The Exchange

Welcome to the new site!

June 10, 2008 at 1:20pm

The Exchange is up and (partly) running today, with links and the blog mostly ready to go. Sadly, the Words section isn't up yet, but it will be soon.

For a quick explanation of everything:

Words

The Primer: where you'll find an explanation/description of all the features available on this site. Assuming there will be features.

The Bookshelf: here you'll find book reviews, brief comments, links to books I think are worthwhile, quotes, and possibly some creative works of my own.

The Phonograph: well, "the MP3 Player" just didn't have the same ring to it. This is probably my favorite section, as I love music. I'll recommend and review artists, albums, and possibly even a song or two.

The Chalkboard: this will be the section for university- and schoolwork-related discussions, projects, and anything else scholarly I choose to include.

The Proprietor: your basic bio page. This'll have all the information there is to know about me. Okay, all the information I want you to know about me.

Discourse

I've added a number of websites that both inform and inspire the reader on several different topics. Some of the websites (such as AlterNet, NPR, and Slate) have no particular focus except to report and discuss the news as indenpendent entities. Others, such as Feministing, Foreign Affars, and ColorLines are focused on exploring the different angles of one overarching theme.

They reflect my own interests: feminism, international relations and politics, and multi-culturalism. I imagine they'll grow and change as my attention span does, but I hope you'll enjoy the sites as much as I have.

Knowledge

I debated on the title of this section: knowledge or action? I finally decided that you have to know about something before you act to change it, and whether or not you do the latter should be entirely your decision. So knowledge it is.

The links in this section are on a plethora of subjects: women's issues (again), human rights, disaster preparedness, health, sex education, international aid, and I could go on (and often do). The point is, hopefully they'll either a) teach you something, or b) help you do something.

Diversion

And now for the fun. I called it diversion, because that's basically what it's for: to help you relax and hopefully relieve some of your daily troubles. Games, quizzes, cartoons, and whatever else I can think of will end up here.

I believe Opinion and Nostalgia explain themselves, but if they don't let me know.

Now, I realize the website is somewhat graphics-light, but I hope to give you guys something to look at in the next couple of days.

Enjoy!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about an update and a roundup?

June 5, 2008 at 11:06am

With all the excitement and car crashes, I forgot to mention that I was accepted into the bachelor's program I was hoping for (and for those of you who care, it is a program at University of Denver). Right now I'm doing the distance learning thing, but I hope to eventually move to the area so that I can attend classes on campus.

I'm so excited to finally be making progress towards my degree again. It's such a nice feeling! Also a good feeling? I'm not stressed out about how I'm going to pay for it. I'm actually in a place where, even if I can't afford it out of pocket, I can make arrangements so that I can afford in other ways. Such a relief!

The only issue I see (in the next six weeks, anyway) is that I'm going to have to start early on my assignments - it takes forever to type one-handed!

-----

More good news: I've got the car situation worked out in an affordable way. Because it's sort of a long story, I'm not going to go into it. But I'm happy to say that I should be independently mobile again in a week or so.

-----

Now, let's do a roundup.

Via Feministing:

A (Chronic) Pain in the Vadge, a funny, honest, and informative article about vulvodynia. It's a very interesting read, and I highly recommend it.

Also, a heartbreaking and graphic essay from a pre-Roe gynecologist.

You guys might remember when I posted about the American Life League's anti-birth control campaign. Now, Dr. Dana Stone (an OB/GYN) has written a rebuttal in No, Virginia, the Pill does NOT "Kill": How the Latest Anti-Roe Strategy Hurts Women.

Via Slate:

We have Fred Kaplan on whether Barak Obama is too naive to be president. (He also touches on the very interesting concept that the US is now just a "normal" country, rather than a superpower.)

There Will Be Chicken Blood, by L. E. Leone, on the urban chicken movement. Prior to this piece, I wasn't aware there was an urban chicken movement. Okay.

Here's one that might be of interest to some of you: Is This Tantrum on the Record?: The ground rules for writing about your kids.

