5 ms·

Am I the only one who's extremely pissed off by the subtitle? > Beating Aids is India’s greatest public health achievement. A new book says it wouldn’t have ha

Am I the only one who's extremely pissed off by the subtitle? > Beating Aids is India’s greatest public health achievement. A new book says it wouldn’t have happened without women Replace this with "it wouldn't have happened without men" and you would feel how ridiculous this subtitle is.

wjnc 8y ago
The thing is - if the premise is true that sex workers had an active role in preventing aids, then it's pretty easy to see that sex workers are predominantly low-status women and hence that their role and status make this a more extraordinary achievement.
- dotancohen 8y ago
  The fine article mentions that gays, transgenders, and IV drug users were involved as well.
  - thebooktocome 8y ago
    "Transgender" is an adjective, not a noun. Try "trans people" instead.
    - pritambaral 8y ago
      Calling a transgender person "a transgender" and a group of transgender people "transgenders" is similar to calling an Indian person "an Indian" and a group of Indian people "Indians".
      - noobiemcfoob 8y ago
        I've yet to see any rule on such language apply across all LBGTQ populations without issue. Don't speak with such authority on issues which has no authority.
      - brozaman 8y ago
        What's wrong with that? I'm a Spanish man and I wouldn't be offended at all if I were in a group was referred to as "Spaniards" or "men".
        pritambaral 8y ago
        I was arguing that both are equally correct.
      - currymj 8y ago
        There are differences in usage. For example, it is not correct usage to call someone “a French”. The adjective “transgender” seems to work similarly.
        pritambaral 8y ago
        > For example, it is not correct usage to call someone “a French”. Only because the established term was "a Frenchman". There is no such established term for the group under discussion.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
superasn 8y ago
I've found that true for many things though which don't make sense if you put men instead of women or white instead of black. Like "This entrepreneur group is for women only", change women to men it becomes extremely sexist. I guess that's just how the world works.
- vkou 8y ago
  Theres a reason minority groups are singled out in those sentences. Those minorities do not have equal amounts of traditional forms of power. It's like saying that a political change could not have happened without it's grassroots supporters. It also happened because of politicians, but that doesn't matter, and it's not interesting - because 100% of political changes involve politicians (even if they had to be dragged kicking and screaming through it.) The involvement of grassroots supporters in some particular one is a noteworthy exception.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    People dont find the singling out of any group to be an accepted popular opinion, even though it is, for some groups. The consensus neglects the majority and minority powers of different areas. But I find the power imbalance to be a more encapsulating definition of in/sensitivies
    - vkou 8y ago
      If 99% of the time, only politicians are involved in drafting and passing a law, and 1% of time time, grassroots organizers and politicians are involved in passing a law, would you say that it's fair to describe one of the 1% laws as only possible with grassroots involvement?
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        That actually does seem reasonable...
Freestyler_3 8y ago
The best comparable subtitle imo would have been: "it wouldn't have happened without sex workers."
- plmu 8y ago
  Why? There are sex workers, and there will always be. Even in jurisdictions where it is prohibited, it is merely pushed underground and continues, but with less protections and chance to mitigate downsides. You might as well then have a subtitle" It wouldn't have happened without humans".
  - cauldron 8y ago
    Don't think you guys read the article, at least the last three paragraphs.
claudiawerner 8y ago
I don't see what point you're trying to make. If I chose to switch a word in one of your sentences with what's usually considered its opposite, then used that substitution to accuse your sentence of not making any sense, would you think I'm making a valid point?
alexc05 8y ago
I think "extremely pissed" is either hyperbolic or histrionic in this case. The "without women" line is a micro-aggression at best. If that is actually rage-inducing, I’d suggest you’re probably spending too much time on the Men’s Rights or red-pill subreddit. As far as I’m concerned it’s a mild frustration which doesn’t even merit an eye-roll. If you spend your days looking for outrage in every corner, you’re bound to find it, but it isn’t a very pleasant life. Maybe let it go.
- mhsabbagh 8y ago
  Well, if an Internet comment also pissed you off like that to the level of making 3 various assumptions about the life of an Internet stranger, then you probably hang out a lot in /r/Feminism or similar places. My comment wasn't to support "men rights", but rather that still trying to depict women as minorities in 2018 is damaging to their actual position in the world. Like, of course it wouldn't happen without women, you (the author of the article) don't need to act as if you are talking to people from medieval ages and enlighten them that women achievements are remarkable. It's an insult to the reader. Of course it wouldn't happen without men, women, and everybody else involved. Maybe, let it go?
  - alexc05 8y ago
    Do what you like. You’re the one who started with describing themselves as "extremely pissed" over the subtitle. I know you might not believe this, but women in some parts of the world are still treated as minorities in 2018. Pointing that out, doesn’t damage their position. I do agree that the subtitle is a a mindless platitude. Of course the spread of a sexually transmitted disease through heterosexual populations in India couldn’t have been prevented without the participation of 50% of the sex at. But again, I can’t even muster an eye roll over it. It’s dumb, but there;s dumb shit everywhere. My position is to ignore it and move on. The thought that someone is "extremely pissed" about a trite and trivial girl-power cliche is pretty silly to me. That’s so much energy to spend on something so dumb. Who’s got the time for that? But whatever, it’s a Sunday, you can spend it how you see fit. If being extremely pissed at a throwaway line vacuously giving credit to women is what you want to do today then go for it. Have a happy Sunday fella! (You know, or not, depending on what you’re looking for)

wjnc 8y ago

The thing is - if the premise is true that sex workers had an active role in preventing aids, then it's pretty easy to see that sex workers are predominantly low-status women and hence that their role and status make this a more extraordinary achievement.

