Women’s Studies: What is it? October 17, 2009

“What is women’s studies?” you ask.

In short, women’s studies is the study of women – their lives, their works, their struggles, their accomplishments, their desires and fears, their future. In length, it’s much, much more – at least for me. Women’s Studies is the rejection of eighteen years worth of indoctrination. It is the shedding of a decade of willful ignorance.

I was raised believing that a women’s place was in the home. No, my parents would never have said, “A women should be in the kitchen bare foot and pregnant” but their disdain for working moms and feminists was clear. I was also raised in a Christian home where the man was head and the woman was submissive. “This models the church’s submission to Christ and to act any other way is a sin,” I was taught. Women were not allowed to preach or even lead prayer in church, teach to a co-ed group nor have any say in adult leadership (women were free to teach and lead male children). My exposure to feminism was through my Christian school, Focus on the Family, and people like Rush Limbaugh. Needless to say, my views were really skewed.

Even though I had a negative view of feminism, I couldn’t have given a definition if I’d been asked but I’d certainly not have guessed it to be anything like the one bell hooks gives in Feminist Politics: “[F]eminism is a movement to end sexism, sexual exploitation, and oppression.” If you had told me that was feminism in a nutshell I would have agreed wholeheartedly. But I didn’t know that definition (nor any other) and, as far as I’d been taught, there was no need for feminism any longer. Women had been “given” the vote, we’d complained enough that we’d been allowed into previously all-male schools and careers and now all was equal and fair. There was nothing left for feminism to do.

Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards’ essay, A Day Without Feminism, revealed to me how wrong that line of think is. No child care? I stay at home with my daughter but I can’t imagine a world where there is no other option. I was appalled to find out that the National Honor Society will rescind a girl’s membership if she gets pregnant. (What happens to a boy if he fathers a child?) The Pill’s side effects were horrifying. The double standard of curfews for college women but not for men made me furious. I was fascinated by the fact that women weren’t the only disregarded ones. Baumgardner and Richards write, “The absence of women’s history, black history, Chicano studies, Asian-American history, queer studies, and Native American history from college curricula implies that they are not worth studying” (A Day Without Feminism, in Women’s Voices Feminist Visions. 2009). I was shocked by what they said about newspaper want ads being divided into “Help Wanted Male” and “Help Wanted Female.” The restrictions placed on a married woman’s ability to secure financial services was mind-blowing.

By the end of the article I was furious. Furious that my mom had never talked to me about this. Furious at myself for never questioning the status-quo. Furious at society for making this information so easy to hide. Furious at the universe for being indifferent. Furious at the fact that change happens when people make it happen and those people are people like me.

Then I got scared. I realized then what Women’s Studies meant to me. Women’s Studies was going to be my own personal revolution. My world was shifting and I didn’t know what was going to happen and I didn’t know how it was going to look when it was done and I didn’t know if I was ready but more than anything, I knew that this was the right road. I knew that hiding from the truth was not the answer. I knew that facing this thing head on was the only way to be true to myself and all that I hold dear.

Women’s Studies is the study of women – their lives, their works, their struggles, their accomplishments, their desires and fears, their future. I am a woman and therefore, Women’s Studies is the study of me – my life, my work, my struggles, my accomplishments, my desires and fears, my future.

Girl Scouts October 15, 2009

My daughter joined the Girls Scouts this last week. Most would not consider this that noteworthy. After all, 3.4 million girls and women are members of this “world’s preeminent organization dedicated solely to girls.” Over 50 million have passed through the ranks of the Girl Scouts. They were one of the leading organization on desegregation. They supported the war effort after the bombing of Pearl Harbor by growing victory gardens, operating bicycle courier services, and more.  Prominent women such as, Barbara and Laura Bush, Tipper Gore, and actress Debbie Reynolds have been involved in the Girl Scouts. Their website claims: “In partnership with committed adult volunteers, girls develop qualities that will serve them all their lives, like leadership, strong values, social conscience, and conviction about their own potential and self-worth.”

What’s not to like, right?

Until I sat down last week and did some research, the only thing I knew about Girl Scouts was what I had “learned” growing up in a Conservative Christian home. And that was that the Girl Scouts were evil. They were partnered with Planned Parenthood, encouraged teen sex, promoted abortion and lesbianism and were all commies. Of course none of this is true nor was it taught to me outright. I can’t honestly remember having any conversations with anyone about the Girl Scouts and yet, I had these impressions.

It is always strange to question things you’ve grown up with, beliefs so deeply ingrained you don’t even realize they are there until you are blindsided by it. And I was completely blind-sided. When Jayme invited Jael to Girl Scouts my first reaction was to smile and nod and get away from this psycho as quickly as possible. Obviously she was evil and would work to corrupt my daughter if she had access.

And then I realized, wait a minute. What do I really even know about the Girl Scouts? … They sell cookies.

That was it.

They sell cookies.

That’s what I knew about the Girl Scouts, all nicely summarized in one sentence. They. Sell. Cookies. More research was needed and that’s what we did. We started with “What’s the big controversy regarding the Girl Scouts?”

Shirley Dobson says: “Jim [Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family] is also determined to protect children from indoctrination by “politically correct” ideas that are promoted by…homosexual activists who want to manipulate young minds …within the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.”

James Dobson himself said, in a 2002 letter to his followers, “[indoctrination] is what is behind the massive effort to install homosexuals and their influence into the Boy Scouts organization. The Girls Scouts have already been invaded, and now, according to one report, a third of Girl Scout leaders are lesbians.” This quote is followed by a little number 20 which, if you click on it, takes you to the reference which is one Kathryn Jean Lopez’s article, “The Cookie Crumbles” from National Review, 23 October 2000, p. 30.