Finally, because it's local: you can read (and listen) about Alexandra Fuller's (author of Don't Lets Go to the Dogs Tonight) new book about the late Wyoming native Colton H. Bryant (25-year-old Bryant was killed after falling off a drilling platform in the oil fields).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More one-handed typing.

June 2, 2008 at 9:41pm

This time I'm not even attempting to use my left hand. So if there are a lot of typos today, please forgive me.

Thank you all so much for the kind wishes! I'd like to respond to you all of you individually, but alas. Just know that I love and really really appreciate all of you!

The pain wasn't so bad when I first got out of the hospital, but since I left boss's house it's been getting steadily worse, and was particularly bad last night.The specialist's office is trying to get me into one of their emergency appointments for today, and I really hope they can do something to either immobilize my arm (right now all I have is a sling, and movement of any kind is what is really causing the worst pain) or help me out with some pain management techniques that don't involve more drugs.

Ugh. Okay, it looks like the earliest they'll be able to get me in is Thursday afternoon. I'm trying not to be upset about that, but my collarbone will have started to heal by then, and if it has to be set that'll just make the whole ordeal all the more painful.

And I'm just really frustrated with trying to do things one-handed and with my right hand. I can't write and haven't had a meal yet that I haven't spilled.

I'm sorry, I know I'm whining. I'm just frustrated and feeling a little pathetic.

But! Good things: it's a beautiful day outside and PBS actually has some really interesting day programming. And, if I lie on my back just right, my shoulder doesn't hurt so much.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's very difficult to type with one hand!

June 1, 2008 at 2:21pm

Okay, I'm managing to use my left hand to type without too much pain (but with a lot of awkwardness!).

My car-curse struck again. Twice!

First, on Thursday, my beloved Honda went kaput. It broke down about 35 miles out of town, and had to be towed (god bless Triple A!) to a shop, where they told me that the car required a new engine, and that it would probably cost more to replace than the car was worth.

It was bad timing (as I had an event this weekend I was supposed to be working), but it's not the end of the world as I've been gearing up to buy a new (used) car for a few months now. I was on-call this weekend anyway with a co-worker on vacation, and had one of the department's fire rehab response vehicles with me (so I wasn't entirely without transportation).

And then I got hit by a truck. Or the car did with me in it, rather.

I was driving down a side road by the health department when a black truck ran a stop sign (and I think was probably speeding). I tried to avoid it, but it ended up slamming into the driver's side anyway. And I'm not sure how exactly, but I went over a cement curb and ended up in a parking lot with the truck on one side, and...something else on the other (I don't remember what it was).

The scary part was that after it hit me, the truck struck a power line pole, and broke it completely in half. So I had to scramble out of the car pretty quickly because we were afraid the lines wouldn't hold and the pole would fall onto the cars. Not good! (It didn't, though.)

Anyway, two extremely competent bystanders (one of whom was an off-duty fireman) kept me immobile until the ambulance got there, strapped me into backboard, and hauled me off to the hospital. What's good about all of this was that I knew the firemen who showed up (I work with them often), and the paramedics, so they kept me joking (and from being sick, if you want to know the truth) and treated me very nicely. And I'd had a class with one of the ER techs that took care of me in the hospital!

All in all, I was very lucky. I ended up with some cuts, a bruised knee, and broken left collarbone. No concussions, no neck or spine damage (woo-hoo!), and no internal bleeding.

Unfortunately, the car didn't make it. And even though the accident wasn't my fault, it was a county vehicle that was totaled, and I feel really bad about that. Thankfully, though, since I was on-call, my employers think that my medical bills can be taken care of under workers' compensation.

Oh, have I mentioned how much I love my coworkers? My boss picked me up from the hospital and took me to his house, where his wife (who also works at the department) basically took care of me until this morning (when I insisted I should go home). My officemate volunteered to take me back and forth to my doctor's appointment on Monday (a specialist who will decide what to do about my collarbone) and to chauffeur me around so that I can get what I need for the next six weeks while my shoulder heals.

