HIV is a disease. Mostly, it's a disease of sex. And that means heterosexual sex in South Africa.
It is not a disease of promiscuity, as recklessly labelled by people who take comfort in creating a line in the sand to make an 'US' and a 'THEM'. As long as we continue to distinguish ourselves from people with HIV by using criteria like promiscuity, then we will miss the point.
In fact, HIV is a disease of the innocent: the faithful wife , the widow, the little baby and the children. And very often it is a disease of the serial monogamist - the adult who moves from partner to partner, but only one at a time. This is the most dangerous carrier of HIV - who spreads the virus through unprotected sex, because he believes he has only one partner at a time and is monogamous, and associates this with being 'safe'.
Our Public health campaigners, politicians and scientists like to provide the slogans and the advice, but often fail the social litmus test: like the "ABC" campaign. It is noble in its intentions to promote "Abstain, Be faithful, Condomise" as the ways to protect from HIV. But, most of those are options not afforded to the women of Africa. Very few wives are in a position to demand that their husband use a condom, or to control is faithfulness, let alone to deny her husband sex if she cannot ensure the former two. The ABC is a campaign that targets men, and excludes women.
Similarly, our public health stance on Exclusive Feeding of infants puts women between a rock and a hard place. Throughout the world, mixed feeding of infants is considered the norm (this is a combination of breastmilk and other foods or formula milk). In fact, less than 26% of the world's mothers exclusively breastfeed their children.
Now, our scientific studies have shown that an HIV positive mother who breastfeeds her child exclusively will reduce the transmission of HIV to her baby. And the mother who exclusively feeds her child with Formula Milk will prevent HIV transmission completely, but expose the baby to greater risk of death from diarrhoea and pneumonia. Both of these options that have been proposed to women for the last ten years, have put her in a position of "stigmatised if I do, and stigmatised if I dont". If mum does not breast feed and walks home with the formula milk tins, then she is automatically labelled as HIV positive. If she exclusively breastfeeds and refuses the advice and suggestions of the aunties and grannies who want to provide the baby with tea and porridge and sugar and formula milk, they similarly ask the question ' why wont you accept our cultural tradition to mixed feed. Is there something wrong, like HIV?' these poor mums are set up for failure; whichever choice they make, sets them up to be on the wrong side of the cultural norm.
We do the same with our messages about promiscuity and laying blame at the doors of those who are infected, instead of recognising that 'there but for the grace of god go I'. It is our very human nature that makes us take chances, engage in unprotected sex without knowing our partner's status, trust our husbands and wives to be faithful and to assume that it won't happen to us. It makes us more comfortable to think that this is a disease that belongs to the poor, the promiscuous, the undernourished and the wicked.
It is not a disease of promiscuity, as recklessly labelled by people who take comfort in creating a line in the sand to make an 'US' and a 'THEM'. As long as we continue to distinguish ourselves from people with HIV by using criteria like promiscuity, then we will miss the point.
In fact, HIV is a disease of the innocent: the faithful wife , the widow, the little baby and the children. And very often it is a disease of the serial monogamist - the adult who moves from partner to partner, but only one at a time. This is the most dangerous carrier of HIV - who spreads the virus through unprotected sex, because he believes he has only one partner at a time and is monogamous, and associates this with being 'safe'.
Our Public health campaigners, politicians and scientists like to provide the slogans and the advice, but often fail the social litmus test: like the "ABC" campaign. It is noble in its intentions to promote "Abstain, Be faithful, Condomise" as the ways to protect from HIV. But, most of those are options not afforded to the women of Africa. Very few wives are in a position to demand that their husband use a condom, or to control is faithfulness, let alone to deny her husband sex if she cannot ensure the former two. The ABC is a campaign that targets men, and excludes women.
Similarly, our public health stance on Exclusive Feeding of infants puts women between a rock and a hard place. Throughout the world, mixed feeding of infants is considered the norm (this is a combination of breastmilk and other foods or formula milk). In fact, less than 26% of the world's mothers exclusively breastfeed their children.
Now, our scientific studies have shown that an HIV positive mother who breastfeeds her child exclusively will reduce the transmission of HIV to her baby. And the mother who exclusively feeds her child with Formula Milk will prevent HIV transmission completely, but expose the baby to greater risk of death from diarrhoea and pneumonia. Both of these options that have been proposed to women for the last ten years, have put her in a position of "stigmatised if I do, and stigmatised if I dont". If mum does not breast feed and walks home with the formula milk tins, then she is automatically labelled as HIV positive. If she exclusively breastfeeds and refuses the advice and suggestions of the aunties and grannies who want to provide the baby with tea and porridge and sugar and formula milk, they similarly ask the question ' why wont you accept our cultural tradition to mixed feed. Is there something wrong, like HIV?' these poor mums are set up for failure; whichever choice they make, sets them up to be on the wrong side of the cultural norm.
We do the same with our messages about promiscuity and laying blame at the doors of those who are infected, instead of recognising that 'there but for the grace of god go I'. It is our very human nature that makes us take chances, engage in unprotected sex without knowing our partner's status, trust our husbands and wives to be faithful and to assume that it won't happen to us. It makes us more comfortable to think that this is a disease that belongs to the poor, the promiscuous, the undernourished and the wicked.
Hi In Calvinist circles HIV is the judgement of God.I have been intrigued and bemused to hear WASP housewives pontificate on this. I am not too sure if there isn't a hint of smugness about this but sure as anything there's a big amount of inconsistency bordering on hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteYou ask me why?
Plainly and obviously God brought sickness and death into the world as the due consequence of sin. Whether your sickness is flu,or athritis,or asthma it is a judgement of God. Guess what-you too are going to die ,you too are dying by the minute. That backpain you get is a God consequence and to think that only the judgements of God come through diseases like HIV o WASP woman is hypocrisy. Sweetheart we're all in the same boat -dying and meeting the effects of our sin.
Let's cut out the drivel of smugness and have some compassion.We're all dying.