Oops, my bad. According to David Horowitz, this is called "indoctrination."
Horowitz explained his loathe for such political academic disciplines in a November article for the Weekly Standard. Apparently, he also has beef with African American Studies, Peace Studies, Cultural Studies, Chicano Studies, Gay Lesbian Studies, Post-Colonial Studies, Whiteness Studies, Communications Studies, Community Studies, Cultural Anthropology and Sociology. Basically, everything that questions the status quo...which (I thought) was the entire point of the collegiate experience: to develop critical thinking skills and use what we've learned to make sense of the world.
So these courses spell indoctrination? I beg to differ. They are about exploring other cultures and schools of thought. Horowitz writes that the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has stated, "It is not indoctrination for professors to expect students to comprehend ideas and apply knowledge that is accepted as true within a relevant discipline." My thoughts, exactly. Well, Horowitz twists this statement to claim that "teachers are no longer held to standards of ‘scholarly' or ‘scientific' or ‘intellectually responsible' discourse, but to whatever is ‘accepted as true within a relevant discipline.'" I hate to be the one to burst his little right-wing bubble (I lie - actually, I'd love to), but there are a slew of non-traditional disciplines that are in fact scholarly and intellectually responsible.
Reading the works of Marilyn Frye, Simone de Beauvoir, bell hooks, Catherine McKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Christina Hoff Summers, Naomi Wolf and countless others, is nothing to sneeze at. These women helped build and influence the feminist movement throughout history. Plus - and someone should point this out to Mr. Horowitz - their philosophies can contradict one another. Horowitz makes Women's Studies programs out to be one big underhanded conspiracy to brainwash students into what leftist professors want for their femin-army. What he fails to recognize is that, hey - feminists don't always agree! Although it would be stellar if we were all on a first name basis, we had an impeccable phone-tree for organizing massive meet-ups, and there were never any heated arguments about issues that affect us so personally - but that's most definitely not the case. I'm not even sure that's humanly possible.
So, I don't really see how David Horowitz can claim Women's Studies is indoctrination when the discipline's heavy-hitters aren't even writing the same things. Makes me wonder if he's ever even sat in on a class. If he had been in mine six years ago, he would have seen desks arranged in a circle - to facilitate discussion, and assure that no one is more or less visible than another. For the first five or ten minutes, our professor would ask a question that pertained to our reading assignment and we'd write a response. She wasn't looking for regurgitation of the author's words and ideas - you could agree or disagree as long as you could argue maturely and refer to the reading. After she collected our responses, we'd talk about them and this would generate critical discussion of the reading that was free to go wherever we took it (within reason, of course).
College is not just a boot camp you attend for four years so you can accumulate credits and do everything in your power to maintain an A average. My Women's Studies courses answered my questions about life - and not just any life, my life. Lives of women who came before me and the women who will come after me. In these courses, I found a discipline that spoke to me and addressed my concerns. And because of these courses, I'm a stronger, well-rounded individual who doesn't just accept the standard, but questions its origins and its logic.
If Mr. Horowitz thinks this is a disgrace to the higher education system, then I feel sorry for him.
]]>Stephanie Ventura, who leads the CDC's Reproductive Statistics Branch, said it is too soon to determine what caused the three percent increase, but its notable size definitely calls for further investigation. "This early warning should put people on alert to look at the programs that are being used to see what works," Ventura said.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2002, only 62% of sexually experienced female teens had received instruction about contraception before they first had sex, compared with 72% in 1995. Coincidence? I'm going to say probably not.
To me, comprehensive sex education seems like good old common sense. Studies have shown that many teens will have sexual intercourse before their 18th birthday. Instead of denying that they will ever be curious about sex or have sexual feelings (good lord!), why not make sure their experiences are as safe as possible?
Activist, educator, and renowned "sex-ed girl" Shelby Knox can speak to the dangers of sex education that leaves out the sex. In 2002, her hometown of Lubbock, TX, had the highest teen birth rates in the nation, not to mention staggering numbers of STD cases. Knox's fight for comprehensive sex-ed at her high school was profiled in the 2005 documentary, The Education of Shelby Knox. Now 21, she has become a household name in the reproductive health world, and has worked with Advocates for Youth and the Sadie Nash Leadership Project.
"Abstinence-only programs employ scare tactics and disseminate misinformation in an attempt to impose moral imperatives on young people," said Knox. "I think the most distressing is that abstinence-only programs stress that teens are not responsible enough to make good decisions about sex. This is disrespectful to teens who are certainly smart enough, when given complete and accurate information, to choose either abstinence or safer sex methods."
Abstinence-only education is like that cliché of psychologists putting you in a room with a big red button you're not supposed to press. They never tell you why you're not allowed to touch it, just that you shouldn't. Maybe you're okay for the first hour or two, but then all you really want in life is to press that lousy red button. You just want to know how it feels. And the fact that you have absolutely no idea what it does makes it all the more marvelous.
