Read on Twitter
I'm finding analogies between COVID and war increasingly troubling. I think that there's maybe a lot of implicit sexism and implicit ableism involved, and I think analogies to war might be creating additional dangers. (Incoming thread, CW for just about everything.)
There are a lot of people doing hazardous work right now. But it's mostly people coming in contact with patients, with prisoners, or with disabled people institutionalized in congregate care facilities who are being described as "on the front lines".
What does that say?
What does that say?
War isn't just defined by the existence of deadly hazards. In a war, there are enemies who are trying to kill you.
If we say that medical workers are "on the front lines", we're implying that there's not only a hazard, but an enemy.
And...
If we say that medical workers are "on the front lines", we're implying that there's not only a hazard, but an enemy.
And...
To the extent that there's an enemy right now, to the extent that there's actual malice endangering people's lives, it's coming from the Trump administration, irresponsible governors, and from freelance corruption and profiteering.
But that's not what "on the front lines" means.
But that's not what "on the front lines" means.
If medical workers are "on the front lines" in a war, who are we framing as their enemy?
The people medical worker come into contact with daily who are dangerous to them are sick patients.
Are we implicitly treating patients as a malevolent enemy?
I think we might be.
The people medical worker come into contact with daily who are dangerous to them are sick patients.
Are we implicitly treating patients as a malevolent enemy?
I think we might be.
It's also specifically people *with power over* hospitalized and institutionalized people who are being described as "on the front lines" the most. Especially people who might be deciding who lives and who dies tend to be described as "on the front lines".
What does *that* say?
What does *that* say?
Personal care attendants, nurse's aides, and cleaning staff who face similar hazards aren't being described as "on the front lines" in the same way that doctors and nurses are.
And now that I think about it, I haven't seen a single respiratory therapist on TV.
And now that I think about it, I haven't seen a single respiratory therapist on TV.
Why is it the people who we are most likely to also describe as "on the front lines" are also the people who are seen as likely to be put in charge of deciding which patients get the chance to live, and which patients with survivable medical conditions die by denial of care?
I'm also thinking about the fact that family violence is spiking, victims have even less recourse than usual, and those facing family violence are not being described as "on the front lines".
Even though they're facing violence from people who might kill them on purpose.
Even though they're facing violence from people who might kill them on purpose.
And... I keep thinking about the fact that a lot of medical workers are women, and that being a medical worker does not create immunity to family violence.
Some people are facing both kinds of dangers.
Only one hazard is called "being on the front lines".
Some people are facing both kinds of dangers.
Only one hazard is called "being on the front lines".
There must be a lot of people (mostly women) right now who face COVID-related dangers all day at work, and then come home to people who hurt them and might kill them on purpose.
It's the danger *without* an actual enemy that's being called "being on the front lines".
Why?
It's the danger *without* an actual enemy that's being called "being on the front lines".
Why?
Also:
We analogize pandemics to wars in order to underscore that fact that pandemics are serious.
We don't analogize wars to pandemics in order to underscore the fact that wars are serious. We already assume that on a gut level.
Why? Why is everything framed as about war?
We analogize pandemics to wars in order to underscore that fact that pandemics are serious.
We don't analogize wars to pandemics in order to underscore the fact that wars are serious. We already assume that on a gut level.
Why? Why is everything framed as about war?
Why is combat the only emotional language we have to describe the work of protecting people from an imminent danger?
I keep wondering if it's because combat is so male-coded. Do we need to frame threats and mitigation efforts in masculine terms in order to take them seriously?
I keep wondering if it's because combat is so male-coded. Do we need to frame threats and mitigation efforts in masculine terms in order to take them seriously?
I think that's a factor. I think that there are other factors too (including the way the laws are structured). I'm not sure what they are. I *am* sure that something is going wrong here.