Alrighty. Let’s find this report. Some time on UMUC’s library database and I’ve got it. Culture Watch is the column (which I think is an opinion column…of course, I think that National Review is largely an opinion publication anyway), Kathryn Lopez is the author and here’s what she had to say:

The Girl Scouts’ leaders hope to make their youthful charges the shock troops of an ongoing feminist revolution. It’s been a long slide…they dropped “loyalty” from their oath…in favor of “I will do my best to be honest and fair.”…[The Girl Scouts] executive director, Marsha Johnson Evans, has impeccable feminist credential: She had a 29-year career in the Navy, during which she earned the title of rear admiral, only the second woman ever to do so…she was the mother of the 12-12-5 affirmative-action policy, a mandate to make the Navy look more like America: 12 percent African-American, 12 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent Asain/Pacific.

Wow…I didn’t realize that being successful at your job gave you “impeccable feminist credential[s].” And shouldn’t we be proud of Evans for being only the second woman to become Rear Admiral? Isn’t that something to be proud of? I guess not.

Lopez goes on to say that the Girl Scouts advocate for sexual equality in sports (GOOD GOD! Girls playing sports! The horror!) and that the Girl Scout constitution has a “ringing endorsement of affirmative action in ‘recruitment, hiring, training, and promoting.’ Girl Scout moms are anti-gun…” Wow…I had no idea I was anti-gun. Huh. Who would have thought their mind control devices were so strong that with the signing of Jael’s registration form I became anti-gun.

In this same negative tone Lopez continues writing. She writes, regarding a Senior Scout resource book:

Some activities “you can do as a Girl Scout to address contemporary issues” include “organiz[ing] an even to make people aware of gender bias” or “help[ing] organize an Earth Day celebration.”…Girl Scouts can now earn the “Ms. Fix-It” badge for learning how to fix a leak, rewire an electrical appliance, or re-caulk a window, and the “Car Care” badge for checking fluids, filling tires to the proper pressure, and performing safety checks…Victimization is central to the Girl Scout worldview…

I’m confused. So, the Girl Scouts are bad for encouraging girls to learn how to take care of themselves and then they are bad for talking about victimization? Which way do you want it, Lopez? Oh…you just want to pretend that victimization just doesn’t happen. After all, we are in a post-feminism era with no further need of equality, right? Must be nice to be you.

Now Lopez brings out the big guns. Lesbianism. The Girl Scouts have them. She quotes from a book titled On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on Their Scouting Experience. It is a collection of memoirs from lesbians who were in the Girl Scouts. Lopez writes, “Girl Scout staffers writing in the book claim that roughly one in three of the Girl Scouts’ paid professional staff is lesbian.”

And that’s it. That’s Dr. James Dobson’s “report.” Wow. A collection of memoirs, in which someone NOT speaking for the organization, claims that 1/3 of the paid professional staff is lesbian is a “report.” Reeeeeeaaaaaally? Also, “paid professional staff” and “Girl Scout leaders” are two VERY different things. When someone says “Girl Scout leaders” you think “troop leaders,” which are ALL volunteer, spend a lot of time with your kids and are NOT paid professionals. Holy. Freaking. Cow.

I’ve got other things to work on (like my first assignment in Women’s Studies…hmmm. Maybe Girl Scout people are raging feminists…)

Parental Rights in the Forgotten File October 6, 2009

We finally got an external hard drive so I can clean out the old computer and we can put on a new operating system. As I am going through my old files, cleaning out the junk and finding the good, I am stumbling across half finished almost blogs. I think, since I lack the motivation to do more, I am going to post them as they are.

The following was written almost two years ago. It just kind of ends at the end so…feel free to finish it.

I have a problem. A friend sent me a link to a group which is rallying support for a Constitutional Amendment to protect parental rights from government intrusion without due process of the law. I researched it (I am still in the process but had to get some thought out of my head and onto “paper”) and while I agree in part, I disagree in part as well.

I don’t even know where to begin.

Here’s the part I’m currently upset at:

There is only one solution to this approaching storm: a constitutional amendment that places current Supreme Court doctrine protecting parental rights into the explicit language of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment will shelter the child-parent relationship from the coming storm, ensuring that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

No government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child. Parents care, not because their children are “wards” for whom they are responsible. Parents are willing to brave danger and sacrifice, hardship and heartache to ensure the best for their kids. (the last two paragraphs from ParentalRights.org’s website two years ago.)

I want to draw your attention to a couple of phrases.

“There is only one solution”

Really. Only one. And you’ve discovered it. I am suspicious when anyone or any group claims to have THE answer. Sometimes there is clearly only one answer. In this case I see many answers. Not included in these viable answers are the movement they are fighting against nor the movement they are promoting. More on that later.

“This amendment will shelter the child-parent relationship from the coming storm, ensuring that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.”

Um, last time I checked, there were numerous Constitutional Amendments that are currently being violated. Why would this be any different? Also, as I said in my previous blog (read it here), “[t]he only thing that guarantees a right is the willingness to fight and die for those rights.” An amendment is going to do jack-shit until parents are willing, when the government ignores the constitution (Privacy Act anyone?), to take up arms and have their last act in the world be dying for their children or leaving their cushy jobs and McMansions and fleeing the country, provided of course that we’ve not locked ourselves in with a giant wall across our borders. Until parents believe in their rights enough to do that, their rights cannot and will not, be protected.

