What is it about male circumcision that makes people in the Swazi media lose their critical faculties?
I have lost count of the number of reports that tell us that having the snip will help to control the spread of HIV AIDS.
There were two this week in the Times of Swaziland alone. The first was in the truly dreadful column, Let’s Talk About Sex, last Friday (16 May 2008) and the other was on Tuesday (20 May 2008).
Tuesday’s report was about a member of parliament who told the nation that where men were circumcised ‘the rate of HIV AIDS infections was drastically declining’.
He gave no evidence beyond saying that the Swazi government and NGOs were ‘seriously canvassing’ for men to have the operation.
Swaziland has been featured in the international media as a place where circumcision is being used in the fight against HIV infection. One report in the Globe and Mail, Canada, (27 March 2008) even told of a near ‘riot’ at one medical point because there was not enough time to treat all the men who had turned up.
The report went on to say that the Swaziland Government wanted 200,000 men in the kingdom (with a population of just fewer than one million) to have the snip.
When the story appeared on the Globe and Mail website, many readers wrote in to dismiss the idea that circumcision helps in the fight against HIV infection.
What worries me is that people in Swaziland are being misled into believing that circumcision can help, when the international medical community continues to debate whether there is any evidence that it can.
An organisation called Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) has published a lengthy report in which it urges that ‘Both the public and the medical community must guard against being overwhelmed by the hyperbolic promotion of male circumcision.’
DOC reports that there is no clear evidence as to the effects of circumcision.
‘One study found that male circumcision had no protective effect for women and another study found that male circumcision increased risk for women.
‘[A different study] found more HIV infection in circumcised men.
‘[Yet another study] found no evidence that lack of circumcision is a risk factor for HIV infection.
‘A study from India found little difference between circumcised and non-circumcised men.
‘A study carried out in South Africa found that male circumcision offered only a slight protective effect.
‘A study carried out among American naval personnel found no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between non-circumcised and circumcised men.'
This leads DOC to conclude, ‘Instituting a program of male circumcision is of dubious value. It will divert resources from proven methods of epidemic control and it may generate a false sense of security in males who have been circumcised. The desensitization of the penis that frequently results from male circumcision is likely to make men less willing to use condoms. A program of male circumcision very likely may worsen the epidemic.’
The group has its own idea on why places like Swaziland may have higher rates of HIV infection than elsewhere, ‘The epidemic in Africa may have little to do with lack of circumcision and everything to do with the percentage of the female population engaged in female sex work. One study found a definite link between the number of female sex workers in the population and the level of HIV infection.’
Before jumping on the bandwagon, journalists in Swaziland should educate themselves and their readers about the truth about circumcision.
To access the report click here.
Showing posts with label Let’s Talk About Sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Let’s Talk About Sex. Show all posts
Friday, 23 May 2008
Thursday, 27 September 2007
‘TIMES’ PEDDLES IGNORANCE ON RAPE
The crime of rape seems to be prevalent in Swaziland. Hardly a week goes by without some report of women and children violated by men. Pastors rape women in their congregation; teachers rape their pupils and gangs of men rape women as punishment for perceived wrongdoing. Not long ago two tourists from Belgium had their car hijacked before they were raped.
All these people were victims of a terrible crime, but if you believe an article in the Times of Swaziland they bought the rape upon themselves. You see, women who get raped are asking for it.
The column Let’s Talk About Sex (21 September 2007) interviewed men about why women get raped and reported that ‘the way women dress is entirely leading. Women bring it upon themselves. If they dress up in mini-skirts and body hugging pants, what are men supposed to do?’
The report added that rapists were not necessarily beasts as society had labelled them. ‘Most of them were men who had tried to ignore their desires which were fuelled by “half naked women” until such time that it became too much to bear and they raped someone.’
I have written before about Let’s Talk About Sex. It is possibly the most ignorant column in Swazi journalism. Previously it told us that women who carry condoms are thought of as ‘whores’ and that homosexuals are child molesters. The column peddles a confused morality and hates women.
