Zuzu Ramirez on Women, Poverty, and AIDS

        One point the author makes is that AIDS related activities/endeavors must be linked to empowering poor women. This is not simply about self esteem, but more so about giving poor women the ability to take control of their lives.
        Reading this point of view surprised me because I would have never connected AIDS related endeavors to feminism, or at least not in this way. Typically when hearing about AIDS related activities I think of either treatment and prevention itself or rallies. It never occurred to me that I typically don't hear about those affected, especially the women (I usually hear about middle class homosexual men and impoverished children). That being said, I always thought people were more focused on the bigger picture or the future of AIDS. Preventing its spread or lessening current pain. But now I find it foolish and wrong to not think about how, in this case, poor women feel about their lives. Having this disease may make them feel like they have even less control over their life and without access to medication or help due to their social status, there isn't much they can do. They’re overlooked and often voiceless in the rallies because they're seen as less important in ‘the big picture’ that is prevention.
        Another thing this point of view made me realize is that I don't typically think of empowerment as anything beyond self esteem. When I hear ‘empowering women,’ I think of sexual liberation and building confidence. This is due to colonial/western feminism that typically does equate freedom with sexual liberation. By defining empowerment of women with terms like owning property and having control of their life, it became even more clear how feminism relates to all aspects of life, not simply social justice problems. Feminism becomes political and an asset in a fully functioning society. Sexual liberation and confidence, whatever that looks like from person to person, is important for the individual. But providing women with the authority to have control over their lives is important for the world.
        The author’s argument that empowering women should be central to AIDS related endeavors has appeared many times to me outside of the classroom. The main thing it made me think of, thought not specifically AIDS related, is how significant of a positive impact on a country education of women has. It lessens infant mortality, can lower the population, better the economy, and many other things. The emphasis on the education of women and this form of empowerment, and not simply stating that they should ‘get more freedoms/liberation,’ is vital to making actual changes in countries that are suffering.

        A question I have is why aren't more countries taking the steps Brazil took that made it possible to offer free AIDS medication?

Madison Goracke on Women, Poverty, and AIDS

In Paul Farmer’s reading, the author showed the correlation between poverty struck women and AIDS. These women did what they had to in order to survive in poverty, some willingly, and some willingly.

The women in the reading were living lives of poverty, not able to fend for themselves. They all relied on the men to provide for them. I don’t believe the times have changed in this aspect. There are still thousands of sex workers enslaved, as well as women that marry because they have no other choice, often due to family obligations, but what else could they do when they had no opportunities to stay healthy and/or heal themselves?

Farmer shared that women were then left without their main provider, while also infected with this disease. Women in some situations of extreme poverty feel that they have no choice but to use extreme methods to survive; other women are not given a choice. They were trying to provide for their families themselves, and in turn, handed over the responsibility to a man, who in the end was the most harmful in the situation.

He argues that women were not given the proper care when they were infected. They had no means to provide for their families; if there was even anyone else left to care for. They had no one to take care of their children, no doctor to turn to, and of course, a reliance on men to take care of them. Before the reading, I assumed that, by the title, poverty alone would be the blame for AIDS in women’s lives, but it’s so much more than that. They were neglected by society in every way.

When it comes to AIDS in today’s society, I think it’s easy to blame women for “sleeping around” and being provocative, but not getting to the actual source of the problem. In this article, https://www.pri.org/interactive/2017/08/awl-hiv/ a study has been done on women in South Africa, and how poverty is the main reason for AIDS destroying women’s lives. In this article, they display that because of the poverty struck society they’re a part of, more women and young women are being raped and being taken advantage of. If the women don’t have the means to take care of themselves because they are in such low socioeconomic standing, and are forced to rely on a caretaker, they are more susceptible to being taken advantage of. If these women had the health care means to get support, it would change everything.

I want to be able to discuss the roles that poverty and sexism play when it comes to AIDS, and our society’s reaction towards AIDS in the media.

Jennifer Riera on "Inventing 'African' AIDS"

In her piece, “Inventing ‘African’ AIDS,” the author, Cindy Patton, explores how the racist and colonialist discourse of “African AIDS” was both created and used to justify unethical medical exploitation of African individuals on behalf of the West. However, for this blog, I would like to focus on this idea of “catastrophic rights” and how it facilitated the implementation of unethical vaccine trials amongst the African population by the West due to the popular misconception that Africa had already been disproportionately and catastrophically affected by HIV/AIDS.

