Tedra Osell

Abstinence only strikes again

The right wing renews its commitment to lying about sex ed.

  • more
    • All Share Services

File under “no shit, Sherlock”: Despite mounting research showing that abstinence-only sex ed doesn’t work, the right wing still wants to spend tons of taxpayer money “teaching” damaging lies. As we’ve discussed in Broadsheet before, a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that “one in four American girls has a sexually transmitted infection.” And while there’s plenty of evidence that abstinence-only “education” is worse than no sex education at all, the Family Research Council has decided to stick its fingers in its ears and shout “lalala,” saying that “the CDC study illustrates why abstinence education is crucial.” Because, apparently, it’s crucial that those sluts who decide to have sex right in front of God and everyone get STDs and, hopefully, an unwanted pregnancy to boot. That’ll show ‘em.

The scrambling to deny clear-cut results is almost funny. Take, for instance, this Op-Ed in the Buffalo News arguing that the rise in teen pregnancy isn’t a result of abstinence-only sex “education,” it’s the fault of Plan B! “To understand how this can possibly be,” the author begins (and indeed, it does rather stretch credulity), “you have to look at the long-term effect on society of inexpensive and effective birth control.” I see. But wait, the claim that abstinence-only sex ed isn’t the culprit began with the statement that “given the fact that abstinence-only education has been around for years and that this big change was sudden, it seems legitimate to ask if the right suspect has been fingered.”

So … birth control has to be around for a long time before we can see its social impact, even though it only takes a month, tops, for oral contraceptives to reach maximum efficacy? Education, on the other hand, obviously affects behavior immediately. Right.

The article really is a fabulous piece of specious reasoning, made all the better because it hands you all the tools you need to see how stupid it is, but then goes plowing right ahead anyway. “Manipulating statistics can be done to support any point of view,” the author admits, before going on to assert that condom use is like playing Russian roulette. How many unpregnant teenagers were unpregnant because of absintence-only programs? “We have no way of knowing,” but the Heritage program (cited in the Op-Ed) says it’s probably a lot, so there you go.

The upshot is that Plan B “leaves vulnerable young girls, whose only weapon against the unwanted sexual advances of men is the fear of pregnancy, defenseless. The man can say, ‘Call me tonight and take two pills in the morning.’”

Did you know that the only defense women have against rape is being afraid of pregnancy? That’s the kind of important truth that Plan B keeps you from realizing. If we would stop giving girls Plan B and immunizing them against human papillomavirus, we could “teach men to respect women, and not have intercourse with them until they are ready to care for the life they may be creating.” Because men won’t respect women who can take care of themselves.

And if the cost of chivalry is a 25 percent STD rate for girls and more unwanted pregnancy, well, lalala.

Is women’s studies dead?

A British newspaper pronounces the academic discipline "predictable, tiresome and dreary."

  • more
    • All Share Services

Oh, look — is feminism dead? Again? That’s what two British papers would have you think. “Farewell to ‘predictable, tiresome and dreary’ women’s studies,” read the U.K. Independent’s headline, while the London Times posed a false dichotomy: “Women’s studies is about to disappear as an undergraduate degree in the UK. But is it because it is no longer relevant or because it has done its job by putting the issues in the mainstream?”

Or maybe it’s that, in fact, women’s studies is actually a fairly young and dynamic discipline, one that has given rise to queer studies, men’s studies and gender studies, and that these departments are simply being renamed to reflect the field’s widening — not shrinking — range.

But, of course, that’s not nearly as exciting a story, since it doesn’t really give journalists a chance to quote the well-known anti-feminist Christina Hoff Summers saying that “British and American societies are no longer patriarchal and oppressive ‘male hegemonies’” while claiming in the next paragraph that perhaps, on the other hand, the real problem is that “young women have shied away from studying feminist theory because they would rather opt for degrees that more obviously lead to jobs.” Which must be why feminist theory is now studied in departments of literature, sociology, political science and history. And if being a feminist doesn’t lead to a job, doesn’t that suggest that society is still perhaps just a wee bit patriarchal?

The Times offers a less polemical explanation: declining enrollments. (Though their reporter, too, quotes Hoff Summers. Note to journalists: E-mail me if you need a quote from an actual feminist about feminist topics, OK?) But their example of a course with only four students doesn’t seem to me unusual for a British university. When I studied at the University of Sussex in the late ’80s, four wasn’t a particularly small size for a seminar: Most of my courses in the still-extant department of English had between three and six students. Sussex, by the way, still has an active Centre for Gender Studies that includes seven possible undergraduate ‘modules,” or subdisciplines.

I’m quite willing to believe that in the U.K., just as in North America, smaller interdisciplinary departments are under a great deal of pressure from the corporatization of higher education. Which is a real problem, since education isn’t, in fact, a business — nor should it be. But the idea that students are “consumers” and professors are “providing a service” in universities that are supposed to function like diploma mills is a problem that affects the entire university, not just women’s studies. The real problem isn’t moldy old feminists (as if!): It’s old-school anti-intellectualism, trying to reduce the value of education to a simple matter of pounds and pence.

Continue Reading Close

Looking for kick-ass female heroines?

The Amelia Bloomer Project rounds up the best of books by and for women.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Maybe you want good book ideas for a niece, daughter, young friend or expecting mama. Or maybe you actually want some good feminist reading for the — gasp — boys in your life. Regardless, you should check out the Amelia Bloomer Project, six years (and counting) of book awards to “honor the authors, illustrators, editors, and publishers who give life to books that encourage readers young and old to push the envelope and challenge what it means to be a woman, regardless of ethnicity or social-economic background.”

The list includes both fiction and non-, from beginning readers all the way through young adults. To my eye, it’s a little heavy on biographical nonfiction — but then again, that’s kind of a nice corrective to the Caldecott and Newbery awards, both of which emphasize fiction. And given that elementary education still emphasizes dead white males, it can only be valuable to introduce girls and boys to real feminist heroines. The list also tends to emphasize stories that celebrate determined women overcoming explicitly sexist obstacles; depending on your approach to nonsexist child rearing (and the age and temperament of the kids you’re buying for), the Amelia Bloomer Project’s definition of feminist content might seem a little didactic.

But given that even today children’s stories continue to rely heavily on male protagonists (Harry Potter, anyone?) or to emphasize girly girls (“Fancy Nancy”), a certain amount of sober-minded reading and a reminder that feminism’s about more than pink “girl power” T-shirts can’t hurt.

Continue Reading Close