“Parents care, not because their children are “wards” for whom they are responsible. Parents are willing to brave danger and sacrifice, hardship and heartache to ensure the best for their kids. “

Yeah, and I know a lot of people who aren’t this “model” of a parent. I’ve started meeting some people who aren’t from my church. Yup, I’m 27 years old and I finally have friends that don’t profess the exact same things I do. I’m growing as a person and it’s absolutely blowing my world apart. There are parents out there who are absolutely not “…willing to brave danger and sacrifice, hardship and heartache…” to ensure even the mediocre for their kids. There’s a gal I know who despises her kids. You can see it on her face when they whine at her. Total disgust. She pawns them off on sitters and nannies, refuses to instill the simplest rules or boundaries and then wonders why they are whiny little rotters. She’s not going to fight for her “rights” as a parent and when enough of people like her have allowed the government to roll over them, the government will realize it can do whatever the hell it wants, just like it’s been doing for a century.

Point Two with this group: The first story they present as precedent of the “dark clouds on the horizon” is the story of Rolin and Laura Sumey and their daughter, Sheila. By the time Sheila was 15, there had been numerous “problems” between her and her parents, resulting in Sheila running away a number of times. Extensive counseling was tried but ultimately failed.

In June, again conflict arose and Mrs. Sumey fearing her daughter would again leave home, called the police and they placed Sheila in a receiving home (I have no idea what a receiving home is and a cursory investigation has not provided results. If someone knows what they are, please share your knowledge), preventing her from running away. DSHS (Department of Social and Health Services) began to provide crisis intervention services (as is no doubt law when a parent calls the police on their child). Mrs. Sumey signed consent for Sheila to be in receiving care.

DSHS counseling did not result in reconciliation between Sheila and her parents and within a month, “Sheila filed a petition for alternative residential placement with the Pierce County Juvenile Court…A hearing on the petition was held, and the juvenile court concluded that: the family was in conflict; prior counseling and crisis intervention had failed to remedy that conflict; the conflict could not be remedied by continued placement in the home; and the reasons for the alternative residential placement were not capricious. The court approved the petition for alternative residential placement and ordered that Sheila be placed in a non-secure licensed facility. The court provided for rights of visitation for Mr. and Mrs. Sumey. The case was set for review in 6 months to determine what had been accomplished in resolving the conflict and reuniting the family.” (excerpt from the Law Offices of David S. Vogel, P.L.L.C.)

This is not the story the Parental Rights organization tells you. Here’s their story:

In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter’s participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter’s life by grounding her.

But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent’s actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was “conflict between parent and child.” Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.

Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila’s parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.

Not quite the same story, it it?

Let’s take a look at the other stories they have on their website:

A thirteen-year-old boy in Washington State was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge’s requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to recover their son.

After much research and an email to the lawyer who started parentarights.org (to which, when we asked for verification, he said, “I was the lawyer on the case), and then more research, armed now with the lawyer’s name, we were unable to find independent verification that this case ever existed anywhere outside of this lawyer’s mind. This is the story as he put it in another source. The boy’s parents wanted him to attend three church services a week and he wanted to attend only one. The judge ruled that once a week is enough church for a thirteen year old boy. I hate to agree but I must.

If a thirteen year old is being forced to go to church against his will, he is not going to be changed by anything he hears or sees there. By the time a child is an adolescent, the groundwork of character development is complete and it’s just polishing from there on out. Forcing him to attend church three times more often than he wants is going to hinder, not help, his “religious education.”

A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl’s babysitters. Referring to the sitters as “psychological co-parents,” the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.

When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.

In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote that they were “deeply troubled by the utter disregard” for the mother’s rights. One justice referred to the mother’s right as the “paramount right in the world.”

Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question.”Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?” he asked.

This one is a bit more serious. Misty, the mother in this story, had primary custody of her daughter, Senturi. Joshua, the girl’s biological father, had one day a week visitation and was to be paying child support. Christopher and Tanya, the babysitters, were his cousins. They watched Senturi frequently, though how frequently I’ve been unable to ascertain. They were paid for at least a portion of the time they cared for Senturi. When Misty decided to move to Texas to be closer to her family, return to school, and seek better employment, Christopher and Tanya, along with the father, Joshua, went to court. They claimed they’d cared for the child for months on end but I’ve been unable to find record of that claim being investigated. They claimed they were Senturi’s “psychological co-parents.” They were awarded complete custody for a while, then custody with visitation for Misty, then partial custody. When Misty appealed to the supreme court, they reversed the orders of the lower courts and returned full custody to Misty.

So the story as ParentalRights.org presented it was fairly accurate. The problem I have with them using this story as an example is that justice was done. Yes, the mother was deprived of her daughter and the daughter of her mother for a couple of months and that’s regrettable. But the court system did what it is supposed to do. When Misty was unhappy with the results of a lower court, she took it to a higher court and eventually, justice and reason prevailed. Do I think the lower courts were in the wrong? Of course! Do I think a constitutional amendment is the answer to some judge making a bad judgment? Absolutely not!

So the first story they present, they present falsely.

The second is apparently pretend. Maybe I’m being judgmental but if I were a lawyer and someone asked for verification of a case, I would do more than tell them I was the lawyer on the case. I’d give them a link to a court record or a newspaper article or something besides, “I was there. It happened. Take my word for it.”

The third story was a case of a court disregarding parental rights but then in the same court system it was resolved. The child was at no time in the care of someone whom the mother had not already approved. After a couple of months, it worked out. The lower courts were wrong but it’s not an amendment worthy wrong.

