The American Prospect: How Fundamentalist Christian Morality Is Killing Africans
Beatrice Were contracted HIV from her husband, a common occurrence in a region where women make up the majority of new infections and marriage is a primary risk factor. For those like her, the White House’s AIDS prevention mantra — which prescribes abstinence and marital fidelity, with condoms only for “high risk” groups like prostitutes and truck drivers — is a sick joke… Organizations in Uganda are afraid to speak up about condoms or distribute them because they might lose needed [U.S.] funding.
Obsidian Wings: Yes, For The 100th Time, Athiests Can Recognize Good From Evil
Hilzoy demolishes the self-satisfied Christian argument that only people who believe in God can tell right from wrong. And when you’re done reading her post, you may also want to read these posts on Pandagon and Shakesville, too. (Update: The Shakesville link appears to be dead. Hopefully it’ll be repaired in time.)
Pedantically, Hilzoy is not addressing the argument that atheists cannot tell good from evil, possibly because few Christians would make that argument, because it is so very, very stupid. She is instead addressing the argument that atheists have no compelling reason to choose good instead of evil, which is considerably more interesting as a question.
Non-pedantically, the first link leads to a page-not-found error.
You blog more while not blogging than I blog while considering blogging to be part of my day job. :)
Point pedantically taken. :-)
The question I’ve been wondering about is if it’s more difficult for someone acting under the shadow of a threat– such as a Christian who believes that making the wrong choices will lead to eternal torture — to be a good person. If I give $200 to charity because someone’s gonna shoot me if I don’t, is it really a credit to my character?
Anyhow, thanks for pointing out the dead link; I’ve linked to the same article on a different website.
The Shakesville link doesn’t work either, btw. Maybe atheists can tell right from wrong, but they don’t seem to be very good at evaluating URL functionality. :)
Amp, that question (whether being good under duress is really being good) is something I think about a lot.
I’ve had some interesting discussions with proselytizers at my door because they always want to know: don’t I want to go to Heaven? Aren’t I afraid of Hell? They are to the very last one, astonished when I reply that I don’t care, and that I find the existence (or not) of Heaven and Hell quite irrelavent. I want to do good things because I want to be a good person, a force for making the world better. I want to avoid doing bad things because I don’t want to hurt people and/or make the world a worse place. Heaven and Hell don’t mean squat.
It says something to me about the character of somebody when they find that position incomprehensible.
Of course, there’s no need to be a theist to be good under duress. I’m good under duress every time I visit the computer store and don’t stick a 36″ LCD monitor under each arm and rabbit into the parking lot. That security guard hits hard.
True. And for that reason, I wouldn’t say that the fact that you refrain from rabbiting from the store with two stolen monitors under your arms shows that you’re a person of good character.
The problem with an all-knowing, all-seeing and potentially vengeful God is, you in effect live your entire life under the gaze of that hard-hitting security guard. That doesn’t mean you can’t be a good person; just that it’s difficult to sort out goodness from self-interest in not being beaten up by a strong person in an ill-fitting polyester uniform.
It also brings up the problem of what happens if the security guard Himself has screwed-up beliefs or priorities, such as believing that non-coercive, mutual sex between two people of the same sex is wrong.
I liked Al Franken’s idea of writing to conservative leaders, asking them to share their abstinance stories.
Hm. Seems to me that what’s killing Ugandan women is the sexual activities of Ugandan men. Those actions in turn are supported by the prevalent culture there, which does not sanction men who a) frequent prostitutes, b) don’t use “safe sex” techniques and c) then have sex with their wives with no concern for their wishes or the consequences to them. The U.S.’s policies carry no responsibility or authority for any of this. Me, I’d say it was an inferior culture in Uganda – in the sense that the inferiority or superiority of a culture would be judged by it’s effect on the survival of the people in it.
Here here, Ron F. As far as I know no representative of American interests has ever forced an infected person to have sex with an uninfected person.
Ahh – but US policy is contributing to Ugandan women being unable to defend themselves against Ugandan mens behaviors. They can hardly insist upon condom usage if there aren’t any available, and the US has a lot to do with why they aren’t available.
Primary cause – no. Contributing to making a bad situation worse? Oh yes.