Of course, sex is a lot more complicated than a big red button - also grounds for why we need more in our education than just "not until you're married." You don't have to be a parent to know that teens are naturally curious and are going to experiment as they learn about their world. That being said, why would anyone feel comfortable sending them out to discover their sexuality without knowledge of condoms, or other ways to protect themselves against STDs and unplanned pregnancy? Or that the safest sex of all - masturbation - is a perfectly normal, healthy way to explore one's own body and establish sexual identity.
"It's important that teens know that their sexuality is a large part of identity, one that they will have to navigate throughout their lives," Knox adds. "Telling them they know nothing about it as a teen isn't helpful."
Telling teens to wait until marriage is also rather insulting. It comes from a close-minded view of the world where everyone gets married and everyone is heterosexual. There are plenty of people out there who feel that marriage just isn't for them - so, should they remain sexually abstinent until death? And judging by how our country has not moved forward at all in terms of recognizing gay marriage, homosexuals should also resign themselves to a life lacking any sexual pleasure, right? At least that's what "wait until marriage" seems to suggest.
So, now that we've covered what sex education should not be, what would a perfect curriculum look like? Knox sees a sex-ed utopia as an ongoing process. "A good comprehensive sex-ed curriculum would begin in kindergarten with age-appropriate information and expand each year to include more topics, such as puberty, abstinence, relationships skills, contraception and safer sex methods," she says. Knox also points out that these types of courses should be conversational in style - not a lecture. "Sex and sexuality define people, young people included, and their opinions and ideas on the subject should be accepted and discussed without judgment." She sees peer-led sex education as a less-intimidating approach, where fellow students lead the discussion, under the guidance of an experienced educator.
A sexuality education curriculum needs to encompass more than just birth control, condoms, STDs, and the act of sex -- it needs to addresses the entire body and mind (seems rather stupid to separate sex from where it takes place, right?). This would include issues such as body image, teaching girls and boys not to feel inadequate in the shadow of the American Standard of Beauty and Brawn. And sex education needs to focus on relationships. Past studies have shown teen pregnancy to be strongly linked to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Educating teens about their bodies and how to care for them will naturally foster self-esteem. I strongly believe if teens feel empowered, educated and have self-respect, this would decrease the number of young people caught in abusive situations. These types of relationships can be incredibly harmful not only to a girl's mental health, but also her reproductive health.
With these new teen pregnancy statistics, perhaps we are on the verge of a sex-ed revolution. Abstinence-only programs are finally being seen for what they are - ineffective and useless. Let's hope that our youth can look forward to a well-rounded education that not only covers reading, writing and 'rithmetic, but also reproductive health.
Remember sex-ed in high school? The young people from around the country who’ve submitted their videos to our Fresh Focus: Sex Ed Digital Video Contest do! And they have a lot to say on the subject! From artistically breath-taking to just plain hilarious, these videos tell the individual and collective stories of young people about the sexuality education they’ve had, the sex-ed they wish they’d had or the way they envision sex-ed for the future!
Starting today, each day we’ll feature one or two of the top ten video in a blogpost on our site. All you need to do is VOTE for your top THREE favorites!!
]]>
And here we may have a little bit in common with today's breed of conservatives (I said a little!). Conservative Christians who consider abortion their main issue of concern are beginning to see a correlation between saving the fetus and saving the environment.
One among many environmental issues some anti-choicers have chosen to rally around is the problem of mercury emissions. At a pro-life rally in 2005, leaders from the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), one of the most politically powerful religious advocacy groups in the country, and the Evangelical Environmental Network, carried a banner that read, "Stop Mercury Poisoning of the Unborn." Noted placard-carrier Rev. Richard Cizik, the vice president at NAE, "If you reframe mercury regulations as a pro-life issue -- curbing mercury emissions protects children from learning disabilities and unborn children from brain damage -- that gets people's attention."
Mercury is emitted from power plants into nearby bodies of water, where it accumulates in fish. Nearly all fish contain traces of mercury, but fish closer to the top of the food chain (like the ever-popular tuna) contain higher levels of mercury that may damage a fetus's developing nervous system. Children born to women who eat mercury-contaminated fish are at a higher risk for a number of neurological disorders, including mental retardation and learning disabilities. Even more frightening is the news that in 2006 a study by the Environmental Quality Institute at the University of North Carolina-Asheville found that twenty percent of women of childbearing age have mercury levels in their blood that exceed the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended limit.
And mercury is just one of many toxins that threaten women's reproductive health. Championing the rights of the unborn, some anti-abortion advocates are starting to become quite vocal about chemical toxins and environmental conditions that are not conducive to healthy fetuses.
Rev. Cizik explained his "conversion" to environmental activism in a December 19, 2006 interview on NPR. "I felt compelled, not unlike a Christian conversion to Christ, I should do something about what he owns - that is the earth - and attempt to save it from environmental destruction."
Cizik is in a curious position. He is one of few within the religious right preaching scientific facts of environmentalism. He is sympathizing with what has always been considered a liberal issue -- and getting plenty of flack for this from fellow evangelicals. A letter sent to NAE, signed by the leaders of several prominent conservative Christian organizations and asking NAE leadership to prevent Cizik from speaking out further on environmental issues, argued that "Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time."