I work with good, sweet people.

So I think I'll go now, actually, and lay down a bit. I should not have been typing with my left hand! ;)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTF article of the day.

May 6, 2008 at 5:27pm

Via Feministing:

Anti-Choice Organization Launches Anti-Birth Control Campaign

The campaign basically says that birth control pills kill babies (yes, seriously) and that pro-choice groups and health care centers like Planned Parenthood are only touting birth control to make lots and lots of money. (Because as we all know, there's nothing more lucrative than offering low-to-no cost reproductive health care.)

I'm actually kind of relieved by this campaign, because at least the anti-choice movement is showing its true colors. For so long, they've been trying to claim that it's all about "saving babies" by ending abortion, when their true agenda was simply to end women's control over their own reproductive future. They want to make birth control illegal. They don't even think married people should use it. And, of course, they're willing to push that agenda even if it means lying to women.

ETA: Just for information:

A commenter on the above Feministing article posted a link to an interesting article about how Plan B actually works.

And Planned Parenthood's page on birth control has extensive information on hormonal birth control methods.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jon Stewart started this, or: an overly-detailed discussion of sex education in this country.

May 2, 2008 at 6:29pm

A couple of days ago the Daily Show did a segment on the Committee for Government Reform's hearing on Domestic Abstinence-Only Programs. It was - as usual - hilarious. Phrases like a boy's "God-stick' and a girl's 'Shame-cave' were used.

It probably wouldn't have been so funny (or so worrying) to me if it weren't so close to the truth for some students. As Stewart mentions, the government (particularly the Bush administration) has spent a lot of money making sure kids know three things: sex before marriage is wrong, you shouldn't do it, and that's all you need know.

Now for some background on me: I work primarily in emergency preparedness and response. However, because I work in what used to be the health education division, I do a bit of health education on the side. Primarily, I work with middle to high school age girls talking about everything from healthy relationships, self- and body-image, girl power, and - yes - sex education. I've had specific training on comprehensive sex education programs for teens.

Aside from that, even if it wasn't part of my job, I'd still feel that sex education is a vital - VITAL - part of an adolescent's education, and that neglecting it can have serious consequences.

So! I'm doing a let's-educate-ourselves-through-dialogue post.

But, before I continue, I want to make three points clear:

1) This post is based on very informal research (read: rather cursory survey using resources I already had or knew existed). It's not a result of extensive or exhaustive effort. This may affect the validity and/or usefulness of the information you find here.
2) I am hardly what could be considered an expert. I am, however, probably more informed about these issues than the average person, and have done my best to represent the issues (as I see them) as accurately as I can. This doesn't mean I won't get things wrong, so take everything you read not cited to a source as opinion.
3) I welcome debate and corrections. I will not ridicule, chide, berate, or in any other way abuse you for disagreeing or pointing out an inconsistency. This is a safe, wank-free zone.

Jon Stewart Started This, Or: An Overly-Detailed Discussion of Sex Education in this Country.

Alright, then. Before I get to the opinion portion of my post, I want to share with you some statistics about what we like to call youth risk behaviors nation-wide, findings from a report in 2004 on problems with abstinence-only programs, and a report assessing the impact of 10 abstinence-only-until-marraige programs.

The 2005 United State Youth Risk Surveillance Report1

The first batch of statistics I'll be sharing with you is from the 2005 United States Youth Risk Surveillance Report compiled by the CDC. The YRBSS began surveying 9th through 12th grade students about the kind of behaviors in which they engage in 1990, and have continued to conduct this survey every two years since. The reports are conducted at the local, state, and national levels (in fact, I have the Wyoming 2007 YRBS report on my desk right now).

Among the risk behaviors identified are: tobacco use, unhealthy dietary behaviors, inadequate physical activity, alcohol and other drug use, sexual behaviors that contribute to unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV infection), and behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries and violence. We'll be dealing with sexual behaviors for the purpose of this discussion. (Note: I would use the 2007 national report, but it won't be available until June.)

