averted through more intervention by the police and the courts."
Aint that the kicker? The depressing thing is, unless they'd locked him up, it probably wouldnt change anything. Because an AVO really doesnt count for much if theyre determined to do you harm. Because cops are so reluctant to enforce the terms of an AVO unless you're getting the everloving shit kicked out of you on a daily basis. And because there's still this persistent belief amongst some men that women are commodities to be owned and destroyed at will.
Stalking needs to be viewed as a huge warning sign that something in the perp's attitude towards their victim is fundamentally wrong and dangerous, rather than the nuisance crime it tends to be seen as.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
I think I might kick this thing off with a little opinion piece from the local scandal-rag-masquerading-as-real-news, the Sydney Morning Herald.
What's wrong, Brits? Got no sense of humour?
Ms Dillon seems to have a bit of a problem with slut shaming and mockery, and lays the blame squarely at the feet of of those stuffy English people with their lack of humour and strange chocolate bars.
A woman who works as a dominatrix cant possibly have her 'virtue' tarnished, because, gosh darn it, she's a fallen lady already! Let's completely ignore the fact the prank was played on her grandfather, and a purported sexual encounter with this young lady was used to mock him, as though it is something to be used to shame both her and her family. Because of course, being part of an entertainment troupe called Satan's Sluts invalidates any feelings of shame or anger or disgust she might feel, and negates any right to respect and common decency she might have. She's a sex worker, it's not like theyre real people. It's a recipe for hilariousness!
Jeremy Clarkson's utterly distasteful joke about truck drivers murdering prostitutes? Fine and dandy; the groups protesting his inappropriate remarks just needs a giant group unbunching of their panties. See comment above about the non-person status of sex workers.
What, I hear you ask, does Ms Dillon offer as proof that the English used to have a sense of humour? A scene from Monty Python's 'The Life of Brian', specifically the scene where Brian finds out about his father:
Mother: Your father was a Roman.
Brian: You mean... you were RAPED?!
Mother: Well... at first, yes.
A ha ha ha, Jane. Hilarious! Because, you see, it was rape, until she liked it! So really, she must have wanted it from the beginning, or at the very least, his overwhelming manliness made her change her mind! Let this be a lesson to you, lads: perseverance gets you the girl.
Rape isnt funny. Dehumanising sex workers isnt funny. Refusal to find these things hilarious doesnt make the English people humourless and boring, it means that part of society might be growing the fuck up finally.
What's wrong, Brits? Got no sense of humour?
Ms Dillon seems to have a bit of a problem with slut shaming and mockery, and lays the blame squarely at the feet of of those stuffy English people with their lack of humour and strange chocolate bars.
A woman who works as a dominatrix cant possibly have her 'virtue' tarnished, because, gosh darn it, she's a fallen lady already! Let's completely ignore the fact the prank was played on her grandfather, and a purported sexual encounter with this young lady was used to mock him, as though it is something to be used to shame both her and her family. Because of course, being part of an entertainment troupe called Satan's Sluts invalidates any feelings of shame or anger or disgust she might feel, and negates any right to respect and common decency she might have. She's a sex worker, it's not like theyre real people. It's a recipe for hilariousness!
Jeremy Clarkson's utterly distasteful joke about truck drivers murdering prostitutes? Fine and dandy; the groups protesting his inappropriate remarks just needs a giant group unbunching of their panties. See comment above about the non-person status of sex workers.
What, I hear you ask, does Ms Dillon offer as proof that the English used to have a sense of humour? A scene from Monty Python's 'The Life of Brian', specifically the scene where Brian finds out about his father:
Mother: Your father was a Roman.
Brian: You mean... you were RAPED?!
Mother: Well... at first, yes.
A ha ha ha, Jane. Hilarious! Because, you see, it was rape, until she liked it! So really, she must have wanted it from the beginning, or at the very least, his overwhelming manliness made her change her mind! Let this be a lesson to you, lads: perseverance gets you the girl.
Rape isnt funny. Dehumanising sex workers isnt funny. Refusal to find these things hilarious doesnt make the English people humourless and boring, it means that part of society might be growing the fuck up finally.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)