As far as I know no representative of American interests has ever forced an infected person to have sex with an uninfected person.
Really? Then marital rape has never been legal in the US? And there have never been conditions under which one person is considered the temporary or permanent property of another (and therefore unable to withhold consent) in the US? Funny, that’s not what I heard in history class…
The first link is a good example of how issues are interconnected.
Take the argument that a “real” feminist should stop worrying so much about whether vibrators are legal in the U.S. and start worrying about “poor women in Africa”. But really, the outcome of the “culture wars” in the U.S. has a great deal of influence on the “poor women in Africa”. If a large number of people would stop their (IMHO immoral*) insistence on “abstinence only”, this would have a significant impact on other people’s lives in developing countries. Another example – if people 20 yrs ago would have gotten over thier reluctance to care about AIDS as a “gay disease”, perhaps it wouldn’t be as widespread as it is now. The struggle against fundamentalist thinking has a great deal more impact/meaning than just making life more comfortable for a few individual feminists.
(* Yes, I do think that “abstinence only” education is immoral and should be referred to with that specific language. It’s not just “unwise”, but actually wrong.)
I did a post on atheism and morality some time back, considerably less detailed and eloquent than Amanda’s or Hilzoy’s, but just thought I’d throw it into the mix. Synopsis: morality grows out of empathy, which every normal person has, and the process begins very early, long before any clear understanding of religion.
(With this post I bring my blog out of the closet here. I haven’t linked to it before because I rarely write about topics of interest to Alas readers. I suppose a harmonic convergence had to happen sooner or later.)
You know, Dianne and Tapetum, for feminists specifically and good lefties in general you’re not granting the people of Uganda much agency. If people of other countries are so incapable of making decisions about their own health that the U.S. government withholding money for condoms (not forcably preventing citizens of other countries from using them, not telling them they can’t buy condoms themselves, not preventing another country or a private U.S. agency from providing them) causes this big a problem, well, I guess Kipling was right about the White Man’s Burden all along. We do rule the world after all. Who’d a thunk it?
Um, Chief, we white men DO rule the world, as result of our having seized the rule from everyone else.* This fact imposes a NEGATIVE “white man’s burden” on us until we relinquish that rule. I am also not sure why blaming the problem on Ugandan men implies that we should not worry about the Ugandan women who are their victims. Thanks to patriarchy, Ugandan women really DON’T have much agency.
* This was an historically contingent fact, btw. For much of human history, the smart money was on the world being run by Asian men, but they fumbled at exactly the wrong time in history, and we whites managed to pass them by.
Chief, there are a number of right-wing posters who have been leaving comments on “Alas” for years. In my opinion, they’re intelligent, and they sometimes say interesting things that challenge my views.
You, on the other hand, have been very boring in this thread. Your arguments are simplistic and show no deep comprehension of the issue, and you’re overly interested in playing “gotcha.”
Regarding your argument, most liberals and feminists consistently favor policies which take into account the way society’s institutions (including social expectations) make certain choices easier or harder for people to make. That’s our view when we’re talking about people here in America (which is why feminists tend to favor sex ed and making birth control widely and easily available), and that’s our view when we’re talking about people in Uganda as well (where – again – feminists tend to favor sex ed and making birth control widely and easily available).
There’s no inconsistency there; no “white man’s burden”; no assumption that Ugandans are less capable than anyone else (although I do think that many Ugandan women face more stringent sexism than many US women; but that has nothing to do with being capable or not). We advocate the exact same thing for Uganda than we do for the US; that
the governmentsociety’s institutions should make access to safe birth control easier and simpler, rather than making it harder. Therefore your argument holds no water.Now, in your next comment, you can either respond intelligently and without the not at all subtle sneering tone that has characterized your comments on this thread, or you can get banned. I’ve giving you one more chance to demonstrate that you’re an intelligent, reasonable right-winger who is worth talking to, rather than yet another idiot.
Ball’s in your court.
Or perhaps we could take the view that it’s not our problem or our business.
I may prefer that my tax money be spent on something besides Rubbers for Others. I may prefer a very limited use of government funds. Truth be told, I’d prefer that we not do the abstinence program either. I’d prefer that we less spend (less) government money at home and none on the sex lives of people overseas.