As was explained in the reading, this concept of “catastrophic rights” can be best defined as the “…trials which don’t quite pass ethical muster [but] should be allowed as ‘compassionate’” (380). In other words, while the “compassionate” portion of this working definition may sound like a sympathetic gesture from the West, in reality, these “rights” essentially provide the West with the legal backing to exploit African bodies due to the popular belief that the country and its inhabitants are already (or soon will be) in a catastrophic state and, thus, in dire need of intervention from the West, even if it means ignoring ethical standards and guidelines to ensure the safety of those receiving the trial vaccine. Moreover, the author also adds that by framing the situation in catastrophic and epidemic proportions, it helps portray this idea that the deadly fate of most, if not all, African individuals has already been decided and, thus, would make great test “subjects” for the benefit of the greater good.

Essentially, this idea that the test subjects—that is, HIV/AIDS infected African individuals—aren’t worthy of a proper implementation of ethical provisions and guidelines clearly highlights this reoccurring theme of racism on behalf of the west. For example, the fact that the trials had three phases, two of which would simply test the affects of the vaccine on non-infected US and British individuals while the third phase would test the vaccine on actual infected Africans, suggests that while white bodies are kept far from the risk of death, black bodies, on the contrary, are viewed as dispensable and less worthy, thus, marking them as prime subjects to test the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the vaccine in maintaining the already infected individual alive.

Seeing how this article explores unethical medical trials and its relation to racism, I would like to connect this back to the Tuskegee trials. Although I am aware that the article already briefly touched upon this topic, I still believe that it is a prime contemporary example worth discussing as it showcases how racial ideologies can have an impact on medicine, science, and the worthiness of ethical provisions and guidelines. As was already briefly explained, the Tuskegee trials were a set of medical trials aimed to test the effects of syphilis on individuals if left untreated. However, it is also important to note that the test subjects who were left untreated were also not told they were given syphilis and, thus, were never given the opportunity to provide consent, much less an informed consent. While that already crosses the line into unethical territory, the racial aspect comes into play when you consider the fact that the test subjects under observation were all Black males. Again, the fact that those who were infected with syphilis and left untreated were Black men strongly reveals whose lives are considered worthy and those who are considered dispensable and less worthy of being kept alive and healthy.

On a similar note, the same argument can be made about Latinas in California who were either coerced or manipulated into sterilization. In a time where the eugenics movement was in full fledge, those who were considered “unfit” for reproduction, such as racial minorities, were forced into sterilization, often times without knowledge or consent. Going back to this racialized idea of who is worthy of living can be seen in this example in the sense that Latinas, due to their racial identity, were thought of as inferior and unfit and, thus, were sterilized in order to prevent them from reproducing and passing on their “faulty” genes.

Because the eugenics movement relied heavily on racial and class ideologies, I would like to further discuss the eugenics movement and its impact in class, especially as it relates to women.

Zubia Jahangir on Paul Farmer's Women, Poverty, and AIDS

In the passage, women, poverty, and AIDS, Paul Farmer argues that many people conceptualize that the disease known as AIDS in women is a result of structural violence. He says that the racism, sexism, and classism that a woman experience are thought of as the reasons behind the disease: AIDS.

The idea of structural violence suggests that women of color are more likely to be infected by AIDS than others; however, AIDS is a disease and not a misogynistic racist man who would look at the color of a woman before infecting her. Similarly, poor people and females are at a higher risk for being infected with AIDS than rich people and men because of structural violence; this idea promotes that it is the woman’s fault for being infected by this lethal disease, but sadly, any infection can hit anyone for many different reasons. People might label the disease to be the women’s fault, but they fail to realize that a woman might have a full control on her body, but she does not have a control on her fate. Many of these people suffer more from AIDS/HIV because they are not provided with enough resources to help them live a healthy and safe life.

According to dosomething.org,  “71% of the HIV/AIDS-related deaths in 2011 were people living in Africa.” Again, these statistics does not depict that this particular race is more susceptible to AIDS. Nonetheless, Africa has a higher rate of AIDS-related deaths because they do not have enough resources to prevent this disease or enough medical facilities to get treated.

How can a social structure be a cause of a biological infection?

