"Not me" is not an excuse anymore

When I was growing up, we had a ghost living in our house.  This entity’s name was “Not me.”  The perpetual question would be asked, “Who left the bowl of chips on the floor?” “Who made the mess?” “Who’s responsible for that?” The answer would usually be, “Not me.”   Quite often, “Not me” did a lot around my house. 

Now, it seems, “Not me” has expanded its horizons and moved on to a larger target.  Now, it seems, “Not me” is responsible for the health of the environment and taking solid steps in moving toward alternative energy sources. 

The “Renewable Energy:  The Deceptive Global Consensus” reading discusses a speech made by Al Gore in Italy in 2004, in which he named the top threats to the climate health as being the Earth’s population explosion, scientific and technological developments, and  the lifestyle of rich countries.  The article point out that by assigning such broad causes, everyone, and therefore no one, is responsible for the condition of global health.  The blame isn’t pinned on one person or country, so everyone can point fingers at their neighbors and say, “It’s not our fault.  They do higher pollution rates, so they’re the ones who need to take action.  It’s not me, it’s them.”

There have been efforts made by some countries, especially in Europe, to turn toward renewable energy sources, but it hasn’t been on the level that it needs to be to truly turn the tide toward alternative energy sources.  The “Why Alternative Energy and Fuels” reading reveals that the United States consumes about 25% of the world’s crude petroleum supply annually.  The U.S. needs to be one of the countries taking a leading position in the movement toward alternative energy sources, and so far, it hasn’t gone as far as it needs to. 

Thus comes the idea of urban gardens.  They’re not the ultimate answer for saving the world, but they can’t hurt, and they’d bring communities together.  They’ve already started to take hold in Detroit.  Corporations like Hantz Farms are turning vacant lots into community gardens to provide local, homegrown food, jobs, and a common tie to bring people together to work for something greater than the individual. 

This is an example of why it’s important to cultivate “social capital” (people power, community engagement) as well as “physical capital” ( buildings, sidewalks, etc).  As discussed in “Community Development Through Gardening:  State and Local Policies Transforming Urban Open Space” by Jane Schukoske, the attempt  in the 1950’s and 1960’s to improve physical capital in cities may have resulted in a nicer-looking cityscape, but it also desolated the social capital in some areas.  One example right here in Detroit is the destruction of Black Bottom in the 1960’s.  A once vibrant community was destroyed as the freeways cut right down its middle in the name of progress. 

Basically, what we’ve been seeing is that not everything valuable in this world can have a price tag on it.  The “natural capital” described by “The Next Industrial Revolution” is invaluable.  Natural capital entails the normal resources that usually come to mind - water, minerals, oil, trees, soil, air, etc – but also includes ecosystems like coral reefs, savannas, and rainforests.  Yet too often, we take those ecosystems for granted because although they’re pretty, they don’t in and of themselves have a tangible monetary value, and we let them be destroyed so that other resources like wood and oil can be removed and used by consumers all over the world. 

Social capital and neighborhood commitments are valuable, and so are ecosystems like the rainforest.  The rainforest holds the potential for millions of medical cures, but if we keep destroying it, we’ll lose them forever.  I don’t mean to go all Pocahontas “Paint with all the colors of the wind” here, but we really need to step back and re-evaluate how we value the resources of this world, not just according to the price they could bring on the world market. 

This time, it can’t be left to “Not me.” This time, it’s everyone’s problem, and instead of being no one’s problem, everyone needs to take a direct step, whether that be on an individual level (using reusable canvas bags for shopping instead of plastic bags), a community level (starting an eco-friendly garden to strengthen community ties), or a governmental level (standing behind environmental sanctions and not backing down to the demands of big fossil fuel businesses). 

We can’t stand around pointing fingers; everyone made the mess, so everyone needs to clean it up.  “Not me” just isn’t good enough anymore.

What would happen if the Playboy Bunnies had AIDS?

For me, this week’s reading was really thought-provoking.  It started when I read Marlon Bailey’s “Performance as Intravention:  Ballroom Culture and the Politics of HIV/AIDS in Detroit.” 

First of all, I acknowledge that I’d never heard of Ballroom Culture in my life before reading this.  I didn’t know there were “houses” (headquarters) all over the U.S., let alone in Detroit.  The whole concept of having a house led by a “mother” or a “father” to provide the stability and support of a non-biological family to those rejected by their families and communities for not being “normal” and heterosexual, to me, is really something.  The mothers and fathers provide a pillar of guidance in the lives of their children and give them information about safe sexual practices that might not be absorbed as well coming from someone else.  The community hosts balls, which can draw people from all over the country, and distributes HIV/AIDS awareness information through competitions.  This is a great example of creating an HIV/AIDS prevention campaign with solutions found within the community and tailored to the target audience.  Most people don’t respond well to an overwhelming campaign of solemn facts and information thrown at them; it’s scary, confusing, and comes from a distant source (the government, health professionals, etc).  Like the ABC’s in Botswana, such a campaign is made up by someone outside the targeted community and consequently, the campaign doesn’t fit the needs of its community.  Make the distribution of knowledge into a game or a competition, with a prize and prestige attached for winning, and audiences are much more likely to be receptive of the message, especially when it’s being told to them by their people in a similar situation to theirs.

This, however, leads us to the whole question of how to determine who should be the targeted community for HIV/AIDS campaigns and what designating a group of people as a “community of risk” can entail.   As Bailey mentions in his article, in intervention campaigns, the term “communities of risk” is used to stereotype and stigmatize people who are already viewed outside the moral and economic boundaries of society.  Basically, he argues, non-heterosexual minorities, who are statistically more often than not poor, are lumped under the “at-risk” label because society already sees them as having done something wrong or not being desirable.  Therefore, something in their behavior or morals must have led to this epidemic of HIV/AIDS among people “like them.” Researchers can even unwittingly fall back on these stereotypes in their research, skewing their viewpoints and perpetuating the stereotypes with their published work.