Want some Ugandan guy to bag it? Find or start a private charity that advocates such a thing and contribute any amount of money you feel comfortable with. I’d really recommend you send actual condoms directly to Uganda instead of cash since monetary aid to Africa is notorious for ending up lining some warlord’s pockets, but it’s your money and your business, do as you like.
But getting government involved? It really doesn’t pass the P.J. O’Rourke Gun to Mom’s Head Test, which points out that paying taxes is the law. If you don’t pay, they’ll fine you. If you don’t pay the fine plus the taxes they’ll jail you. If you try to escape jail they’ll shoot you. So with every possible use of tax money, ask yourself, “is this really worth shooting my sweet, grey haired old mother in the head over?”
As I say, do as you like. For myself, I’m off to consult with my accountant about getting more deductions.
If you double park, they’ll fine you. If you don’t pay the fine, they’ll jail you. If you run away from jail, they’ll shoot you.
Therefore, obeying laws against double parking is exactly the same as shooting my mother in the head.
Exactly right, Sylphhead.
I’d also like to add that P. J. O’Rourke is clever in precisely the same way Ayn Rand is. That is, amazing when you’re in High School and much less so as you get older and start to realize that things like the ‘Gun to Mom’s Head Test’ are transparently bullshit.
“They might shoot you if you stage a jailbreak, therefore any law that doesn’t deserve the death penalty is immoral!”
Right. Good luck with that, Chief.
Last, Chief, I note that, IMHO, your last comment contains every ounce of the sneering Amp refers to in his comment. This is his thread, and I want banning you to be his call, but if it were up to me, you’d be out of here.
—Myca
There have been any number of cases where tax evasion has resulted in imprisonment. Please present one case where double parking alone has.
Well, plenty of folks have been jailed for theft or fraud, which is what tax evasion is, anyway.
And besides, I don’t think my gray-haired mother should be shot in the head for armed robbery either, so let’s legalize that.
—Myca
If people are allowed to ignore the properly executed power of the state than a civil society will break down. We have a reasonable system for fighting government mistakes. We have a system for compensating people when the state goes too far. I’d like it if it were better. But the argument that the state uses force to enforce its proper authority makes all state action equivalent to a murder threat is silly.
Chief, do you have an alternative method of enforcement? Because ulitmately every Incidence of state power is backed up by the threat of force. From don’t kill other people to don’t jump lines at the subway.
Also, people do go to jail for parking tickets. If you don’t pay they suspend your license. If you drive anyway they fine you. If you keep driving you go to jail.
Myca, I can’t say that I’m any more impressed with The Chief’s arguments than I was previously, but I do think his tone has improved — he’s no longer implying that anyone who objects to the far-right “no condoms” rule must be racist. So that’s an improvement, I guess.
The purpose of the head-gun test isn’t to literally expect our society to kill everyone who double parks.
The purpose of the test is to remind the person conducting the test that government power rests ultimately on deadly force, and that deploying the power of the state in a new area of life is a serious matter. Is that ultimate power appropriately deployed in the maintenance of public order, in the defense of the nation, for the public welfare? Probably, sure.
Is it appropriately deployed to make sure that the Lawrence Welk birthplace is carefully tended? Probably not.
“The purpose of the test is to remind the person conducting the test that government power rests ultimately on deadly force”
All power and all authority ultimately rest on deadly force.
True, in our society, we charge one centralized institution to use ‘deadly force’ so that, say, the power of the church, or the authority of the president of the Stamp Collectors Club, do not have be backed by guns. But in the absence of government, they’d have to – and that’s precisely the reason we have government in the first place. Summarily disqualifying it for the very purpose we created it is a very unconvincing argument.
Back more to the original topic, I suppose you could make the argument, Chief, that Americans shouldn’t be paying for condoms in Uganda. Most people see foreign aid as a moral necessity, but there are arguments against it that can’t be categorically thrown out. What makes this case particularly straightforward, though, is that the US government is committed to pledging money to fight this problem – but only in manners that don’t work, namely promotion of abstinence. If you oppose this as well, then fine; but I haven’t read a definitive answer from you on this.
