This class was exactly what I thought it would be. There were no surprises about the covered material; it was all very straightforward. I didn't think there would be in-depth coverage of the immune system, but I think learning about it is pretty important when dealing with sexual health. I also didn't expect to have a speaker about the social systems of oppression usually covered in women studies classes, which I thought was really interesting. I liked all the guest speakers--I think they gave lots of new perspectives on different subjects, especially HIV+ Bob Skinner.
The most useful information we covered was probably the systems of oppression because dealing with them is one of the first steps toward a healthier population not just in the US but all around the world as well. I can't think of anything particularly useless that we learned in class because everything pretty much had to be brought up, from the different STI's, transmission, treatments, social systems, countries around the world, America's progress, practicing safer sex, the list goes on and on. It all had something to do with AIDS and STI's and leaving them out wouldn't really have any positive aspects.
Something that could be changed next time is the format of the lecture. I liked watching the few videos we had, and it would be nice to have less powerpoint lectures and more activities or other modes of teaching. I definitely think this subject needs to be taught at the university level because I didn't learn even half as much as I did in middle or high school. This subject is easier taught in front of more mature, open-minded students who actually have an idea of what is being talked about. I really enjoyed this class.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Bob Skinner: Guest Speaker
I honestly did not think that the medication we have today to treat HIV/AIDS was so effective and advanced; Bob Skinner is living proof of that. I was impressed to learn that medication in the US consisted of only two small pills (albeit EXPENSIVE ones)--soon to be reduced to one powerful pill. That was pretty amazing. Skinner also showed us just how expensive each pill was ($25 a pill!), and I couldn't imagine having to pay thousands of dollars a month for the rest of my life, most likely without a job and living under intense stigma... But I learned that an HIV+ person can actually live a normal life if they can manage to push past all those obstacles and move on, like Bob.
Unfortunately, I think Bob's experience living with HIV is very different from people living around the globe. The US has access to so many more resources and information than in third-world countries with populations at extreme risk of infection. First of all, the way in which Bob contracted HIV was much different than most in other countries; Bob practiced risky behavior in his youth, while many people around the world have no other choice but to engage in those behaviors--either for survival or to appease their spouses (usually women have to please their husbands). Many people in other countries also have no access to medical help/medication or can't afford it, while the situation is less severe here in America.
HIV is transmitted particularly via heterosexual relationships in rural areas, similar to how HIV is being transmitted most often in male and female relationships here in the US. In rural countries around the world, most women in a relationship cannot even ask their partners to wear a contraceptive because: a) the man feels like she does not trust him and/or b) the man accuses her of cheating on him because she obviously has an STI. Control in sexual relationships is so one-sided that high transmission rates are unavoidable.
Living in rural regions definitely makes treating HIV difficult because of the intense stigmatization and lack of resources. Clinics may be inaccessible (too far away, too expensive, etc.), ruling out a good percent of infected, poor patients from rural areas. Many people around the world can't go to a clinic for testing even if it were available because of the fear that they will be discovered by their peers and become an outcast.
Unfortunately, I think Bob's experience living with HIV is very different from people living around the globe. The US has access to so many more resources and information than in third-world countries with populations at extreme risk of infection. First of all, the way in which Bob contracted HIV was much different than most in other countries; Bob practiced risky behavior in his youth, while many people around the world have no other choice but to engage in those behaviors--either for survival or to appease their spouses (usually women have to please their husbands). Many people in other countries also have no access to medical help/medication or can't afford it, while the situation is less severe here in America.
HIV is transmitted particularly via heterosexual relationships in rural areas, similar to how HIV is being transmitted most often in male and female relationships here in the US. In rural countries around the world, most women in a relationship cannot even ask their partners to wear a contraceptive because: a) the man feels like she does not trust him and/or b) the man accuses her of cheating on him because she obviously has an STI. Control in sexual relationships is so one-sided that high transmission rates are unavoidable.
Living in rural regions definitely makes treating HIV difficult because of the intense stigmatization and lack of resources. Clinics may be inaccessible (too far away, too expensive, etc.), ruling out a good percent of infected, poor patients from rural areas. Many people around the world can't go to a clinic for testing even if it were available because of the fear that they will be discovered by their peers and become an outcast.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Thinkin' about them theories
The three most interesting theories about how HIV crossed from simians to humans were: the 'Hunter', Contaminated Needle, and Colonialism theories.