Cizik says he is not trying to be political in his advocacy, that he sees "creation care" as a moral, Biblical message. In a 2005 interview with Grist, he acknowledged that he -- "for now" -- has rejected offers from the Sierra Club and National Wildlife Federation to work together, saying that evangelicals need first need to "develop our own voice and strategies and tactics."
Meanwhile, though many pro-choice advocates understand the strong relationship between environmental conditions and reproductive health, mainstream reproductive rights organizations have yet to actively rally around any environmental issues. Across the country, grassroots activists are working hard locally to clean up their communities - and many would greatly welcome help from those in women's health.
Loretta Ross, national coordinator for SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective, says if pro-choice activists broaden their view of what "reproductive health" really means, they'd see they are fighting for the same causes as their friends in the environmental justice movement. "Many within the mainstream reproductive rights community support abortion and family planning as the primary means of achieving women's empowerment," she says. "Meanwhile, those within the environmental justice movement see no separation between human health and the environment, and are working first on remedying the ills in their community as a means of empowerment."
Simply put, both the reproductive health and environmental communities are concerned with empowering humanity. A fusion between the two movements could make them that much stronger. A larger support base, networking, expanding our philosophies and world views - this could be just the beginning!
While some conservatives are attempting to make environmental cleanup part of the pro-life agenda, we need to see how we are remiss in leaving this issue out of the pro-choice agenda. Reproductive health, rights and justice not only encompass the right to end a pregnancy, but also the right for women to have healthy children in healthy conditions.
]]>IPV among teens is nothing new, either. In 1994, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported the rate of adolescents experiencing physical and psychological abuse while dating was estimated at 12%; in 1995, it had risen to 20%.
What is newsworthy about violence among partners is that it's still a widely pervasive issue - and new evidence suggests the daisies are still far from blooming. The facts dealing with teens just seem to get more and more disturbing.
Past studies have shown teen pregnancy to be strongly linked to IPV. Particularly, young women in abusive relationships are less likely to bring up condom use - or negotiate sexual preferences at all, for that matter. Their state of fear leaves them with no voice. Consequently, the abusive party is the one calling the shots - determining when sex happens, how it will happen, whether they feel like using protection, and so on. But the attempts to control don't stop there.
Dr. Elizabeth Miller at the University of California-Davis recently led a study examining adolescent partner violence, and ways in which the male abusers actively try to get their female partners pregnant. Miller and her research colleagues documented behavior ranging from poking holes in condoms to flushing oral contraceptives down the toilet.
Being 25, I've never met any guy my age or younger who's had the "baby fever." But what may at first blush sound like an innocent yearning for children on the part of these young men is in fact a twisted web of control over their female partner. What better way to personally control and manipulate a woman's sense of self and well being than through toying with her reproductive health?
Miller and her team interviewed an ethnically diverse group of girls between the ages of 15 and 20, all from low-income neighborhoods within a major metropolitan area. About a third of the survey participants reported becoming pregnant within an abusive relationship; more than half of those respondents said the pregnancies were unwanted. About a quarter of all participants said they thought their partners were attempting to get them pregnant, and reported statements from their male partners such as, "I want a baby" and "We'd make beautiful babies together." Some young women also said their abusive partners would even become angry if condom use was suggested.
Miller hopes the survey findings can serve as an educational tool for professionals dealing with teens, and that pregnancy prevention and HIV prevention programs will include IPV in the discussion. She says we need to recognize that reproductive health choices do not take place in a vacuum. The dynamics of an intimate relationship greatly affect a young woman's decision-making regarding her reproductive health.
"We can't simply tell young people to use condoms and know their birth control options," says Miller. "As public health professionals, care providers, and educators, we are responsible for talking to young people about the multiple ways in which abusive relationships manifest themselves - and to know where they can go to seek support and resources to help them navigate these relationships safely."
Reproductive control exercised by politicians is infuriating, but also significantly different from the reproductive control women experience from sexual partners. These are men women are intimately involved with, individuals they trust, people they expect have their well-being and best interests in mind. When control comes from a figure who holds such a personal role in a woman's life - or anyone's life, for that matter - the effects can be all the more confusing and devastating.
Feminist philosopher Marilyn Frye breaks down the idea of coercion in her collection of essays, The Politics of Reality. She says the heart of coercion is
to arrange things so that of the options available, the one that was the least unattractive or the most attractive was the very act you wanted the victim to perform. The elements of coercion lie not in her person, mind or body, but in the manipulation of the circumstances and manipulation of the options.
Frye’s philosophy is still applicable today. What makes an abusive/controlling relationship so disturbing is that the victim will probably not recognize that she’s in an unhealthy situation simply because she’s actively “choosing” her path. For instance, she “chooses” not to end the relationship. She “chooses” not to say no when he wants to have condom-less sex. She “chooses” not to argue when he demand she doesn’t use birth control. It may feel like she’s choosing, but if keeping quiet about her sexual health is the best option available in that abusive situation, how many options does she really have?
We would be doing a disservice to young women by not addressing issues of partner violence along with reproductive health education. As Miller's study shows, the two are unfortunately linked - and a full, comprehensive understanding of sexual health would be incomplete without also addressing the relationship contexts that can influence it all.
]]>