Right, but the part that makes the test bullshit is that there are plenty of things that we can all agree should be illegal but should not carry the death penalty, like robbery, assault, or fraud.
It’s a lovely rhetorical flourish to whip out when you want to whip up some anti-tax sentiment (taxation is like shooting your mother in the head!), but it doesn’t hold up when you realize that it applies to everything: “Prosecuting rape is like shooting your mother in the head! Are you saying you want to shoot your mother in the head? Don’t you think that’s out of proportion to the crime? You want to kill your mother? How vile!”
Please.
America is ruled in part by a contract which dictates what we ought to spend our taxes on, what level of taxation is acceptable, and what the punishments for tax evasion ought to be. Punishment for tax evasion is not morally tantamount to murder any more than government enforcement of contract law is morally tantamount to murder.
It all comes down to men with guns, and always has, ever since guns were invented. And before that, it was men with cudgels.
—Myca
This thread has taken an odd turn in that I now actually believe some of you have TOO HIGH a threshhold for shooting people in the head.
Murderers? Putting aside captital punishment for a moment because it drifts the thread too much, I believe that any murderer who tries to escape his punishment should be at least threatened with deadly force, and then, if necessary, shot if they refuse to comply. Convicted rapists and other people guilty of assault? Again, shoot ’em in the head if they try to escape. Property crimes? In at least some cases, I’d vote yes. Law without punishment is just suggestion, and there’s a fair sized list of things that warrant deadly force if we have really have to go to the matt.
Taxes? Even then I’ll say yes in some situations. But if we’re going to hold a gun to Mom’s head and take her money, I’d say we should take as little as possible and use it only on things that a country absolutely needs to get by. National defense? Pretty inarguably, yes. Infrastructure? We wouldn’t be much of a country if travel were largely limited to walking distance so, yeah, we need it, and we need everybody’s buck to pay for it.
But condom use by some guy half a world away? I maintain that isn’t a vital national interest, not enough to forcably take money out of the pocket of–well, anybody. Not me, not you, not our grey haired mothers, not even the local billionaire. If it’s that important to you, as I say, find or start a charity and support it yourself.
Particularly odious is this belief that America is somehow obligated to provide condoms, or ANY sex education, to any other nation. I still say it’s monstrously condescending, and has less to do with compassion and more to do with that sweet, sweet feeling of liberal guilt morphing into liberal self-satisfaction that so many on the left find so addictive.
Put it another way. You’re hungry, I give you a can of tomato soup. You wanted, and in fact, demand steak. Am I a bad person for not shelling out for a filet mignon, particularly since your hunger wasn’t my problem in the first place?
Liberals and progressives are usually not very good at answering the Gun to Mom’s Head test, and I am impressed with the attempts here. The main problem that liberals usually have in responding is they often try to deny that is what is going on. No one here really has, and I am glad to see it.
Above, the progressive side has pointed out that ALL laws rely on force. (To deny this is silly. If a “law” is not backed by a threat of force, then it is not a law, it is a “suggestion”.) Where you need to go is to defeat right libertarianism is point out that this even applies to laws that right libertarians hold sacred. Namely, enforcement of private property rights.
If your Mom wanted to walk through her neighbor’s yard to get somewhere more quickly, is it worth it to hold a gun to head to stop her? If she wants to take a pretty gold earring she can not afford out of WalMart, well, we can agree that her doing so is wrong, but is it wrong enough to put a gun to her head to stop her? And if an elderly homeless ex-veteran in Seattle wants to pitch a tent on Bill Gates’ lawn to sleep in and dig in some of the nearby ground to grow potatoes to eat and sell to support herself, is THAT worth pointing a gun to her head to stop her? Because, I assure you, someone will. And if you have no sympathy for the old ex-vet in that situation, why should I have sympathy for the old woman in the nice house who has to give up a little money under the threat of force to help others?
Although, what Robert about the Lawrence Welk birthplace, yeah, he’s right. There is far too much stupid stuff like that.
But condom use by some guy half a world away? I maintain that isn’t a vital national interest, not enough to forcably take money out of the pocket of–well, anybody.