The 'Hunter' theory acknowledges culture and food preparation practices as possible transmittance factors from SIV in simians to HIV in humans. It uses the idea of mutation and adaptation of the simian virus, which--after a term of gene and DNA lectures in biology--seems very plausible to me.
Likewise, the Contaminated Needle theory also explains the mutations of the virus in a similar way. This theory seems plausible as well, seeing as cost is a huge factor in determining how many needles will be available at a certain time, especially since there is knowledge now that HIV can be spread via contact with blood. Both theories involve "trading" blood, sharp and point things (knives and needles), and ways in which SIV/HIV could be spread (sharing tainted food, sharing tainted needles). Actually, this theory sounds even more plausible than the first because everyone needs meds, and reusing needles without sanitization is a 100% surefire way to transmit blood from one person to another... Right?
The Colonialism theory seems the most plausible out of the three. This theory takes into account the African labor camps created by colonial forces between the 19th and 20th centuries. It brings in a mixture of the two theories above and more: unsanitary and poor living conditions for the laborers, unsterilized needles repeatedly used for vaccinations, and hunting sick chimpanzees for extra food. Now that I think about it though, this theory places emphasis on poor health and weakened immune systems that allowed SIV to infect the laborers in the first place. That part sounds a little less likely than the other theories, but perhaps an infected laborer who had eaten an infected chimpanzee was the first to introduce the virus into the camps and then the virus was allowed to spread in all the other ways.
I definitely think it's important to understand how the virus was transmitted to humans, so that the evolution/mutation of the virus can be studied more effectively. Knowing the virus's true origins would give us a starting point to start extrapolating and predicting other strains.
The 'Hunter' theory acknowledges culture and food preparation practices as possible transmittance factors from SIV in simians to HIV in humans. It uses the idea of mutation and adaptation of the simian virus, which--after a term of gene and DNA lectures in biology--seems very plausible to me.
Likewise, the Contaminated Needle theory also explains the mutations of the virus in a similar way. This theory seems plausible as well, seeing as cost is a huge factor in determining how many needles will be available at a certain time, especially since there is knowledge now that HIV can be spread via contact with blood. Both theories involve "trading" blood, sharp and point things (knives and needles), and ways in which SIV/HIV could be spread (sharing tainted food, sharing tainted needles). Actually, this theory sounds even more plausible than the first because everyone needs meds, and reusing needles without sanitization is a 100% surefire way to transmit blood from one person to another... Right?
The Colonialism theory seems the most plausible out of the three. This theory takes into account the African labor camps created by colonial forces between the 19th and 20th centuries. It brings in a mixture of the two theories above and more: unsanitary and poor living conditions for the laborers, unsterilized needles repeatedly used for vaccinations, and hunting sick chimpanzees for extra food. Now that I think about it though, this theory places emphasis on poor health and weakened immune systems that allowed SIV to infect the laborers in the first place. That part sounds a little less likely than the other theories, but perhaps an infected laborer who had eaten an infected chimpanzee was the first to introduce the virus into the camps and then the virus was allowed to spread in all the other ways.
I definitely think it's important to understand how the virus was transmitted to humans, so that the evolution/mutation of the virus can be studied more effectively. Knowing the virus's true origins would give us a starting point to start extrapolating and predicting other strains.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Invisible Knapsacks?
In Peggy McIntosh's article, "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack," she describes and lists her "unearned" advantages/privileges that come with having white-skin. Peggy goes on to discuss how all groups, such as men or white populations, are brought up in our society to be oblivious to their white-advantages. She argues that those with the upper-hand must either work to decrease the differences in power between all groups by increasing their advantages (and thereby bringing them "up to par" with those that are more privileged). I think that she's onto something here, but I'm not quite sure how that can be accomplished or even if it can be...
As Peggy said, privilege is so far ingrained within our society that it won't be an easy task to simply increase other minority group's advantages. Take for example our education: "I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race," says Peggy. I do agree that there does seem to be a particular focus on white history, although I think that some classes (like the Humanities) do well in covering a good variety of ethnic groups and races. However, it's tough to decide how much to teach because there are so many different populations in the US--so when will everyone be satisfied? In other words, how is this idea of equality going to be played out when there are already so many groups that are way underprivileged or unrepresented and when there are multiple facets of society that work to increase advantages for some and not at all for others?