The next thing ParentalRights.org petitions against is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The UNCRC is not something I want the U.S. to ratify but it’s not something that needs an amendment to stop. The reason that the U.S. has not ratified the convention is because it already contradicts U.S. Law. …

Abstinence-Only Education is No Education At All August 29, 2009

Abstinence-only education isn't

Abstinence only education is insidious. It does not teach students the things they need to know but instead attempts to indoctrinate them to a religious standard through the clever use of misinformation and outright lies. Curtis Porter, writing for the Administration for Children & Families (ACF), a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, laid out the guidelines for abstinence only education. These guidelines for “educating” students are an affront to progressive thinkers everywhere and abstinence-only curricula distorts the truth, bending it as far as it can without breaking it and, in some situations, snaps it completely.

Abstinence-only curriculum, according to ACF, must teach that a person’s life will turn out better if he or she waits until marriage to have sex. However, researchers Else-Quest, Hyde, and DeLamater, writing for The Journal of Sex Research, found that any attempt to form a causal relationship between premarital sex and negative life outcomes to be “unwarranted” (2005).

The curriculum must define marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word ’spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” (p. 1), effectively sentencing homosexual teens to a lifetime of celibacy, along with any who do not believe in traditional marriage. The “one man and one woman” definition of marriage is one of a religious sentiment and one that the Iowa courts, among others, have deemed unconstitutional.

The curricula “must teach the psychological and physical benefits of sexual abstinence-until-marriage” (p. 1), yet the National Association of School Psychologists “believes comprehensive sexuality education is essential to promote the mental, physical, academic and emotional health of our children” (2003) and Lawrence Finer, writing for Public Health Reports, has found that 95 percent of the populace has had premarital sex by the time they are forty-four years of age (2007, p. 1).

The curriculum, and its teachers, are restricted on how much information than can provide to their students. The ACF states that “[i]nformation on contraceptives, if included, must be…presented only as it supports the abstinence message being presented. Curriculum must not promote or endorse, distribute or demonstrate the use of contraception or instruct students in contraceptive usage” (p. 1) (emphasis mine). The reason for the omission of comprehensive contraceptive education is explained by abstinence-only supporter, Linda Klepacki, who says that teaching children about condoms and abstinence, sends them a mixed message. She says, “In other areas of health education as well as abstinence, the highest health standard is communicated (i.e. alcohol, drugs, cigarette use, weapon carrying, etc.) The healthiest choice for school-age youth is to remain sexually abstinent.” However, this logic falls apart when applied to other activities. There are risks to playing football or riding in a car and yet we do not teach our children to abstain from those activities. Instead, he or she is taught the proper way to wear his or her protective equipment and a passenger is taught to wear his or her seat belt. In the same manner, so should students be taught the proper way to use sexual protection. In addition, they should also be taught the “rules” of the game. They need training in making good choices, choosing quality friends, developing and maintaining healthy relationships, sexual and not.

The ACF also states that the curriculum must contain material consistent with eight principles.

A. It is essential that the abstinence education curriculum has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity (p. 2).

Abstinence-only supporters claim there are benefits to abstaining and yet Alan Farnham (Is Sex Necessary?), reports that regular sexual intercourse has many mental and health benefits, ranging from decreased depression to a reduced risk of heart disease (2003).

B. It is critical that the abstinence education curriculum teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-aged children (p. 2).

During an evaluation of five years of abstinence-only education in Arizona, “eighty percent of students reported that they were likely to become sexually active by the time they were 20 years old” (Hauser. 2004). Why is abstinence until marriage the expected standard? It certainly is not based in reality. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that over 70 percent of girls and 60 percent of boys report having had sex before they turn twenty (2009, p. 7). The expectation of abstinence until marriage is an expectation based on the morality of the religious and is, quite frankly, a ridiculous one. Time would be much better spent teaching students how to have sex in as safe a manner as possible once they choose to become sexually active; physically safe and psychologically safe as well.

C. Abstinence education curriculum must teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems (pp. 2,3).

Subthemes to “C” are to give students the statistics and rates of failure for condoms and other contraceptives. Representative Henry Waxman found that “abstinence-only curricula contain false and misleading information about the effectiveness of contraceptives.” Several of the curricula cite a 1993 study (which was rejected by the Department of Health and Human Services), which states that condoms only reduce HIV infections by 69 percent. One curriculum states: “[T]he popular claim that ‘condoms help prevent the spread of STDs,’ is not supported by the data” (quoted in Waxman. 2004, pp. 8-10).

Uganda’s fight against the spread of HIV would suggest otherwise. Professor W. Phillips Shively summarizes Uganda’s success in Power and Choice. In 1991, the AIDS infection rate had reached about 15 percent. By 2005, it had dropped to 7 percent. President Musevini achieved this successful reduction when he began promoting the usage of condoms with his simple, straightforward plan. Titled ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and Condoms), his program was able to promote condom usage while embracing and encouraging the traditional values of abstinence until marriage and monogamy. Without the addition of increased condom usage, Uganda would not have seen the 50 percent reduction in HIV infection they’ve been able to achieve. (2008. pp 93, 94) Obviously, condoms work.

D. It is required that the abstinence education curriculum teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity (p. 3).

Buss and Shackelford, authors of Susceptibility to Infidelity, found that about fifty percent of married people will not remain monogamous (1997, p. 194). Marty Friedman, author of Straight Talk for Men About Marriage, cites on his website that 41 percent of the population is not married and 24 percent have never been married (2009) and yet, according to Lawrence B. Finer, PhD, 80 percent of unmarried men and women will have had sex by the time they are 44 years old (2007. p. 74). Obviously, sexual activity regulated to within only a “mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage” is not the expected norm of human sexual activity and it is erroneous to prop up an unrealistic standard for youth and expect them to meet it when most adults to not.