Okay!

In 2005, here are some of things the report found:

48.6% of high school students have ever had sex (slightly higher among females than males; higher among black and hispanics than whites).
6.2% of students who said they have had sex indicated that they had first sexual intercourse before the age of 13. (Higher among male than female; higher among black and hispanics than whites.)
14.3% of students who said they have had sex indicated that they have had sexual intercourse with four or more partners in their lifetimes. (Higher among male than female; higher amongs blacks and hispanics than whites.)

33.9% of students indicated that they were currently sexually active (had sex with one or more partners during the three months preceding the survey). (Slightly higher among females than males; higher among black and hispanics than whites.)
Of this 33.9%:
62.8% used a condom during their last sexual encounter. (Higher among males than females; higher among blacks and whites than hispanics.)
17.6% indicated that they or their partners used birth control pills to prevent pregnancy during their last sexual encounter. (Higher among females than males; higher among whites than blacks and hispanics.)
23.3% drank alcohol or used drugs before last sexual encounter. (Higher among males than females; higher among hispanics and whites than blacks.)

87.9% of high school students reported that they were taught in school about AIDS or HIV infection. (Slightly higher among females than males; slightly highter among whites than blacks and hispanics.)
11.9% of high school students reported that they had been tested for HIV infection. (Higher among females than males; Higher among blacks than hispanics and whites.)

What do these statistics mean?

It's important to put all of this in context. The best way I know how to do that is by showing you how the statistics have changed2 since the survey began.

In summary, from 1991 to 2005:

The percentage of students who said they had had sexual intercourse decreased.
The percentage of students who reported having had four or more partners in their lifetime decreased.
The percentage of students who reported as being sexually active decreased.
The percentage of students who reported using a condom during their last sexual encounter increased.
The percentage of students who reported using birth control pills before their last sexual encounter decreased by 3.2% (this is, however, very close to being within the margin of error of 2.6%+/-, so it's considered as no change).
The percentage of students who reported using alcohol or drugs increased by 1.7% (this is well within the margin of error, so considered as no change).
The percentage of students who reported being taught in school about AIDS or HIV infection increased.

What this means is that - on a whole - sex education appears to be working; not radically or quickly, but as far as reasonably correcting certain risk behaviors among high school students, progress is being made. (Although, admittedly, this is really an assumption; aside from the AIDS/HIV question, the survey doesn't indicate whether these findings as a whole are a result of formal sex education programs in schools.)

Unfortunately, because the survey doesn't include information on formal sex education programs, it also can't provide statistics on the type of sex education high school students are receiving (comprehensive vs. abstinence-only sex education), so it's impossible to say based on these statistics which method is best.

What I would have liked to do is compare the YRBS statistics between the 17 states known to have refused government funds3 for abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education to the states that have accepted government funds to see how both groups hold up. I couldn't do that because 1) resources vital to this study aren't available yet, and 2) it would require a lot more effort and expertise that I am willing give and have today.

Instead, I'll give you a summary of what the US House of Representatives found to be serious problems with abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

The United State's House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform's Report: The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs4

The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs Report was requested by Representative Henry Waxman (why, yes, it is the same guy you see in the footage of the hearings from a few days ago) in 2004 in response to fact that the Bush administration would be spending approximately $170 million on abstinence-only programs in 2005. The Special Investigations Division of the Committee conducted a comprehensive review of the most popular abstinence-only programs used by the 100 organizations that received assistance in 2003. They made an overall assessment of the scientific accuracy of 13 curricula used by the funded organizations.

It found that (and here I begin quoting directly from the report):

A) Eleven of the Thirteen Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Errors and Distortions

Eleven of the thirteen curricula most commonly used by SPRANS programs contain major errors and distortions of public health information. [Genie's Note: SPRANS is one of the three major government funding programs for abstinence-only education.]

B) Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False and Misleading Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives

Under the SPRANS requirements, abstinence-only education programs are not allowed to teach their participants any methods to reduce the risk of pregnancy other than abstaining until marriage. They are allowed to mention contraceptives only to describe their failure rates. Although the curricula purport to provide scientifically accurate information about contraceptive failure rates, many exaggerate these failure rates, providing affirmatively false or misleading information that misstates the effectiveness of various contraceptive methods in preventing disease transmission or pregnancy.

C) Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False and Misleading Information about the Risks of Abortion

A high number of the programs receiving SPRANS funding are formally opposed to abortion access. Multiple SPRANS recipients are explicitly pro- life organizations such as “crisis pregnancy centers.” Several of the curricula used by these and other recipients give misleading information about the physical and psychological effects of legal abortions.

D) Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science

By their nature, abstinence-only curricula teach moral judgments alongside scientific facts. The SPRANS program mandates, for example, that programs teach that ha ving sex only within marriage “is the expected standard of human sexual activity.” In some of the curricula, the moral judgments are explicitly religious. For example, in a newsletter accompanying one popular curriculum, the author laments that as a result of societal change, “No longer were we valued as spiritual beings made by a loving Creator.” The curriculum’s author closes the section by signing, “In His Service.” In other curricula, moral judgments are misleadingly offered as scientific fact.

E) Abstinence-Only Curricula Treat Stereotypes about Girls and Boys as Scientific Fact

Many abstinence-only curricula begin with a detailed discussion of differences between boys and girls. Some of the differences presented are simply biological. Several of the curricula, however, present stereotypes as scientific fact.

[Genie's note: this section is too long for me to include, so here's a listing of the stereotypes included: stereotypes that undermine girls’ achievement, stereotypes that girls are weak and need protection, and stereotypes that reinforce male sexual aggressiveness. This is a infuriating mind-boggling interesing section, and I highly recommend you read the details of how these stereotypes are used in some abstinence-only programs.]

F) Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False and Misleading Information about the Risks of Sexual Activity

Many of the curricula distort information about the risks of sexual activity. In the case of cervical cancer, the risk of disease is stressed, but simple prevention measures often go unmentioned. HIV exposure risks are discussed in confusing terms, and risks of substances and activities are exaggerated. Several curricula also present misleading information about the relationship between sexual activity and mental health, inaccurately suggesting that abstinence can solve all psychological problems.

G) Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors

In addition to the inaccurate and misleading information discussed above, a number of the abstinence-only curricula contain erroneous information about basic scientific facts. [Genie's note: such as: human genetics, infectious diseases, puberty, and HIV.]

I want to share one more study with you before I sum up (and shut up).

Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact5

Advocates for Youth's Vice President Debra Hauser wrote a report in 2004 assessing the impact of a number of government-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. She used 11 state-funded evaluation results of programs (in Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Missouri, Nebraska, and California) as a basis for her assessment.

[Genie's Note: Many of the programs used and evaluated in these states are the same programs found to have considerable problems in the Committee on Government Reforms Report.]

Here's what Advocates for Youth had to say (and again I'm quoting directly from Hauser's report):

Summary of Results:

Evaluation of these 11 programs showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. No program was able to demonstrate a postive impact on sexual behavior over time. A description follows of short- and long-term impacts, by indicator.

Short-Term Impacts of State Abstinence-Only Programs

In 10 programs, evaluation measured the short-term impact of the program on at least one indicator, including attitudes favoring abstinence, intentions to abstain, and/or sexual behavior. Overall, programs were most successful at improving participants’ attitudes towards abstinence and were least likely to positively affect participants’ sexual behaviors.

Attitudes endorsing abstinence—10 evaluations tested for short-term changes in attitudes.

Three of 10 programs had no significant impact on attitudes (Maryland, Missouri, and Nebraska);
Four of 10 showed increases in attitudes favorable to abstinence (Arizona, Florida, Oregon, and Washington);
Three of 10 showed mixed results (California, Iowa, and Pennsylvania).*

Intentions to Abstain—Nine evaluations measured short-term changes in intentions.