In regards to HIV/AIDS, I believe that privilege is like another system of oppression that holds back certain groups of individuals; it puts them at a higher risk of infection and increases the chances that these groups will not recieve the treatment or education they need in order to lead healthier lives. It's similar to how ageism works, like we discussed in class with guest speaker Jennifer Jabson. For this example, think of the elderly as minority groups. They grew up in a different culture (and time) than we (the younger generations, AKA "the majority groups") did, and because of the widespread belief that "younger is better," the elderly (minority groups) are missing out on a lot of privileges/advantages. This is one of the reasons why I think addressing larger systems of oppression (such as heterosexism; see below) is vital in issues of sexual health. It may seem like they are entirely different subjects, but each system inarguably has some sort of effect--positive or negative--on various populations, which would of course influence their way of life as well as their health.
As Peggy said, privilege is so far ingrained within our society that it won't be an easy task to simply increase other minority group's advantages. Take for example our education: "I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race," says Peggy. I do agree that there does seem to be a particular focus on white history, although I think that some classes (like the Humanities) do well in covering a good variety of ethnic groups and races. However, it's tough to decide how much to teach because there are so many different populations in the US--so when will everyone be satisfied? In other words, how is this idea of equality going to be played out when there are already so many groups that are way underprivileged or unrepresented and when there are multiple facets of society that work to increase advantages for some and not at all for others?
In regards to HIV/AIDS, I believe that privilege is like another system of oppression that holds back certain groups of individuals; it puts them at a higher risk of infection and increases the chances that these groups will not recieve the treatment or education they need in order to lead healthier lives. It's similar to how ageism works, like we discussed in class with guest speaker Jennifer Jabson. For this example, think of the elderly as minority groups. They grew up in a different culture (and time) than we (the younger generations, AKA "the majority groups") did, and because of the widespread belief that "younger is better," the elderly (minority groups) are missing out on a lot of privileges/advantages. This is one of the reasons why I think addressing larger systems of oppression (such as heterosexism; see below) is vital in issues of sexual health. It may seem like they are entirely different subjects, but each system inarguably has some sort of effect--positive or negative--on various populations, which would of course influence their way of life as well as their health.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Tip of the Iceberg
In school, I was told that HIV was like the tip of an iceberg submerged in really deep water. It may seem smaller and more harmless than it really is... that is, until your ship rams into the rest of the iceberg hidden below, and then it becomes apparent that no amount of lifeboats is ever going to be enough. All metaphors aside, there is no cure for HIV and AIDS, and there's no telling when AIDS may develop. An HIV patient may be able to prolong the dormant period of the virus by exercising, eating right, and taking treatments, but not everyone can afford it. Everything I know about HIV and AIDS (which isn't much) I have learned throughout middle school, high school, and college. Since I only know general information, it would be nice to hear more about the way in which scientists are researching the mutation of this virus, and how the government is thinking about dealing with it in regards to other countries around the world--especially in poverty stricken areas.
This brings me to the question brought up in the video seen on Monday, "A Measure of Our Humanity: HIV/AIDS in Namibia": Are we committing genocide by neglect of HIV/AIDS epidemics not just in Namibia, but in poor, rural nations all over the world? I have never seen it that way, and I don't think I would have either, if not for that video. I don't know what the US has been doing to help other countries, but I was surprised that whatever we have been doing has been so little that it can be called a "genocide by neglect." I was also surprised that HIV/AIDS has been around for quite a while (since about the 1930's, according to "The Age of AIDS" seen on Wednesday), yet so little ground has been covered in finding a cure.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Roles of Religion and Heterosexism
Two things I would like to focus on regarding the spread of disease are: the religious social structure and heterosexism, a system of oppression.
Disclaimer: Religion is a touchy subject, so I'm sorry if I offend anyone (although this blog will not be scathing or intentionally offensive in any way). Just to be safe.
I believe that religion can play a large role in both the spread and prevention of disease. Since many religions hold rather conservative views in sexuality--by promoting abstinence and/or faithfulness to one's partner--it makes sense that religion may help in decreasing the rate of transmission of disease. However, it's also interesting to point out that, due to this common conservativeness, it is possible that members of a religion who become infected with an STI may not seek medical care from fear of being discovered and looked down upon in their religious community. From there, the STI may be left to fester and spread. So with religion, it could go either way...