One possible example I found of this happening in our reading this week was in Ojikutu and Harris’ article “Moving Toward a Unified Global HIV/AIDS Agenda:  Communities of Color in Crisis.” In the article, they state that “In most South American countries, MSM is the most commonly reported risk factor for HIV.”  Exactly what does this imply? Does it imply that men who have sex with men are more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts? Does it mean that men who have sex with men are less capable of understanding posters urging them to condomize than the rest of the general public?  It seems to, and it totally disregards factors like poverty, discrimination, homophobia, and unequal access to medical care that may lead to increased risk for contracting HIV/AIDS. 

You can see it in our very own society, and you don’t have to look past your TV screen.  My question is what would happen if Hugh Hefner came out and admitted that he was HIV positive?  The biggest playboy in the world, and his various “bunnies” over the years…he’s not exactly the model of faithful monogamy.  Does he have concurrent sexual relationships?  My guess would be probably.  Then you tell me, why would the rest of the world be so shocked at his “coming out” with a disease like HIV?  It’s because he doesn’t fit the model.  He’s white, rich, straight, and one of the biggest celebrities in Hollywood.  It’s easy enough to mentally assign AIDS to “some junky” or “some cross dresser” hanging out on an imaginary street corner, but what if it was Hugh?  Or a blonde-haired, bue-eyed, perfect-body Playboy bunny?  America looks at them and thinks...Sexy? Yes. AIDS........never in a million years.  America’s socks would be rocked by that revelation because we’d finally have to confront our stereotypes of who contracts HIV. 

“Black Sexuality, Social Construction, and Research Targeting the Down Low” argues that African American communities have for the most part excluded homosexuals because they don’t want its stigma and the accompanying stigma of HIV associated with it and giving the rest of society another reason to badmouth “black sexuality.” I argue, however, that across the board, we feel comfortable assigning HIV/AIDS to those on the outskirts of society because we’re terrified of the disease so we put it as far away from us as possible.  Normal people aren’t like “them” (minorities, non-heterosexuals, etc), so therefore, normal people don't contract their disease. 

Such thinking is wishful and ignorant, and the longer we think this way, the more society as a whole puts itself at risk and isolates its members who are most in need of support.

Girl Power?

Hi everyone! I’m once again refining my views on the “ABC” concept of HIV/AIDS prevention campaign going on in Botswana right now.  The third part of “ABC”- condomize- encourages sexual partners to use condoms in order to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS during sex.  This, however, assumes that in heterosexual relationships, women have equal power in the relationship to men’s power, and that they can demand condom use by their male partner. 

Last week, we talked about how Western-designed HIV/AIDS prevention campaigns fail to take Tswana culture into full consideration, and therefore are failing to live up to their full potential.  This is another example of that.  In most places in the West (not all, but most), women have mostly equal rights to those of men.  In the U.S., the 1960’s and 1970’s saw a political and social movement toward women’s rights to put them on equal footing with men.  Although there are still instances of discrimination against women in the workplace, women have achieved more equality with men. 

This isn’t the case in Botswana, or at least, not when it comes to relationship power standards between men and women.  As Cathy McIlwaine and Kavita Datta note in their article, “Endangered Youth? Youth, Gender, and Sexualities in Urban Botswana,” traditionally, women aren’t allowed to deny their husbands sex.  According to traditional culture, men may beat their wives until they agree to sex.   Going up against physical force like that, few women are likely to push the issue of using a condom if their male partner doesn’t want one.

There’s also an economic aspect to it.  In the article “Going Beyond ‘ABC’ to Include ‘GEM’:  Critical Reflections on Progress in the HIV/AIDS Epidemic,” Dworkin and Ehrhardt use the term “feminization of HIV/AIDS,” meaning that women are at the highest risk for HIV/AIDS because of contextual and cultural elements.  Nearly 50% of HIV-infected people worldwide in 2004 were women, and factors like gender inequality and denial of education and work opportunities contribute to that.

These are factors that can’t be solved simply by telling people to abstain, be faithful, and wear a condom.  These are social structure problems that are perpetuated through years of gender roles, stereotypes, and cultural norms.  Fixing them is going to take programs with deep-set roots designed by Batswana in order to address culture norms disregarded or unrecognized by Western programs.  Keeping girls in school gives them a better chance at finding a good job, which makes them less likely to be pressured into marriage for economic reasons or selling themselves for sex, which increases their risk for contracting HIV.  That’s a simplified version of a solution, and it’s certainly not the only way to help women reduce their risk for HIV/AIDS, but it certainly would help.

I thought it was really interesting in Rob Pattman’s article, “Men Make a Difference:  The Construction of Gendered Student Identities at the University of Botswana,” how there’s a double standard for men and women when it comes to drinking alcohol.  When I think of a university, I tend to think of it as a liberal place and more likely to be gender-equal.  This undoubtedly is based on my own experiences at WSU.  However, I was really surprised to read about how men display their masculinity through drinking and hanging out in “Uganda”- the campus bar.  Women, on the other hand, are seen as loose or improper if they drink. 

It just made me wonder what the Tswana students will think of us when we go over there.  If the ladies in our group ever mentioned going out to a bar or having a typical college party experience, will the Batswana judge us?  Will they think of us as “loose”?  How will they expect us to interact with the males in our group?  Will we be the stereotypical immoral Americans?  These are just the questions that popped into my head, and I guess we’ll just have to see when the time comes!