dotancohen 8y ago
The fine article mentions that gays, transgenders, and IV drug users were involved as well.
- thebooktocome 8y ago
  "Transgender" is an adjective, not a noun. Try "trans people" instead.
  - pritambaral 8y ago
    Calling a transgender person "a transgender" and a group of transgender people "transgenders" is similar to calling an Indian person "an Indian" and a group of Indian people "Indians".
    - noobiemcfoob 8y ago
      I've yet to see any rule on such language apply across all LBGTQ populations without issue. Don't speak with such authority on issues which has no authority.
    - brozaman 8y ago
      What's wrong with that? I'm a Spanish man and I wouldn't be offended at all if I were in a group was referred to as "Spaniards" or "men".
      - pritambaral 8y ago
        I was arguing that both are equally correct.
    - currymj 8y ago
      There are differences in usage. For example, it is not correct usage to call someone “a French”. The adjective “transgender” seems to work similarly.
      - pritambaral 8y ago
        > For example, it is not correct usage to call someone “a French”. Only because the established term was "a Frenchman". There is no such established term for the group under discussion.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

superasn 8y ago

I've found that true for many things though which don't make sense if you put men instead of women or white instead of black. Like "This entrepreneur group is for women only", change women to men it becomes extremely sexist. I guess that's just how the world works.

vkou 8y ago
Theres a reason minority groups are singled out in those sentences. Those minorities do not have equal amounts of traditional forms of power. It's like saying that a political change could not have happened without it's grassroots supporters. It also happened because of politicians, but that doesn't matter, and it's not interesting - because 100% of political changes involve politicians (even if they had to be dragged kicking and screaming through it.) The involvement of grassroots supporters in some particular one is a noteworthy exception.
- gammateam 8y ago
  People dont find the singling out of any group to be an accepted popular opinion, even though it is, for some groups. The consensus neglects the majority and minority powers of different areas. But I find the power imbalance to be a more encapsulating definition of in/sensitivies
  - vkou 8y ago
    If 99% of the time, only politicians are involved in drafting and passing a law, and 1% of time time, grassroots organizers and politicians are involved in passing a law, would you say that it's fair to describe one of the 1% laws as only possible with grassroots involvement?
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      That actually does seem reasonable...

Freestyler_3 8y ago

The best comparable subtitle imo would have been: "it wouldn't have happened without sex workers."

plmu 8y ago
Why? There are sex workers, and there will always be. Even in jurisdictions where it is prohibited, it is merely pushed underground and continues, but with less protections and chance to mitigate downsides. You might as well then have a subtitle" It wouldn't have happened without humans".
- cauldron 8y ago
  Don't think you guys read the article, at least the last three paragraphs.

claudiawerner 8y ago

I don't see what point you're trying to make. If I chose to switch a word in one of your sentences with what's usually considered its opposite, then used that substitution to accuse your sentence of not making any sense, would you think I'm making a valid point?

alexc05 8y ago

I think "extremely pissed" is either hyperbolic or histrionic in this case. The "without women" line is a micro-aggression at best. If that is actually rage-inducing, I’d suggest you’re probably spending too much time on the Men’s Rights or red-pill subreddit. As far as I’m concerned it’s a mild frustration which doesn’t even merit an eye-roll. If you spend your days looking for outrage in every corner, you’re bound to find it, but it isn’t a very pleasant life. Maybe let it go.

mhsabbagh 8y ago
Well, if an Internet comment also pissed you off like that to the level of making 3 various assumptions about the life of an Internet stranger, then you probably hang out a lot in /r/Feminism or similar places. My comment wasn't to support "men rights", but rather that still trying to depict women as minorities in 2018 is damaging to their actual position in the world. Like, of course it wouldn't happen without women, you (the author of the article) don't need to act as if you are talking to people from medieval ages and enlighten them that women achievements are remarkable. It's an insult to the reader. Of course it wouldn't happen without men, women, and everybody else involved. Maybe, let it go?
- alexc05 8y ago
  Do what you like. You’re the one who started with describing themselves as "extremely pissed" over the subtitle. I know you might not believe this, but women in some parts of the world are still treated as minorities in 2018. Pointing that out, doesn’t damage their position. I do agree that the subtitle is a a mindless platitude. Of course the spread of a sexually transmitted disease through heterosexual populations in India couldn’t have been prevented without the participation of 50% of the sex at. But again, I can’t even muster an eye roll over it. It’s dumb, but there;s dumb shit everywhere. My position is to ignore it and move on. The thought that someone is "extremely pissed" about a trite and trivial girl-power cliche is pretty silly to me. That’s so much energy to spend on something so dumb. Who’s got the time for that? But whatever, it’s a Sunday, you can spend it how you see fit. If being extremely pissed at a throwaway line vacuously giving credit to women is what you want to do today then go for it. Have a happy Sunday fella! (You know, or not, depending on what you’re looking for)