OK dude, let’s leave aside for a moment the morality of helping others and the question of whether or not we are a bit responsible for the inability of the guy a half world away to afford condoms and just look at our selfish national interest. We are talking about a communicable infection in a world full of ocean spanning jet liners. The fewer people who get it over there, the fewer will eventually get it here. Hell yes it is in our national interest. View giving them condoms as equivalent to setting up a buffer zone.
Exactly, Decnavda.
Libertarian types have two sacred cows when it comes to the law . . . property rights and enforcement of contract. Both rely on force.
Tax law is no different . . . it’s just that “they don’t wanna!”
—Myca
Wow, is this true? I believe you, it’s just that it seems like such a laughable test that I’m surprised.
—Myca
Decavda, not only that, but ALL RULES depend on force. To say “law” implies that it is something specific to government, rather something inherent in all human power and authority. In fact, let’s universalize it even further: animal power and authority works the same way, if you’ve ever seen a pair of red eyed lemurs clawing at each other over territory. I don’t much about chemical warfare between plants and fungi but I suspect it operates similarly.
In the absence of government, any entity that has to enforce any rule for any reason, good or bad, must back it up with force. (Of course, any entity that carves out rules in the absence of government in effect becomes a new government, but I’ll stick to using the word as we understand it in this context.)
But otherwise, very nice formulation.
As for your main concern, Chief, I’m a bit on the fence w/r/t foreign aid myself, though I don’t feel up to going to it in detail at the moment. It’ll have to wait for later, I guess.
Myca, that has just been my observation, both when I was a right libertarian myself and since I have slidden to the left. In addition to the pro-personal freedom aspects of libertarianism, I was also very much taken by its apparent logical cohesion, and if the problems with its premises such as these had been pointed out to me sooner, I honestly believe I would have abandoned it sooner, as I did as the problems were sufficiently pointed out to me. But as I say, I was actually impressed here.
sylphhead, I do not think I agree with you. As for your examples, with most animals and certainly with plants, the use of force is not in the service of enforcing rules, maintaining the credibility of a threat. It is usually just a use of force to achieve a direct gain, although there are some cases with animals where the use of force is in the service of rule enforcement. Mammals protecting their self-defined territory from others of their species is an obvious case, as well as a good description of most human wars.
But the main objection I have to claiming that all rules are backed by force is that among humans, there are many rules that are enforced through the use of freedom of association. Unincorporated associations and amateur team sports involve many rules, and the ultimate “punishment” for continued violations is being expelled from the group or game, that is, the others in the game or organization decide to stop interacting with you as if you are part of their group or game. This non-violent method of rule enforcement is also used to enforce many implicit, unverbalized, rules in social situations. It is “enforcement”, but I would not call it “force”.
To say “law” implies that it is something specific to government, rather something inherent in all human power and authority.
Actually ANY use of force by a human against a human (at least) for rule enforcement DOES implicate the government. The essence of government is a claim of right to a monopoly on the use of force in a certain area. If force is used in that area routinely enough to effectively enforce certain rules, the government is either consenting by not preventing it, or it lacks the power to prevent it, in which case it is failing in being the actual government. This is where feminists have been 100% right in the claim that “the personal is political”, especially in regards to domestic violence and spousal rape. DV is used primarily by husbands to control the behavior of their wives. To the extent that DV continues in a systematic way, the government must either be failing or consenting.
Tapetum says:
“Primary cause – no. Contributing to making a bad situation worse? Oh yes.”
So, it appears that you’ll concede that the headline is extreme, since (at least to me) it makes the U.S. Government look like the primary cause. Now let me go a bit further. If sending condoms to Uganda is so important, why is it that one actor, the U.S. Federal government, is able to make this call all by itself? As Chief points out, where are the private organizations? I’ll go further – where are the French? The Germans? The Spaniards? The Norweigans? There are a large number of governments, NGOs and private charities that could send condoms and AIDS aid, etc. to Uganda. How is it that the U.S. Federal government is the only actor that has any responsibility here?
BTW; I say “if sending condoms to Uganda is so important” because given the culture I think it would be very hard for women in that culture to force their men to use them. But that’s an aside to my main argument.
Ron, what do you think is the question at issue here?
The way you frame the issue implies you think the question is “should the US be sending condoms to Uganda?” But that’s not the main issue here.