Four of nine programs showed no significant impact on participants’ intentions to abstain (California, Maryland, Nebraska, and Oregon);
Three of nine programs showed a favorable impact on intentions to abstain (Arizona, Florida, and Washington);
Two of nine programs showed mixed results (Iowa and Pennsylvania).*

Sexual Behaviors—Six evaluations measured short-term changes in sexual behavior.

Three of six programs had no impact on sexual behavior (California, Maryland, and Missouri).
Two of six programs reported increases in sexual behavior from pre- to posttest (Florida and Iowa). It was unclear whether the increases were due to youth’s maturation or to a program’s effect, as none of these evaluations included a comparison group.
One of the six programs showed mixed results (Pennsylvania).*

*Mixed results indicated that attitudes changed in both desired and undesired directions, either by survey questions within one initiative, or byindividual programs within an initiative.

Long-Term Impacts of State Abstinence-Only Programs

Seven evaluations included some form of follow-up survey to assess the impact of the abstinence-only programs over time. Results from two of these are not yet available (Nebraska and Oregon). Of the remaining five, three were of statewide initiatives (Arizona, California, and Minnesota). Two were evaluations of programs within statewide initiatives (Missouri‘s Life Walk Program and Pennsylvania’s LaSalle Program). All five evaluations included questions to assess changes in participants’ attitudes and behaviors between pretest/posttest and follow-up. Four also measured changes in intentions to abstain. Three evaluations included a comparison group.

Attitudes Endorsing Abstinence — Five evaluations included assessment of changes in attitudes.

Four of five evaluations showed no long-term positive impact on participants’ attitudes. That is, participants’ attitudes towards abstinence either declined at follow-up or there was no evidence that participating in the abstinence-only program improved teens’ attitudes about abstinence relative to the comparison groups, at three to 17 months after taking the abstinence-only program (Arizona, California, Missouri, and Pennsylvania’s LaSalle Program). Follow-up surveys in Minnesota showed mixed results.

Intentions to Abstain — Four evaluations measured long-term intentions to abstain.

Three of four evaluations showed no long-term positive impact on participants’ intentions to abstain from sexual intercourse. That is, participants’ intentions either declined significantly at follow-up or there was no statistically significant difference in participants’ attitudes relative to controls at follow-up (Arizona, California, and Minnesota). In one of the four (Pennsylvania’s LaSalle Program), evaluation showed a positive impact at follow-up on program participants’ intentions to abstain relative to comparison youth.

Sexual Behavior — Five programs measured long-term impacts on sexual behavior.

No evaluation demonstrated any impact on reducing teens’ sexual behavior at follow-up, three to 17 months after the program ended (Arizona, California, Minnesota, Missouri, or Pennsylvania’s LaSalle Program).

Comparisons of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage versus Comprehensive Sex Education

Two evaluations—Iowa’s and the Pennsylvania Fulton County program—compared the impact of comprehensive sex education with that of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

In Iowa, abstinence-only students were slightly more likely than comprehensive sex education participants to feel strongly about wanting to postpone sex, but less likely to feel that their goals should not include teen pregnancy. There was little to no difference between the abstinence-only students and those in the comprehensive sex education program in understanding of why they should wait to have sex. Evaluation did not include comparison of data on the sexual behavior of participants in the two types of programs.
In Fulton County, Pennsylvania, results found few to no differences between the abstinence-only and comprehensive approaches in attitudes towards sexual behavior. Evaluators found that, regardless of which program was implemented in the seventh and eighth grades, sexual attitudes, intentions, and behaviors were similar by the end of the 10th grade.

Now, all of these statistics and findings tell me the following things:

1) Schools are often teaching abstinence-only to students who are already sexually active. There is no proof to show that abstinence-only education will spur a sexually-active student to stop having sex or change risky sexual behavior.

2) In addition, many of these programs discourage the use of safe sex through 1) failing to teach safe sex practices at all, or 2) teaching incorrect or negatively-exaggerated "facts" about condom use, pregnancy prevention, and disease prevention. This is true for students who may become sexually active and for students who are already sexually active.

