Offensive NY Times article? (Sun 22 Apr)

[CalvinC]

Hi all.

I'm not sure if I'm being overly sensitive but....

In the Sunday NY Times, 22 Apr, in the Sunday Styles section, there is a 'Modern Love' essay entitled "Devoted but Dateless." In it, the writer speaks of her devotion to her autistic son and how the fact of him often results in men not interested in pursuing romance/dating/relationship with her. (Sound familiar?)

At one point, she writes: "But as my friend said, having a child with autism can be, in the eyes of some men, the dating equivalent of being an H.I.V.-positive crack addict with 30 cats."

I cannot imagine this to be anything but a stab at humour, no matter how many times I go over it. For me, the litmus test is to "turn it around": instead of "HIV" insert what ails her son, autism. How would that sound to you? "...the dating equivalent of being an autistic crack addict with 30 cats."  Funny eh?

I'm interested in responding to the Times (and to the writer) but I wanted to get some feedback before I do anything.

What do you think?

The article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/fashion/devoted-but-dateless.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#

Andrew

[Hellraiser]

She was merely stringing together unattractive qualities in a dating partner.  For her being HIV positive may be a deal breaker.  While it's not thrilling for us to hear, it's nothing new to these forums.

[wolfter]

I think most of us have deal breakers.  Having 30 cats would definitely be one for me.

Wolfie

[GSOgymrat]

I think most of us have deal breakers.  Having 30 cats would definitely be one for me.

Wolfie

My 30 cats and I agree that we don't need you or your little dog.

[Joe K]

I think you are angry at the wrong person.  It's a case of not shooting the messenger.  The author simply repeated something that has been said for over 30 years.  The troubling "real" issue here is that being poz is still seen as something to fear and it's still quit acceptable to publicly degrade us, whether in media or through the legal system.  We have become so demonized in some parts of society, that most people won't see anything that offensive in what the author wrote.

The fact that many people will agree with what the author wrote, is what you should really be angry about.

Joe

[LiveWithIt]

What do you think?

The article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/fashion/devoted-but-dateless.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all#

Andrew

She thinks HIV is funny, but I doubt she would laugh at an autism joke, therefore making her a hypocrite. 

[wolfter]

My 30 cats and I agree that we don't need you or your little dog.

Read this before going to work.  I wasn't sure of the intent.  Hoping it was just a flippant remark that I once again don't understand.   

Wolfie, who totally loves his little doggie.

[GSOgymrat]

Read this before going to work.  I wasn't sure of the intent.  Hoping it was just a flippant remark that I once again don't understand.   

Wolfie, who totally loves his little doggie.

I assure you I don't have 30 cats, they don't speak to me and I love your little dog.

[mecch]

Its most likely a careless ignorant remark.  After all, a crack addict is no prize, in the partner sweepstakes. Add to that HIV and the person would have a lot of challenges.  But your analysis sits right with me.

On the flip side, I thought episode 2 of HBO's Girls had a reasonably balanced HIV miniplot.  The heroine is supposed to be obsessed with fear of becoming HIV+ since girlhood.  Her friend makes a kind of ignorant crack confusing HIV and AIDS and the heroine explains quite clearly the difference.  The whole episode is pretty good dramatizing dealing with safesex and STDs. 

At least the writer in your NYT article said HIV positive and didnt resort to the common confusion AIDS = HIV = AIDS.

Baby steps?