Even the Times had it doubts about the rape column. It put a disclaimer at the end of the article that the views are ‘not shared by this newspaper.’
But why did it publish it at all? The article wasn’t a discussion about a topic for which there are many different views and each view is as valid as any other. This article told its readers that it is all right to rape women and men shouldn’t be blamed for rape because women tempt them into wanting sex.
Let’s get one thing straight. Rape has nothing to do with ‘sexual desire’; it is about men having power over women. Blaming women is just an excuse to justify female oppression through the control of women’s behaviour. The people who say that women bring rape on themselves by wearing short skirts tend to be the same people who want to restrict the role of women in Swaziland society to that of servants to men. That’s why in Swazi customary law women have no legal rights separate from men (usually husbands or fathers).
There is absolutely no independent evidence anywhere in the world that supports the ‘short skirts’ explanation for rape, yet the Times has allowed this lie to be repeated in its pages.
Media commentator Angela Black writes that to target a woman as the guilty party in her own rape has dangerous consequences, because as long as the reason is accepted by society as being female seduction, then victims will be reluctant to come forward.
She says that women will fear that instead of attaining legal and social justice, they will instead become the object of social condemnation, and accusations that they had somehow invited the rape.
The knock on effect can only lead to a greater sense of impunity for sex offenders, and instead of preventing rape, may well encourage it.
The Times has made a serious mistake in allowing Let’s Talk About Sex to publish this dangerous nonsense about rape. This isn’t the first time the column has peddled ignorance and hatred. The column is a disgrace to journalism and if the Times had any self-respect it would recognise the error it has made in publishing Let’s Talk About Sex and discontinue the column.
All these people were victims of a terrible crime, but if you believe an article in the Times of Swaziland they bought the rape upon themselves. You see, women who get raped are asking for it.
The column Let’s Talk About Sex (21 September 2007) interviewed men about why women get raped and reported that ‘the way women dress is entirely leading. Women bring it upon themselves. If they dress up in mini-skirts and body hugging pants, what are men supposed to do?’
The report added that rapists were not necessarily beasts as society had labelled them. ‘Most of them were men who had tried to ignore their desires which were fuelled by “half naked women” until such time that it became too much to bear and they raped someone.’
I have written before about Let’s Talk About Sex. It is possibly the most ignorant column in Swazi journalism. Previously it told us that women who carry condoms are thought of as ‘whores’ and that homosexuals are child molesters. The column peddles a confused morality and hates women.
Even the Times had it doubts about the rape column. It put a disclaimer at the end of the article that the views are ‘not shared by this newspaper.’
But why did it publish it at all? The article wasn’t a discussion about a topic for which there are many different views and each view is as valid as any other. This article told its readers that it is all right to rape women and men shouldn’t be blamed for rape because women tempt them into wanting sex.
Let’s get one thing straight. Rape has nothing to do with ‘sexual desire’; it is about men having power over women. Blaming women is just an excuse to justify female oppression through the control of women’s behaviour. The people who say that women bring rape on themselves by wearing short skirts tend to be the same people who want to restrict the role of women in Swaziland society to that of servants to men. That’s why in Swazi customary law women have no legal rights separate from men (usually husbands or fathers).
There is absolutely no independent evidence anywhere in the world that supports the ‘short skirts’ explanation for rape, yet the Times has allowed this lie to be repeated in its pages.
Media commentator Angela Black writes that to target a woman as the guilty party in her own rape has dangerous consequences, because as long as the reason is accepted by society as being female seduction, then victims will be reluctant to come forward.
She says that women will fear that instead of attaining legal and social justice, they will instead become the object of social condemnation, and accusations that they had somehow invited the rape.
The knock on effect can only lead to a greater sense of impunity for sex offenders, and instead of preventing rape, may well encourage it.
The Times has made a serious mistake in allowing Let’s Talk About Sex to publish this dangerous nonsense about rape. This isn’t the first time the column has peddled ignorance and hatred. The column is a disgrace to journalism and if the Times had any self-respect it would recognise the error it has made in publishing Let’s Talk About Sex and discontinue the column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)