Heterosexism, on the other hand, seems to only push stereotypes on others while creating fear/stigma about certain STI's and the stereotypical groups of people associated with them. Take for example HIV/AIDS and its strong association with homosexuals. Heterosexuality is considered the norm, and anything else simply is not. I read somewhere (probably our textbook, but I'm not sure) that many heterosexual men who think they may have contracted or are infected with HIV avoid being tested for it and do not seek treatment--all because they are afraid of being labeled as a homosexual. That is the power of the oppressive system of heterosexism. And, of course, because this fear and stigma keep some people from getting diagnosed (and etc.), the spread of disease can only increase.
From these two examples of our social structure, I think that our USA perspectives regarding STIs are pretty similar to others around the world. Religion is definitely a big player, and it probably has the same effects and influence on the spread of disease no matter where on the globe you may be. And I think heterosexuality is an oppressive system that is here to stay, unfortunately for some, since it seems like it is considered the norm in most other nations as well... I'm not saying that these social structures are causes of disease, but rather ways that may promote or hinder the spread of disease.
Disclaimer: Religion is a touchy subject, so I'm sorry if I offend anyone (although this blog will not be scathing or intentionally offensive in any way). Just to be safe.
I believe that religion can play a large role in both the spread and prevention of disease. Since many religions hold rather conservative views in sexuality--by promoting abstinence and/or faithfulness to one's partner--it makes sense that religion may help in decreasing the rate of transmission of disease. However, it's also interesting to point out that, due to this common conservativeness, it is possible that members of a religion who become infected with an STI may not seek medical care from fear of being discovered and looked down upon in their religious community. From there, the STI may be left to fester and spread. So with religion, it could go either way...
Heterosexism, on the other hand, seems to only push stereotypes on others while creating fear/stigma about certain STI's and the stereotypical groups of people associated with them. Take for example HIV/AIDS and its strong association with homosexuals. Heterosexuality is considered the norm, and anything else simply is not. I read somewhere (probably our textbook, but I'm not sure) that many heterosexual men who think they may have contracted or are infected with HIV avoid being tested for it and do not seek treatment--all because they are afraid of being labeled as a homosexual. That is the power of the oppressive system of heterosexism. And, of course, because this fear and stigma keep some people from getting diagnosed (and etc.), the spread of disease can only increase.
From these two examples of our social structure, I think that our USA perspectives regarding STIs are pretty similar to others around the world. Religion is definitely a big player, and it probably has the same effects and influence on the spread of disease no matter where on the globe you may be. And I think heterosexuality is an oppressive system that is here to stay, unfortunately for some, since it seems like it is considered the norm in most other nations as well... I'm not saying that these social structures are causes of disease, but rather ways that may promote or hinder the spread of disease.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Ads
This (hilarious) ad by Durex promotes safer sex by using their brand name condoms. As you can see, the words in white read "I HEART PHIL," but if you look closer, the darker letters in the background completely change the sentence to "I HEART SYPHILIS." Through the use of the darker letters this ad conveys the fact that syphilis is hard to recognize or diagnose. It is, after all, the "great imitator." This is also emphasized by the small caption in the bottom right hand corner of the ad, "Love is blind." I don't really see a use of fear in this ad, except for the all black background and use of shadows; this ad uses humor and pop-culture to get the point across. Because of the trendy wording/use of symbols (the heart), this ad is probably aiming its message at teens and young adults. It seems as if the ad assumes the viewer is knowledgeable about syphilis, and so no other information about this STI is displayed. Because of its creativity and minimalism, I think that this ad gets the point across (practice safer sex to avoid syphilis--and other STIs) in less than 5 seconds. It's definitely an effective way to reach its target audience, although perhaps more information about the particular STI would've added more oomph to its message.
I think that general advertising and the media play very large roles in the prevention of STIs. Whenever I see a commercial about an STI, there's usually one person in a relationship admitting that they have an infection but keep their partner infection-free by using certain treatments and/or safer sex methods. In this way, television commercials (and ads as well) promote safer sex methods that prevent transmission, while also educating the public on available treatments. I don't see the use of fear that much in the media, from what I can recall. Hopefully, by now we have come to realize that stigmatizing STIs and the people infected with them will not help in getting rid of these infections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)