Oh, hello, crusading informing, again.
Oh, hello, crusading informing, again. Per CDC, rates of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea are decreasing, while rates of Syphilis are increasing. Most affected as an age group, those between 15-24. (I want to check that data for a second peak, though, because for a while there was quite the surprise in residents of assisted/long-term care facilities. Yup. Not dead yet.) Anyway, this is preventable. Use condoms, etc. Get tested, blah blah.
And now for something not so completely different, I shall endeavor to show you a righter way and a not so right way to communicate about these things. Which is mostly just to say that we are really all kind of totally clueless sometimes about how affected by our cultural filters and upbringing we are.*
The not so good way of communicating occurs in the Huffypost Editorial (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jonathan-mermin/std-testing_b_6335646.html). It starts out, and ends, all "young people". Unfortunately, in the middle it veers into "... silently stealing a young woman's chance to become pregnant." and "That's why all sexually-active young women under the age of 25 should get screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea every year."
Here's why that's not ok. Firstly, "silently stealing" is unnecessary loaded language that suggests this is the overriding reason to be concerned. There are people's brains out there right now saying so what, I don't want kids. Secondly, that's not the only bad thing that can happen. Thirdly, the important point is that these diseases do have disproportionately more negative consequences for women, but they also have negative consequences for men, including some in particular for men who have sex with men. Lastly x 2, that's why all sexually active young people should get screened, not just young women, AND it is not just the woman's responsibility to do these things (Hello? 19th/18th/17th, etc. century?).
Thus, I link to an example of a righter way (http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/tc/chlamydia-what-happens), wherein it lists a whole lot of nastiness that might minimally register on somebody reading it as, ew, gross, fine, I'll get checked. Hopefully it registers on a slightly higher cognitive level, but if it gets 'em checked and edumacated on prevention, whatever gets 'em in the door.
*I know this was an editorial, and am quite sure none of the things I've pointed out were intended to undermine the message. This isn't a slam on the person who wrote it, just a cautionary tale of how we are all vulnerable to undercutting our own best intentions with biases we don't even realize we carry.
And now for something not so completely different, I shall endeavor to show you a righter way and a not so right way to communicate about these things. Which is mostly just to say that we are really all kind of totally clueless sometimes about how affected by our cultural filters and upbringing we are.*
The not so good way of communicating occurs in the Huffypost Editorial (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jonathan-mermin/std-testing_b_6335646.html). It starts out, and ends, all "young people". Unfortunately, in the middle it veers into "... silently stealing a young woman's chance to become pregnant." and "That's why all sexually-active young women under the age of 25 should get screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea every year."
Here's why that's not ok. Firstly, "silently stealing" is unnecessary loaded language that suggests this is the overriding reason to be concerned. There are people's brains out there right now saying so what, I don't want kids. Secondly, that's not the only bad thing that can happen. Thirdly, the important point is that these diseases do have disproportionately more negative consequences for women, but they also have negative consequences for men, including some in particular for men who have sex with men. Lastly x 2, that's why all sexually active young people should get screened, not just young women, AND it is not just the woman's responsibility to do these things (Hello? 19th/18th/17th, etc. century?).
Thus, I link to an example of a righter way (http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/tc/chlamydia-what-happens), wherein it lists a whole lot of nastiness that might minimally register on somebody reading it as, ew, gross, fine, I'll get checked. Hopefully it registers on a slightly higher cognitive level, but if it gets 'em checked and edumacated on prevention, whatever gets 'em in the door.
*I know this was an editorial, and am quite sure none of the things I've pointed out were intended to undermine the message. This isn't a slam on the person who wrote it, just a cautionary tale of how we are all vulnerable to undercutting our own best intentions with biases we don't even realize we carry.
Comments
Post a Comment