Bad men give women AIDS
I came across this article earlier today, and it is really telling how women think. As if we are not bombarded by AIDS/HIV awareness enough on a daily basis, now evil men oppressing women are responsible for giving them AIDS. Only the second paragraph into the article, it was all too clear where this was going....
Some morsels from the article.
A study published online Thursday in the British medical journal The Lancet describes how a microfinance project in South Africa cut women's chances of domestic violence by more than half.
There is a strong link between HIV transmission and abusive relationships, with abusive men more likely to have multiple partners or to become violent if asked to use condoms.
"If you address the broader risk environment, women and communities can be quite creative in finding solutions," said Dr. Julia Kim, one of the Lancet study's authors.
In the study, 430 women in rural South Africa were loaned money to start small businesses. Most women sold fruit, vegetables, clothes or offered tailoring services. With economic and social independence, women were no longer obligated to remain in violent relationships.
Are women the only victims of AIDS? Are we looking to cure the disease for everyone, or just for women? It never fails, they always find a way to demonize men no matter what. It's ALWAYS a mans fault. So where are these evil men getting AIDS from anyway? I do find it telling that Dr. Julia Kim thinks that women and communities can be quite creative in finding solutions. Do men do anything? Are any doctors and scientists formulating medicines for HIV male at all? It's this kind of anti-male garbage that just disturbs me. It's everywhere. In the office, in movies, in popular culture and now in medicine. Doctors can't just find a cure for a disease, they need to seperate it by sex.
Not surprisingly, the one voice of reason in the article is a man of course. Dr. Kevin De Cock says "You have to focus on where transmission is actually occurring" That makes too much sense Kevin, why don't we do what Jennifer Kates suggests.... "We need to run faster to get ahead of the virus" What does that mean? How do you get ahead of a virus that is spread solely by irresponsible behavior? Some people will always be irresponsible? How do you run faster to prevent their irresponsiblity? Faulty logic from a woman in charge, but what else is new?
The article contradicts itself quite well also.
In one paragraph, the author states this... "Only in sub-Saharan Africa is AIDS really hitting the general population. In the rest of the world, intravenous drug users, prostitutes and gay men are at highest risk."
OK, so drug addicts, whores and gay men are at the highest risk.
Then states this..... "Surprisingly little information is available on how most HIV infections are acquired. Without that, it is difficult to know which interventions would be most effective."
I thought druggies, whores and gay men were the people at the highest risk? So how do we not know how it's acquired?
The author then says this in the very next paragraph.... "Even when countries do know where AIDS is spreading the fastest, there is no guarantee they will focus on the epicenter. In Latin America, the disease primarily infects gay men. And in much of Russia and eastern Europe, it is drug users."
I thought you said that there was little information on how most HIV infections are acquired???
It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out who the people at the highest risk are. Furthermore, there is no intervention that can prevent risky behavior or stupidity.
In case you're wondering, the author is named Maria Cheng. It all makes sense to now.
Some morsels from the article.
A study published online Thursday in the British medical journal The Lancet describes how a microfinance project in South Africa cut women's chances of domestic violence by more than half.
There is a strong link between HIV transmission and abusive relationships, with abusive men more likely to have multiple partners or to become violent if asked to use condoms.
"If you address the broader risk environment, women and communities can be quite creative in finding solutions," said Dr. Julia Kim, one of the Lancet study's authors.
In the study, 430 women in rural South Africa were loaned money to start small businesses. Most women sold fruit, vegetables, clothes or offered tailoring services. With economic and social independence, women were no longer obligated to remain in violent relationships.
Are women the only victims of AIDS? Are we looking to cure the disease for everyone, or just for women? It never fails, they always find a way to demonize men no matter what. It's ALWAYS a mans fault. So where are these evil men getting AIDS from anyway? I do find it telling that Dr. Julia Kim thinks that women and communities can be quite creative in finding solutions. Do men do anything? Are any doctors and scientists formulating medicines for HIV male at all? It's this kind of anti-male garbage that just disturbs me. It's everywhere. In the office, in movies, in popular culture and now in medicine. Doctors can't just find a cure for a disease, they need to seperate it by sex.
Not surprisingly, the one voice of reason in the article is a man of course. Dr. Kevin De Cock says "You have to focus on where transmission is actually occurring" That makes too much sense Kevin, why don't we do what Jennifer Kates suggests.... "We need to run faster to get ahead of the virus" What does that mean? How do you get ahead of a virus that is spread solely by irresponsible behavior? Some people will always be irresponsible? How do you run faster to prevent their irresponsiblity? Faulty logic from a woman in charge, but what else is new?
The article contradicts itself quite well also.
In one paragraph, the author states this... "Only in sub-Saharan Africa is AIDS really hitting the general population. In the rest of the world, intravenous drug users, prostitutes and gay men are at highest risk."
OK, so drug addicts, whores and gay men are at the highest risk.
Then states this..... "Surprisingly little information is available on how most HIV infections are acquired. Without that, it is difficult to know which interventions would be most effective."
I thought druggies, whores and gay men were the people at the highest risk? So how do we not know how it's acquired?
The author then says this in the very next paragraph.... "Even when countries do know where AIDS is spreading the fastest, there is no guarantee they will focus on the epicenter. In Latin America, the disease primarily infects gay men. And in much of Russia and eastern Europe, it is drug users."
I thought you said that there was little information on how most HIV infections are acquired???
It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out who the people at the highest risk are. Furthermore, there is no intervention that can prevent risky behavior or stupidity.
In case you're wondering, the author is named Maria Cheng. It all makes sense to now.
posted by Youngbuck at 6:34 PM
5 comments