3) Many abstinence-only programs promote unhealthy ideas about male-female relationships (in promoting gender stereotypes, more below), and the inaccurate and (in my opinion) irresponsible idea that sex before marriage leads to psychological problems (which are often present among adolescents regardless of sexual activity, some of which may lead to risky behavior).

4) Most neglect to cover same-sex relationships at all, consequently casting same-sex relationships as negative or "unnatural." This leads to a closed, unhealthy environment for gay and lesbian students.

5) Abstinence-only programs rarely result in the student having a concept of self-advocacy, either in their sexual rights or in their sexual health rights. This appears to be particularly true for females students (for instance, facts about birth control methods and abortions are often inaccurate or the side affects negatively-exaggerated).

6) Female students are taught a curious dichotomy; many curricula teach that females are - to quote an oft-used metaphor - delicate flowers who should protects their 'petals'. However, they are also taught that they are emotional beings who are primarily responsibly for building a happy, loving relationship with males, who are just naturally unemotional, sexual beings.

This is hardly an comprehensive list of conclusions to be made, but they are my major ones. The bottom line? Abstinence-only-before-marriage sex education programs may seek to prevent teen pregnancy and the spread of STIs/STDs, but in fact they indirectly cause these problems.

All right. Most of you know that I do my best work in a discussion, so:

What do you think?

Some online resources for teens:

Sex, Etc.
Teen Wire
OutProud
YouthResource

I am aware that I did not properly cite sources in the above post, but as it is a completely informal discussion and as I attributed all data to their sources, I hope the reader will forgive the academic faux-pas.

1Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System-United States 2005. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 2006;55(SS-5):1–108.
2Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Trends in the Prevalence of Sexual Behaviors. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey 1991-2005.
3American Association of University Women. AAUW Discussion-Information-Advocacy Log. List of States Rejecting Abstinence-Only Funding Grows. March 12, 2008.
4United States House of Representatives. Committee on Government Reform-Minority Staff. Special Investigation Division. The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs. December 2004.
5Hauser, Debra. Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2004.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roundup: a little politics, an international look, some book-love, some feminist rage, and some fun.

May 2, 2008 at 11:17am

Because we haven't had one of these in a while, let's do a roundup.

First, how much did Rumsfeld know, and when?

From Slate:

Mark Gimein asks if India is more equal than the United States.

Shane Bauser gives us a new look at Darfur.

Shmuel Rosner if Jimmy Carter is right: Should we talk to our enemies?

And finally, the moral logic of suicide bombing.

Via Feministing:

The Oklahoma legislature recently passed a law requiring women to have an ultrasound (either abdominal or vaginal, whichever gives the best picture) before getting an abortion.

I'm quoting from an article from AlterNet by Dana Stone (conveniently linked to from the above blog):

Neither the patient nor the doctor can decide which type of ultrasound to use, and the patient cannot opt out of the ultrasound and still have the procedure. In effect, then, the legislature has mandated that a woman have an instrument placed in her vagina for no medical benefit. The law makes no exception for victims of rape and incest.

And:

In a further reversal of standard medical practice, this bill defines failure to perform this unnecessary medical procedure as "unprofessional conduct" and suggests that the state medical board may remove the physician’s license. Failure to perform the ultrasound also leads to fines beginning at $10,000 and increasing to more than $100,000. By comparison, the highest fine for negligent homicide or driving under the influence in Oklahoma is $1,000.

This is essentially medical rape made legal. Say it with me: WHAT THE FUCK.

May 1st was International Worker's Right day, and Feministing's Miriam Perez had a very interesting post on why immigration rights is a feminist issue.

Oh! And thanks to NPR, you can read (or hear) Joanne Harris' comments on her new book The Girl With No Shadow (the follow-up to Chocolat), and read an excerpt from chapter one.

-----

Some fun stuff:

For those of you blessed with a morbid sense of humor (and curiosity): the Death Clock.

And. Um. (Pause for laughter.) Puppy curling.

Last, but not least: learn your decimal birthday.