Choosing Our Battles Wisely

Recently, an anonymous commenter (ah, the joys of anonymity....headstrong statements with no personal consequence) criticized my promotion of the (PRODUCT)^RED campaign a couple months ago.

This commenter said:

You might want to note that the Red Campaign, while a great idea, is quite sexist in the distribution of its funds. As stated on the website: the donations go to women and children. Therefore, presumably, gay men will not in any way benefit from the work. Considering how indiscriminate the disease, it is unfortunate that money must be distributed in a discriminatory manner.

Since this comment was just made recently, it is unlikely that my response will be noticed by too many people, but Mr. or Ms. Anonymous kinda provoked my ire a bit, so I wanted to include my thoughts on a separate post here for your consideration. With slight modification, this is what I said in my response:

I think that perhaps you are being unnecessarily harsh on the campaign. The fact that they are raising funds only for women and children is not ipso facto sexist. The thrust of this particular fundraising drive is to raise money to provide the medicine that will keep a mother from passing HIV on to her unborn child, a goal that all of us would applaud. Just because this particular organization does not focus on every single person infected with HIV/AIDS is simply not sexist.

To focus on addressing one part of a complex problem in no way negates or lessens the work of others addressing a different part.It is no different than the Children's Memorial Hospital here in my hometown of Chicago. Is it sexist (or "ageist") when someone raises funds for the cancer unit of that hospital? After all, cancer indiscriminately affects adults as well as children. In fact, probably adults are even more at risk than children in many cases. So should those raising funds for that unit be criticized and rejected? Certainly not! The focus on fighting a problem in one area in no way negates or lessens the work of others fighting it in another area. Both are legitimate, both are essential, and both should receive support rather than criticism for their efforts.

Not only is it not sexist for the (PRODUCT)^RED campaign to operate as they do, it also is very likely more practical and efficient than a less-focused effort, for it gives very specific guidance and direction to those using the funding. Rather than arbitrary decisions concerning fund distribution, those involved know exactly what the money is to be used for and can simply focus on getting the medicine out as quickly as possible.

Additionally, if you look into Bono's efforts in Africa, you will find that the (PRODUCT)^RED campaign is only one aspect of his involvement with the needs of that continent. He has been instrumental in addressing many issues related to poverty and HIV/AIDS, and nobody who claims he is sexist in his efforts is even remotely fair to him.

And finally, it is a very selfish thing to assume that gay men will not benefit from the work of (PRODUCT)^RED. Do gay men not have nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters, whose lives could be saved through the medicine provided by this campaign? Are we not members of a society and world community in which each of us is affected by the well-being, health, and prosperity of others? Are we gay men so selfish that we have to get the medicine for ourselves before we can be excited and enthusiastic about lives being saved? I certainly hope not!

And I hope that each of us will be more determined today and every day of our lives to figure out where the real enemies are and stop shooting at our friends.

(Note: For more information on (PRODUCT)^RED, click on the logo on the top portion of this blog's right-screen sidebar).