The real problem — as even bothering to read the few sentences quoted in my post should have told you — is that countries (not just Uganda) who receive money from PEPFAR are worried that if they teach about condom use or safe sex, the Bush administration will cut off their PEPFAR funding. So even if UNFPA provides funding for safe sex education, people are afraid to take it because they know that UNFPA doesn’t have the budget to completely replace the USA as a funder.
So it’s not a matter of the US saying “we don’t want to pay for condoms.” It’s a matter of people being afraid that if they teach safe sex — REGARDLESS of where the money for that comes from — US funding will be cut off.
In addition, I think it would be better if AIDS prevention money were being spent in ways guided by legitimate science, rather than spent in ways that people who don’t believe in evolution or global warming — that is to say, people who are proven incapable of correctly understanding scientific issues — think is best.
I’m worried that if I take a shower, pixies will murder my dog. So I’m not taking any showers. That doesn’t mean that the pixies have responsibility for my filthy hygiene – particularly if pixies have NEVER killed a dog, and have SPECIFICALLY disclaimed intending to kill mine.
“It is impossible for a site to be told to stop distributing condoms, or to close because of condom distribution… it would be directly contravening the stated policy of the U.S. government to say that because someone distributes condoms, they cannot receive resources from the U.S. government.”
– Dr. Mark Dybul, US Global AIDS Coordinator
Have any of the countries which are allegedly cowering under the reign of fear had funding cut? (Hint: No.)
The economy of the European Union – which has taken over the funding of UNFPA in the wake of American withdrawal – constitutes 30.3% of world GDP at $13 trillion – about $2 trillion more than the USA. Total PEPFAR funding for all countries (not just Uganda) amounted to $1.6 billion last year. Replacing the entire PEPFAR program, lock stock and barrel, would constitute a smidge over 1/10,000th of the EU’s gross.
I’m kind of thinking that there is, in fact, another set of entities that could provide this contribution, if it’s all that important, and all that scientifically obviously the right approach. The Europeans are just about as rich as we are (a bit less per cap, a bit more overall – and considerably richer net of military expenditures and obligations). If the preferred approach of their government is better than the preferred approach of our government, then let them pay for it. You’re in essence arguing that MY charitable donation should be delivered in accordance with YOUR values.
Nah.
Robert, are you aware that I’m American, not European? Is PEPFAR somehow paid for from the taxes you pay but not from the taxes I pay?
Not you personally.
If you prefer, you can rephrase my catchy tagline as “In essence, you are arguing that America’s politically-controlled charitable donations should be delivered in accordance with the values of the people who didn’t win the political contest.”
But that isn’t nearly as catchy.
Besides, don’t you make like $15 an hour? You don’t pay any taxes. ;)
Ampersand, Robert’s argument as I understand it is that he objects to your desire to donate your tax money to a particular cause exerting influence over what causes his tax money goes to. A libertarian would say (and has said, above) that private charities would do a better job of letting each person’s money actually go where they want it to.
The advantage taxes have for this kind of mechanism is that governments have a lot of power to use in promoting their wishes. With all that money in one place, and all that authority behind it, more could be accomplished than could be by a disassociated group of smaller organizations.
You run, though, into Robert’s problem; who decides what gets done with that big pot of money? Is it right that, once his money goes in, he has little influence over what happens to it? I’d say, in some circumstances, yes; not just for expediency, but also because it may be just in some circumstances for government to use the force it has to play Robin Hood, even if some of the rich nobles with fat purses are also members of the Merry Men.
(I’d like to apologize at this point for my entire body of knowledge about Robin Hood being Daffy Duck cartoons.)
Suppose the government legitimately (in the US’s case, that means democratically) decides that Robert is just plain wrong about whether or not it’s our business to provide condoms and safe-sex education to Uganda. In that case, it ought to have the authority to use tax money, including Robert’s, to do that. Our job then as good citizens is to try our best to make the government make the right decisions about the money; trying to fracture the money makes it more personally expressive of each individual’s wishes, but also less effective overall.