E. It is essential that the abstinence education curriculum teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects (p. 4).

Representative Waxman found no scientific support for these statements. In fact, he writes that “one curriculum tells youth that a long list of personal problems – including isolation, jealousy, poverty, heartbreak, substance abuse, unstable longterm commitment, sexual violence, embarrassment, depression, personal disappointment, feelings of being used, loss of honesty, loneliness, and suicide – ‘can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage’” (2004, pp. 20-21). Alan Farnham writes, “Having regular and enthusiastic sex…confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. (This assumes that you are engaging in sex without contracting a sexually transmitted disease.)” (2003). However, it is hard to engage in sex without contracting a sexually transmitted disease when one has had no education in how to go about protecting oneself. Abstinence-only education’s omission of education on correct condom usage is more likely to cause “harmful psychological and physical effects” than “regular and enthusiastic sex” practiced safely is.

F. It is critical that the abstinence education curriculum teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society (pp. 4-5).

Teaching a student about the harmful consequences of something but not providing him or her with the resources to avoid it – resources beyond abstinence – is worse than a pointless waste of time and money, it is negligence to the extreme.

G. Abstinence education curriculum must teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances (p. 5-6).

H. It is required that the abstinence education curriculum teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity (p. 6)

Some of the principles of abstinence-only education are commendable. Attaining a degree of self-sufficiency before becoming sexual active is a good goal to shoot for. However, like many goals, there may be bumps along the road that abstinence-only education does not prepare a teen to handle. Teaching teens how to avoid unwanted sexual advances is good. Teaching them that condoms are ineffective is wrong. Teaching kids about the cost of parenthood is good. Blaming mental health problems on premarital sex is bad.

While abstinence-only education may appear to be the answer to STDs and unwed teen parents, it is doing much more to exacerbate the problem than to solve it. Logical fallacies, misinformation, outright lies – these seem to be the standard for abstinence-only education. As such, abstinence-only education needs to be removed from our school curricula. It has no place there; certainly not funded through public funds. Teens need to have real information, real facts. In short, they need the truth and not a thinly veiled religious curriculum based on unrealistic expectations of morality and lies about the effects of sexual activity. Sadly, many adults are unwilling or unable to teach their children the lessons they truly need: how to choose friends; how to choose significant others, for marriage or not; how to make good life decisions; how to be themselves in a healthy and beneficial way. These lessons are not easy. They are not easy to learn nor are they easy to teach but we are definitely not going to find an answer by propagating misinformation, religious bias, and lies.

References

Buss, David M. and Shackelford, Todd K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 193-221

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexual and reproductive health of persons aged 10-24 years – United States, 2002—2007, Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report. July 17, 2009/58(SS06);1-58

Else-Quest, N. M.; Hyde, J. S.; DeLamater, J. D. (2005, May). Context counts: long-term sequelae of premarital intercourse or abstinence. Journal of Sex Research. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from Find Articles database, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_42/ai_n13822486/pg_8/

Farnham, Alan. (2003, August 10). Is sex necessary?. Forbes.com. Retrieved on August 23, 2009 from http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

Finer, Lawrence B. PhD. (2007, January-February). Trends in premarital sex in the United States, 1954 —2003. Public Health Reports, 73-78

Friedman, Marty. (n.d.). Marriage and divorce statistics. Retrieved August 23, 2009, from http://www.meninmarriage.com/article05.htm

Klepacki, Linda. (n.d.). Abstinence Education: Myths and the Truth. Focus on the Family Issue Analysis. Retrieved August 23, 2009, from http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/abstinence/A000002153.cfm

National Association of School Psychologists. (2003, April 12). Position statement on sexuality education. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx

Porter, Curtis (2006). Guidance regarding curriculum content. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Family and Youth Bureau Retrieved August 23, 2009 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/abstinence/cbaeguidance.htm

Shively, W. Phillips. (2008) Power and choice: An introduction to political science. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Waxman, Henry A. (2004, December). The content of federally funded abstinence-only education programs. The United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff, Special Investigations Divisions

Heads up! February 13, 2009

Just wanted to give you all a heads up regarding a new and fascinating blog. Actually, as many of you may know, I started blogging on Yahoo360 (the world’s worst blogging site) and blogged there for over a year. Not wanting to loose a year’s worth of blogs when Yahoo decides to can Yahoo360 (the world’s worst blogging site), I decided to repost them on WordPress. But I didn’t want to post them on here as they would be all out of order and it would weird things up as so much has changed since then. I mean, in one of my first blogs on Yahoo360 (the world’s worst blogging site) I write about how much I love the military life and how excited I am to be an involved ‘military wife’ etc, etc. Put that next to a blog in which I say, “I hate the Air Force. They are screwing Israel over. I never see him. Jael never sees him. His supervisors aren’t working 60 hours a week, why is he? He has to be at work but he’s not doing anything. The military did this stupid thing, that stupid thing. Blah blah blah.” It would just be confusing and weird.

So, the old blogs are at preladyrebecca.wordpress.com, and since I can’t make them archive as Winter of 2006 and on, I just dated each entry. The title of the first blog is November 6, 2006.

