 |
I don't so much take issue with the facts stated in this article—most of the information about men being the vectors of transmission for AIDS is in fact true—what bothers me are the conclusions this man draws from these facts.
It's one thing not to write very well, but can't this fellow read his own writing? In addition to the questionable conclusions about women sharing needles because they're "following" men's lead (women never decide anything for themselves, don'cha know), there are gems like the following:
"In affluent nations of the West, sex between men is a main route of HIV transmission. In impoverished nations of Africa and Asia, main sources of infection include marauding soldiers, transient workers, truck drivers, and other males away from home. And the dangers involved in all these instances are exacerbated by notions of manliness that inhibit expression of feelings, as well as open discussion of taboo subjects like homosexuality, substance abuse, and sexual practices.
Look at the first sentence in the quote, then the last one. Mr. Carroll states that "in the affluent West, sex is a main route of HIV transmission." I hate it when people write like this, so obviously trying to hide something by getting all mealy-mouthed about it. Sorry, but in the "affluent West", gay sex is the main route of HIV transmission. So why can't he say, "gay"? Ah, well, down below, he blames "outmoded" "notions of manliness" that prevent us talking about homosexuality and other things. I hate to have to spell out the connection for Mr. Carroll, but if you're a man screwing another man, then you're gay, and you probably don't have problems with "outmoded" "notions of manliness."
Predictably, he then goes on to blame all vectors of AIDS transmission on men. You know, if women are spreading AIDS then it's all because the nasty men made them do it. Yawn.
Although this editorial contained some useful information and a few good ideas, I'm afraid that Mr. Carroll's heterophobia was a bit too obvious for me.
|
|
|