All this heart-bleeding aside, though, I’m really most interested in Robert’s last post, where he claims that the US actually isn’t making a real threat to cut PEPFAR funding. From the article Amp linked to, people on the ground there seem to feel that that sort of pressure was being leveled at them. Robert, do you have more to back that statement up? As it is, Dr. Dybul sounds a little like the playground bully saying “Well, I wasn’t really going to hit him if he didn’t give me his lunch money…”
The article that Amp links quotes two people on the subject: a minister offering hearsay about what “people” are saying, and an HIV activist who denounces the entire PEPFAR program. Neither of those people are apparently in any kind of position where they are actually receiving and administering PEPFAR funds. Before I present evidence that there isn’t a climate of fear and terror, perhaps someone should present some evidence that there is. ;)
The first activist quoted was a woman who seems to have a great deal of courage and resilience in the wake of horrible events. But her problem (the article does not come right out and say it, but her words and the story both strongly imply it) is not that she cannot get condoms; her problem is that her unfaithful husband raped her and in the process infected her with HIV. This is one of the worst things I can imagine happening to any woman, and my heart bleeds for her, period.
Yet I, like RonF, find it difficult to discern the connection between US policy or American “fundamentalist” Christian morality (it’s not, particularly, btw – just ordinary), and the fact that her husband is a man who cheats on his wife, gets STDs, and then rapes her. There are undoubtedly fundamentalist American Christians who have done the same; nonetheless, I can say confidently that it is not normative behavior in the population. It would be frowned upon. From the article and from Beatrice Were’s testimony, it seems to be not quite so out of the mainstream, in Uganda.
I further find it hard to avoid thinking that, perhaps, a culture where sleeping around and then raping one’s wife approximates normalcy is a culture where a message of abstinence and faithfulness – even a message motivated by such a wicked thing as Christian sexual morality – might not be entirely out of place. At least some Ugandans seem to think along those lines as well.
Finally, on a feminist site, is it not worth considering that maybe, if Beatrice Were’s husband had been taught while a young boy that women were to be respected, that sex was something special and personal, and that sleeping around and rape and cheating were bad things – do you think that, perhaps, he might not have raped her? Might not have cheated on her?
It seems to even this non-feminist guy that such a possibility is a worthwhile one; that it would be a good thing if the young Mr. Weres of Uganda, and of every nation which wishes to hear the message, hear that word when they are boys.
Going back to our earlier example, are we to say that if the government suspends your license, or prohibits you from buying guns, there is absolutely no force involved? This is also merely a case of ‘freedom of association’ – the force comes in if you should choose repeatedly not to comply with their demands. So what of your amateur sports team? What if you keep showing up after they’ve banned you again and again?
The problem I have with the post after that, Decavda, is that it takes a very common and everyday word and forces into contexts that aren’t really appropriate for it. Using your own example, is an abusive husband an example of a ‘government’*? Under the libertarian definition, yes – but what exactly is gained from that – to counterbalance the loss of clarity and common sense, if nothing else?
Decnavda: You’re right, a Ugandan with HIV could conceivably hop on a plane, fly over to the U.S. and infect somebody. So let’s spend a lot of money to stop it.
Oh, wait…there are far deadlier and far more communicable diseases than HIV out there. Let’s spend a whole lot of money to stop those. In fact, let’s figure out the single deadliest disease in another country and spend every single tax dollar on finding a cure for it, or at least keep anybody from jumping on a plane and coming over here to infect us. And we’d better do it quick, before those diseases get over here!
Oh, wait again….the world’s already pretty much globalized. HIV certainly and probably every other disease elsewhere in the world is ALREADY in the United States.
Beginning to feel that slippery slope?
Chief, do you honestly not understand why preventing the spread of global epidemics is in our best interest?
This isn’t a question of libertarian vs. non, this is a question of understanding basic science and how diseases spread.
—Myca
No, it’s a question of finite resources. We face any number of challenges to our health, to our safety, to our freedom. We need to pick and choose which ones we address. Attempting to stop AIDS in America by getting Ugandans to use condoms seems a little like attempting to prevent sunburn by building a giant, Mr. Burns-style canopy over your town. A bottle of sunscreen would be a helluva lot cheaper and more efficient.