And I just want to add this little note. A lot of my views and opinions have changed in the last two years. The example above is only one example. If you read something and you feel it’s out of character for the person who’s writing LadyRebecca, that’s because LadyRebeccca is a constantly changing and growing human being. And if you are confused, please ask. That’s what the comment field is for. That and I love getting comments. It lets me know that people are reading my blogs, which makes me happy!

Inspired by a new friend February 6, 2009

I have made some new friends here in Germany (I hope I can be so forward as to call them friends…I’ve only just met most of them) and one inspired me today. She is an artist and blogs here at wordpress. Last month she took part in a challenge. A 31 day, art journal challenge and posted her results on her blog. I was very impressed with her work and felt inspired to make something that expressed how I was feeling. So I made this…

The feeling of the day is...Bleh

The back reads, “A little art journaling to go with a “Bleh” day. Israel’s feeling poorly, Jael’s crazy, I got an “eh” hair cut. Restless and bored feeling. A “Bleh” day. So I made a pretty!”

And that about sums it up. This was done in my sketch pad, 5.5 X 8.5 inches, with a black Uniball, mirco point pen. I love those pens. I think I might have used this one up though. Oops. Sorry Israel. (They are his favorite pens too and I have only recently started using them and so they still feel like they are “his,” you know?)

Anyway, it was fun to do and I used some techniques Sheri taught the kids in Art Class on Thursday. We did something called “Zen Tangles” (correct me if I got the name wrong) and that was the inspiration for the design of “Bleh.”

Other than that, life’s going. I’m in the middle of an internet argument which is always pointless and heartburn causing. My aunt posted a “letter” on Facebook. It’s written as though the Republicans/conservatives were writing a divorce letter to the Democrats/liberals and were deciding how to divide the country. The Right gets the guns, military, NRA, cops, etc. The Left can “keep your precious homeless, hippies, homeboys, and illegal aliens.”

The Right keeps their gas guzzling SUV’s and full size sedans and the Left gets Micheal Moore, Rosie O’Donnell and Oprah (if they can find a biodiesel vehicle large enough to fit them into).

There was a lot more but these were the two things I chose to comment on. First off, my aunt is a Christian and knows her Bible. So I simply suggested that the “libs” take the verses from the Old Testament that commanded the government take care of the poor and the alien. I explained that biodiesel would run in any normal desiel engine so a normal semi ought to be large enough to fit their fat butts into…since the left has such a corner on fatties. (That last line might have been a little harsh but come one. Everyone’s got fat people on their side. Are skinny people the only one’s allowed to have an opinion? I mean, what if they other side notices that your spokesperson is fat? OH NO!)

So then some guy is like, “biodesie sucks. Truckers hate it. What’s wrong with good old oil? Illigal aliens are rapists and murders and job stealers. They don’t pay taxes but we have to pay for their medical bills etc, etc.”

Oh, and my aunt said, “Lighten up, Becky. It’s just a joke.” Yeah, I’ll bet the homeless would laugh their asses off if you read it to them.

I responded (which I probably shouldn’t have but dang it, the guy was an idiot) and said that oil has become a dirty word because it’s a non-renewable resource and when it’s gone, it’s gone so if there are alternatives, let’s use them. We need oil for other petroleum based things like fertilizer. We CANNOT produce our current level of food without petro-chemical fertilizers. I also suggested he check his sources before saying illegals are rapists and murders and informed him that many of them pay taxes but are unable to recieve any benefit from them.

And then I said, “I don’t think this letter was funny. I think it was rude and mean-spirited…The Church should be taking care of the poor but she’s not. When God gave his nation his law he included in the civil law rules for caring for the poor. If you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you are going to follow, choose love, not hate.” Or something very similar to that at least.

So I don’t know. I probably just started a flame war on my Aunt’s page. I wish I felt bad but I don’t. She posted something mean and ill-thought out and I simply pointed out the flaws in it. Of course, no one will change. We humans, we are opposed to change. Changing is the hardest thing any of us ever do.*sigh*

Maybe that’s why I change hobbies so much. That why it never hurts!

Anyway, Life goes on.

Do Virginity Pledges Work or Do They Do More Harm Than Good? December 30, 2008

I opened a huge can of worms today. Yahoo had an article up whose headline said “Virginity Pledges Don’t Work” or something to that effect. I didn’t blog about it right away and now, when I tried to find it, it was gone. So I Googled “viriginity pledges” and WHOA!

What do I find but EIGHT articles stating, “No, virginity pledges don’t work and are harmful,” two reports stating, “They don’t work but are not actively harmful,” and one article which states, “They do work.” Here’s some links:

The “Doesn’t Work And Is Harmful” crowd:

KARK 4 News – news report about pledges NOT working

WebMD – “Virginity Pledge Doesn’t Stop Teen Sex”

Medical News Today- “Many Teens Who Take ‘Virginity Pledges’ Substitute Other High-Risk Behavior for Intercourse, Study Says”

Teenwire.com (supported by Planned Parenthood) – “The Truth About Virginity Pledges”

Washington Post – “Virginity Pledges Cannot Be Taken on Faith”

Salon.com – “The Virginity Hoax”

Everything2.com – Virginity Pledge

The Sydney Morning Herald – “Virginity Pledge No Guarantee”

Bloomberg.com “Virginity Pledges Fail to Trump Teen Lust in Look at Older Data”

The “Works” ‘crowd’:

The Heritage Foundation – “Teens Who Make Virginity Pledges Have Substantially Improved Life Outcomes”

And the “Doesn’t Work but is Basically Harmless” crowd:

Science Direct – “After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledge”

Science Direct – “The limits of abstinence-only in preventing sexually transmitted infection”

And then you have some source material:

“Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers” in which the conclusion is stated as,

The sexual behavior of virginity pledgers does not differ from that of closely matched nonpledgers, and pledgers are less likely to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease before marriage. Virginity pledges may not affect sexual behavior but may decrease the likelihood of taking precautions during sex. Clinicians should provide birth control information to all adolescents, especially virginity pledgers.