Ciere Welton on Paul Farmer's: "Women, Poverty and AIDS"

In this reading, there are three stories given based on women and AIDS. Amongst the stories, Paul speaks on the "commonalities" the three women face.

This perspective has left me in thought regarding the affect of the oppression of women. I have never given much thought about how women who end up with the AIDS virus might not have actually had much of a choice. All of their stories are similar in that they began with not many choices or that their choices were taken from them. If they were part of the "us" would their lives have turned out the same? Would their lives be the same if they actually had the options of being loved by their father and not beaten by him, sold into prostitution or having access to a job that would help them make "more than ends meet".

I assume I lack the knowledge of so many women being robbed of their rights because as stated in the reading these perspectives are hardly recognized or spoken about publicly. The AIDS virus is more so deemed a issue primarily amongst men, though it is not! What about these three women or millions of more being introduced to drugs because the pressures put on them and the absence of support from loved ones or just in general. In my opinion, it should be far from common that so many women have to endure such oppression.

According to Avert, an informative global site about HIV and AIDS, girls ranging from just the third grade up until nearly 30 years of age are likely to acquire the HIV virus. This site introduces factual evidence that majority ethnic or minority women are left vulnerable to this virus due to "unequal cultural, social and economic status." I have learned that that there are many aspects that contribute to this epidemic, including women who have the virus and give birth, women who lack the knowledge of safety and the list continues.

https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-social-issues/key-affected-populations/women

There are too many women that are denied their right to protect themselves due to the "commonality" of cultural oppression.

Jennifer Riera on "Images of Sara Bartman

In her piece, “Images of Sara Bartman,” the author, Yvette Abrahams, provides a historical overview of the many social, political, ideological factors that helped create an environment in which the exhibition of “freaks” was readily accepted. However, while keeping this central theme in mind, the point that I wish to discuss further is how the imperialist mindset of the British may have been one of the leading contributing factors as to how and why a horrific and degrading practice would ever take place to begin with.

Although I thoroughly enjoyed Abrahams analysis on the making of the story of Sara Bartman, what struck me the most interesting, by far, was her ability to connect Sara Bartman’s story to the imperialist mindset of the British at the time. As she explained in her piece, not only was Sara’s story a testimony to the literal colonization that took place in her African hometown, but also a testimony to the effects that such imperialist and colonial policies can have on not only the colonized regions themselves, but also amongst the people that resided in Britain at the time. As was noted with the author’s use of “the colonizer vs. the colonized,” the ability to literally display the “othered” people, such as Sara, in an exhibition and generalize the entire Black race as one that is “animalistic” and “beastly” all helped to create this separation of “us” vs. “them,” or “civilized” vs. “uncivilized,” which then helped to normalize this form of degradation as well as to justify the literal colonization of African regions to begin with.

However, as was also discussed by the author, this unprecedented fascination with Sara’s buttocks suggests that not simply an imperialistic ideology was taking place, but rather a gendered imperialistic ideology. It is this gendered aspect of the discussion that I find both fascinating and heart breaking, as it reminded me of Dr. Sim’s refusal to apply anesthesia during countless surgeries with female slaves, since it was popular belief that black individuals failed to fully develop their nerve-endings due to their uncivilized manner and, thus, cannot feel pain. Unfortunately, it was because of their intersecting Black and female identities that allowed for Dr. Sims to not only literally own these black women’s bodies, but also to literally control their sexual organs, all in the name of science.

While it may seem as though scientific racism and imperialism are a thing of the past, in reality, we can still see such ideologies very much at play and embedded within the fabrics of our society and everyday life. For example, take the case of imperialism and our most recent interaction with Afghanistan. Using an imperialist argument to justify the invasion of Afghanistan, the US claimed that the Afghanistan culture was so “backwards” and oppressive towards women that the US had no other option but to invade the country, attempt to spread civilized/western thought, and “rescue” these “helpless” women. While many may argue that the US also had an alternate motive, the fact that they still effectively used an imperial justification reveals just how much imperialism is not only (more or less) accepted, but also thought of as necessary for the common good, regardless of the fact that imperialism simultaneously implies a “colonized vs. colonizer” or “civilized vs. uncivilized” ideology.

After having discussed the story of Sara Bartman and the story of Dr. Sims and his female slaves, can we argue that there could have been other social, gendered, or political ideologies at play that helped produce these unfortunate outcomes?

   http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/shared/npr/styles/x_large/nprshared/201602/466943547.png