Plus, as I say, the fight against HIV/AIDS is often less about public health and more about making leftists feel good and progressive. There are deadlier diseases that get less funding and less publicity. With a private individual’s pocketbook that’s fine–different causes tug on different people’s heartstrings. If you feel moved by the AIDS situation in Africa and want to do something about with your own money, so be it. But why are you trying to tell other people how and where they’re supposed to be compassionate? Especially since, as Robert points out, you may not even pay income taxes? We’ve rearranged the tax code in this country to the point where you actually have to be making a fair amount of money before you pay a single dime in federal income taxes. Which means a lot of people are not only trying to spend other people’s money, they’re trying to spend money that EXCLUSIVELY comes from other people, don’t have a single dollar in the pot.
So, you are in favor of your tax money, and US tax money in general, going towards such education programs?
So, you are in favor of your tax money, and US tax money in general, going towards such education programs?
If they pass reasonable First Amendment tests, yes. I’m willing to be evidence-based about it; if we do it for a generation and it seems like a miserable failure, then OK, let’s give it up.
A lot of liberals seem to discount abstinence education, and the grounds cited seem often to be that it doesn’t work. And so far, the studies and analyses which have been done do seem to support that; some programs might work but most don’t seem to have an impact.
I would argue, however, that we wouldn’t expect to see an impact right now. Culture is not a switch that you throw and it goes from one extreme to another; it’s a gradual accretion of millions of individual choices and values. It’s going to take time for an abstinence message to create social norms of reasonable chastity.
Well, what you’re implying here is that a given culture’s concept of sex lies along a scale, with “chaste and kind” at one end, and “promiscuous and unthoughtful” at the other. This in regards particularly to Ms. Were’s husband, and his role as both a disease vector and a rapist.
Except, it seems like there’s two dimensions involved here, not just one. Cultures and groups and people can be (and have been) simultaneously very sexually active and also unprone to sexual violence. There’s (it seems to me) some overlap between polyamory and feminist viewpoints regarding DV; to acknowledge that one’s sexual life should be more openly discussed and practiced reduces the secrecy and stigma that protect many kinds of sexual violence.
There’s also the other extreme, which is unfortunately far more popular; cultures with an ideological emphasis on total chastity exclusive of marriage, but a far less rosy reality. If one is considered less “moral” in proportion to their number of sexual partners, then the shame of it may stop them from having very much sex.
Or, it might simply force them to be more secretive about their sex lives, and then also less subject to the other ethical guidelines of their society, such as those against rape or against spreading disease.
Basically, the problem with abstinence is that it attempts to solve a problem indirectly, in a way that can make everything worse.
That’s why I can only half agree with this statement:
I’m all in favor of teaching respect for women, and respect for sex. I’m not so keen on “sleeping around” being in the same category as “rape”.
Under that set of values, we’ve seen historically that women who have sex with more people are seen less as being potential victims of rape. In the eyes of third parties, they’ve involved themselves in a seedy underworld that reduces their capability to be innocent parties of anything, particularly anything sexual.
A more-abstinent culture in Uganda could still have let Mr. Were rape his wife, and could still have allowed him to be a vector for a sexual disease. In fact, it could very well make it harder for her to find out about it, or to seek help.
Of course, Uganda is a little different, since we are worried also about disease transmission. There I agree with you that if a particular educational strategy proves effective at stopping AIDS, that can trump nearly anything else.
Agreed. Uganda may not be the clear example we want for that, however; there seem to be conflicting reports about how big a part condoms have played in the Uganda programs.
The real problem — as even bothering to read the few sentences quoted in my post should have told you — is that countries (not just Uganda) who receive money from PEPFAR are worried that if they teach about condom use or safe sex, the Bush administration will cut off their PEPFAR funding. So even if UNFPA provides funding for safe sex education, people are afraid to take it because they know that UNFPA doesn’t have the budget to completely replace the USA as a funder.
Yes, I understand that. But, as I was getting to and then Robert pointed out, there are plenty of other entities that could pay for those condoms, and the inability to replace the U.S. money should it dissapear is by no means clear. Of course, Robert then went further and presented information that there seems to be no actual evidence (as opposed to feelings by someone not directly invovled with the funding) that the U.S. is actually doing or threatening to do any such thing, and that official policy actually seems to be neutral on the subject.
To which I have seen no response ….