What I find really interesting is two little points. One from the Heritage Foundations article. The article states,

Overall, making a virginity pledge is strongly associated with a wide array of positive behaviors and outcomes while having NO negative effects. (2) The findings …strongly suggest that virginity pledge and similar abstinence educations programs have the potential to substantially reduce teen sexual activity, teen pregnancy, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. (Emphasis mine)

I can’t help but compare these statements with the other interesting point. Pediatrics, The Official Journal of The American Academy of Pediatrics said in their article,

Pledgers and matched nonpledgers did not differ in premarital sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and anal and oral sex variables. Pledgers had 0.1 fewer past-year partners but did not differ in lifetime sexual partners and age of first sex. Fewer pledgers than matched nonpledgers used birth control and condoms in the past year and birth control at last sex,

and came to the conclusion that…

The sexual behavior of virginity pledgers does not differ from that of closely matched nonpledgers, and pledgers are less likely to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease before marriage. Virginity pledges may not affect sexual behavior but may decrease the likelihood of taking precautions during sex. Clinicians should provide birth control information to all adolescents, especially virginity pledgers.

So how does this work? How can you have such different conclusions when the same Add Health survey was the basis for both?

I don’t know. But something else I found interesting was that, “Five years after the pledge, 82% of pledgers denied having ever pledged.”

Interesting.

I pledged to remain a virgin until I was married. And I was a virgin when I married. But not once did my signature on a pledge card come to mind when I was in a situation which could  have ended with sexual intercourse. I remained a virgin because it’s what I wanted to do and if I’d wanted to have sex before I got married, that’s what I would have done, pledge or no. In my personal experience and the experiences of people who signed virginity pledge cards with me, the Virginity Pledge is a waste of time, money, and trees and it promotes magical thinking, both in teens and adults. The teen think that because he or she signed a pledge card, they don’t need to do anything else regarding their sexuality. They rest on their pledge alone and it’s not enough. Adults pat themselves on the back because x number of teens signed pledge cards and they don’t provide those kids with the information and guidance they need regarding safe sex. Abstinence Only education doesn’t work and the sooner that’s recognized and dealt with the better.

Playing basketball linked to sexual sin! Next on wacky news! December 18, 2008

Not only are Christians terrified of the homosexual agenda to destroy America, they are also terrified of girls playing basketball on the same teams as boys. After all, “it could lead to sin.“

I’ll recap the story for those of you who are too lazy to click the link or, like a certain in-law I know, have the world’s slowest internet connection and it already took ten minutes to load this page. Westside Christian School in southern Florida played in the Suncoast Christian Conference. Westside did not have a girl’s basketball team. The school only has 112 kids and not enough interested girls. The coach for the boys JV team saw 13 year old Aliyah playing basketball with the boys during P.E., which is co-ed. He thought she had good moves, good speed and natural talent so he, after studying up on the bylaws, asked her if she’d like to play. She played on game before the school got an email from the head honcho at Suncoast. She played again and Suncoast called a meeting of their 11 schools. Once school didn’t vote but it wouldn’t have mattered as the 8-2 vote to not allow Aliyah to play was passed. Westside immediately left the conference and has lined up games with other schools, many from the conference.

The reason for the discrimination? It might lead to sin. All that bumping and grinding that happens on the court. All the ass grabbing and chest rubbing. “Inappropriate contact” was the phrase I think. It would go against the “Christian upbringing.”

I don’t even have the energy to really comment on this. It’s so ridiculous. I am all for sexual purity but come one people! After reading some of the more ignorant comments, one in which those who disagreed with Suncoast Christian Conference’s decision were accused of reading, at most, two verses on Sunday, I said this:

Interesting. As someone who did grow up reading the Bible and, no, not just two verses on Sunday, I studied it deeply, I find this very disturbing. The Bible says it is good for a man to not touch a woman and I think this is where these people are coming from. So I expect there to be a lot less hand shaking with the pastor after service because, after all, it might lead to sin, no matter how innocently it begins.

If you are going to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you are going to follow, choose love, not hate.

And if playing b-ball with a girl leads a boy to sexual sin, the problem is with the uptight upbringing and not the co-ed sport. There is no one more sex obsessed than a Christian. I know, I was there. My friends who did not grow up in the church were not NEARLY as sex obsessed as myself and every other christian kid I knew. The church sexualizes EVERYTHING from holding hands to playing sports to seeing a girl in pants.

Grow up.

And what about homosexuality? I mean, what if all that groping and touching and chest grabbing causes a boy to have homo-erotic feelings for his teammates? I think the answer is to ban all sports completely. Actually, maybe ban fun completely and then you can be sure that no one is every sinning, ever.

So, basically, Suncoast has made a mockery of Christ and his teachings. They have twisted the Bible to say what they want it to say for whatever sick little reasons they have. Some commentors on the articles have suggested pedophilia may be the cause or perhaps just jealousy of a talented girl or plain old sexism and bigotry. I would be interested in knowing a couple of facts. Number one: who was playing on the teams Westside beat their first two games with Aliyah? Who are those boys related to? Number two: What is the race of Suncoasts voting members? I doubt this is a race thing but I think it should be looked into. I think it’s an uptight, over sexualizing, perverted thing.

