"... the AIDS epidemic is a feminist issue: it shows the cultural silencing of women, their exclusion from debates about their own fate, and their dependence on those who are more powerful to represent them," (Treichler 271).
This chapter on women shows how, from the outset, women and particularly feminists had to fight for a seat at the table in the AIDS debate. According to Treichler, the disease was considered an upper-class, white male disease for a long period. This means women were not taken into account in terms of research, treatment, understanding the disease or even activism except as they related to men.
Treichler points out that when the disease was primarily characterized as one that mainly affected homosexual males and heterosexuals in the third world, it was that much harder for women to be acknowledged as having a role in the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This means that everything from education and prevention efforts to clinical trials and statistical research excluded or overlooked women. When women were considered it was often in the periphery, so as partners of "at risk" male groups like intravenous drug use.
In the chapter Treichler details the battle to have women, particularly lesbians, included as a potential risk group for HIV/AIDS. I would guess that without being part of the conversation or included as an at-risk group women were perhaps in some ways more vulnerable to contracting HIV. Treichler describes newpaper and magazine articles that essentially told women they weren't at risk of HIV/AIDS at all. Even scientists participated in what I consider a strange practice, there was research that concluded women were more receptacles or carriers of the virus (particularly prostitutes), but were not nearly as susceptible to AIDS as men.
I found myself thinking that if not for activists placing women on the agenda we'd be far behind where we stand in terms of the role of women in the AIDS epidemic. It's terrifying especially given the fact that the number of cases of women diagnosed with AIDS is currently increasing at one of the highest rates in Canada. It makes me wonder just how far behind the scientific research is as it relates to women and HIV/AIDS is now.
I am also left with a lot of questions. What is it about women that make them a risk group? Is there a particular type of woman and if so what is that type? How can an entire sex be categorized into one homogenous group, and if they aren't how can women be categorize?What can be done? is perhaps my most pressing question about the effect of HIV/AIDS on women. I hope that my upcoming readings will help answer some of these questions
As a journalist I seek understanding and to relay that understanding to my audience. This first reading has shown how with a topic like HIV/AIDS there is a lot more to consider and many intertwined elements to the discussion. I will have to tread, not necessarily lightly, but perhaps armed with the knowledge to needed to handle this topic as it deserves to be--recognizing its complexity and its many layers.
Also to consider from my professor, Sarah Todd:
ReplyDelete"Sometimes it seems a delicate balance between how we understand that everyone is at risk, and thus the notion of risk groups is problematic with also needing to highlight that certain people are more vulnerable to getting HIV because of physical attributes, social context, experiences or geography. All women who have unprotected sex are at risk of contracting this disease, but those of us who are part of particular communities where rates are higher, are more likely to do so. Those of us who have trouble hoping for a better tomorrow are more likely not to put off today's pleasure for the security that tomorrow might exist. Also, it is important to note that at different moments we may or may not be more or less at risk. That our lives, behaviours, beliefs and experiences shift over time."