I also commented at Sticks of Fire, where Tommy has also blogged about this situation. (Thank you, Tommy, for suggesting I add some links.)

Word Definitions November 8, 2008

I just want to say that words can have many definitions. Sometimes the difference between one definition and another can  be something as simple as a capital letter. When orally communicating, it is not possible to determine which definition the speaker is using if you do not ask. This can cause, among other things, anger, confusion, and misunderstanding. 

Example: Savior:  1. one that saves from danger or destruction; 2. one who bring salvation ; specifically capitalized : Jesus.

So “Savior” means Jesus and “savior” means anyone who saves someone or something from danger or destruction.

Example: Messiah: 1. capitalized a: the expected king and deliverer of the Jews b: Jesus; 2. a professed or accepted leader of some hope or cause

So “Messiah” means Jesus or the expected king and deliverer of the Jews and “messiah” means anyone who is a professed or accepted leader of some hope or cause. 

Why do I point this out? Because I’m sick of people butchering the English language because they don’t like someone or the things that person stands for. I don’t especially like Obama nor do I especially trust him. But that does not give me license to assume capitalization where it may not exist. I don’t think Obama will be the savior of anything other than his political career but you can’t just make crap up. It pisses me off.

Language has rules. I know because I’m studying a language and you can’t just change definitions or assume one definition over another. It confuses everyone, natives included.

Gute Nacht.

You’re all right and you’re all wrong November 7, 2008

My sister wrote a note on Facebook and a number of people responded. I don’t want to paste in all the comments, I think this stands alone okay. Here’s my thoughts. Enjoy or not

You are all right and you are all wrong. Anyone who claims to base their world view on the Bible must understand the difference between the permissive and preferred will of God. If God is sovereign than, yes, Obama being President is his will as God is not striking him dead with a bolt of lightning or having him eaten alive by worms as he did to Harod. God’s permissive will also allowed Adam to damn us all to hell. It’s NOT the same as his preferred will.

If we take the “All government is appointed by God” aspect and refuse to differeneciate between permissive and preferred, we must begin to fight for the restoration of the Americas to British rule. After all, our forefathers fought against God’s chosen king. The Jews who fled Germany during World War II should have stayed put, after all, Hitler was God’s chosen. We really shouldn’t have done anything about Suddam Hussein because, after all, he was God’s chosen leader. Obviously, there is a time and a place for removing a leader from power. There is a time and a place for respecting the office of a leader even though you can not respect the person. Do not let fear of missing the fine line cause you to be apathetic and docile.

The government does have a responsibility to care for the poor. Part of the tithe money was for taking care of the poor. The harvesters were to leave the corners of their fields unharvested for the poor. Every 50 years there was supposed to be a mass redistribution of the wealth (Year of Jubilee). The church’s role in caring for the poor is simply as a substitute for when the government has failed in it’s duty.

Reinterpretation of the law is fundamental to our government’s functioning. The founders of the constitution did not think women should be allowed to vote and yet, here we are, voting. Blacks didn’t have rights until the Americans of the late 1800’s decided to “reinterpret” the Constitution. Right now, the law is that it’s okay to kill the unborn. In order to have this changed we must “reinterpret” the law to see it as NOT okay.

You are right. Nothing happens without God’s allowance. Ask Job if that was fun. God allowed the Jews to die by MILLIONS. God has allowed millions of unborn babies to be killed. The fact that God has allowed something does not mean that we roll over and expose our soft underbellies.

The fact that Obama has promised to make inaccessible health care acessible and improve the state of poverty doesn’t mean he’s going to do it. He’s a politician and the furthering of his own political career will be his primary goal, as it is the goal of all politicians. He will be held by the same constraints that kept George W. Bush from accomplishing anything of consequence.

The poverty rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, is almost half of what it was in 1959. “After 4 years of consecutive increases, the poverty rate stabilized at 12.6 percent in 2005- higher than the most recent low of 11.3 percent in 2000 and lower than the rate in 1959 (22.4 percent), the first year for which poverty estimates are available (Figure 4).” US Census Report, page 20. “Roe vs. Wade” was decided in 1973. The poverty rate is basically the same, give or take 2 percent. Now, I think abortion is terrible, too, but you can’t say it’s the cause of poverty. Nor can you say that homosexual marriage is the cause as there has not been enough time for evidence to be gathered.

And yes, having a mom and a dad in the home might greatly decrease poverty, especially for those under 18. So lets decriminalize marijuana and send the non-violent offenders home to their families so they can start supporting them again. Let’s fight the illiteracy rate, which in the US is about 20%. It’s awfully hard to get a good job when you can’t even read the want ads. It’s hard to read the Bible or make an informed decision about anything if you can’t read. How can we expect to change anything when 20% of our citizens can’t read? All our pamphlets and signboards? Wasted on one out of five people.

No, we shouldn’t trust the government to do anything. They will only do or not do the things which we, as the people, hold them accountable to. We must be more active than simply voting every four years. If you think a person should be in office, start sending their campaign money. If you want to see the poor taken care of, start tutoring kids to help them read. If you want to see abortions cease, start taking girls in and supporting them and their children. If you want the government to stop lying to you, start holding them accountable. Minimum wage has not gone up at the same rate that Congress has voted themselves raises. Why are we content to allow this to go on?

And the definition of “messiah” is “a professed or accepted leader of some hope or cause.” It only means “the expected king and deliverer of the Jews” if it’s capitalized. I don’t think hellfire is necessary for saying that Obama is the professed leader of hope for the American poor.