What you should have read recently

Ann Lovett: Silence that will never be broken - Caroline O’Doherty 

"Everyone wanted to know how a girl from a family of nine siblings in a town of barely a 1,000 people could have carried a baby to term without anyone finding out, if indeed her pregnancy was the secret the community claimed it to be.

Questions were asked about what kind of society made a bright girl feel unable to ask for help or undeserving of support at what must have been the most frightening time of her life."

The politics of black hair - Emma Dabiri  

"It can feel pretty frustrating that white supremacy has bequeathed a legacy in which, for many black women, simply wearing our hair in its own natural state can become a complex and politicised act. At the same time - despite the connection between said supremacy and the relationship that many black women have to our hair - most white people demonstrate absolutely no idea about the everyday maintenance of Afro hair, let alone its politics."

Woman-hating by any other name - Meghan Murphy

"There’s an air of superiority from those who busily seek to ruin and silence other feminists: “We’re doing it right; she’s doing it wrong.” By pointing our fingers elsewhere we keep ourselves safe from attack. It seems pretty clear, though, which white feminists are using valuable ideas like intersectionality to advance their own careers and gain popularity, without an ounce of interest in movements towards ending oppression and with little understanding of structural inequality."

5 black women in history every egalitarian should know - Gail Wallace

"In a recent study of Black women’s leadership Ngunjiri, Gramby-Sobukwe, and Williams-Gegner note that “early preaching Black women were radical in their commitment to consistent egalitarianism and social justice within the Black church and community as well as society at large” and refer to them as “tempered radicals”... "

What is subversivism? - Julia Serano

"Subversivism is the practice of extolling certain gender and sexual expressions and identities simply because they are unconventional or nonconforming. In the parlance of subversivism, these atypical genders and sexualities are “good” because they “transgress” or “subvert” oppressive binary gender norms. The justification for the practice of subversivism has evolved out of a particular reading (although some would call it a misreading) of the work of various influential queer theorists over the last decade and a half."

No-one leaves or stays in church for the perfect reasons - Ed Cyzewski

"I also needed to read Introverts in the Church and Quiet as a way of explaining my discomfort in church. So much of my church experience had been shaped by the expectations and standards set by extroverts. We were always doing more stuff, meeting more people, attending more events, speaking in front of more people. The introvert in me just couldn’t keep up. Church felt like hard work, sucking the life out of me rather than renewing, strengthening, and, the favorite word of extrovert church leaders, “equipping” me."

Are you being TOO sex-positive? - Be Young & Shut Up

"Sex positivity is well-meaning, and a lot of its practices have helped to make people more comfortable with their sexuality. But its execution is flawed. Many are excluded or harmed by the community’s practices of the philosophy, and even the pure philosophy itself. Its monolithic identity means that if you take issue with sex positivity, you’re the stuffy patriarch enemy. The problems are such that sex-negative feminism has become a legitimate movement that, while it has its own serious problems, is just about as respectful of people’s sexual choices as sex positivity is."

The (possibly incoherent) ramblings of a guilty mum - Littlee & Bean

"Since going back to work I’ve learnt that sometimes I have to let go. I’ve learnt that sometimes it’s enough just to do my best. I’ve learnt that tending to my happiness and sanity is important. And I’ve learnt that immersing myself in the world that exists beyond the periphery of my motherhood experience, is key to my family’s happiness. I’m grateful that most of the time work keeps me sane."

A quick and dirty intro to black British feminism - Vimbai Dzimwasha

"However, after watching that amazing conversation between bell hooks and Melissa Harris Perry, I realised I desperately needed to find a feminism that reflected my specific experiences of being a black woman in Britain and navigating through issues of ‘black identity’, ‘black womanhood’, dual cultural identity among other issues. Black British Feminism."

Faith schools, moral panic, and the HPV vaccine

Today brought us the news that some secondary schools are opting out of the HPV vaccination programme for girls "on religious grounds". The vaccination, offered to girls aged 12-13, guards against the strains of HPV most likely to cause cervical cancer and has had a controversial history. Opposed by people who think it will encourage teens to become promiscuous if they know they're protected against disease, it's been causing moral panic for a while now despite the fact that the idea of a vaccine making young people sexually active is, well, ridiculous. When I was at school, we didn't have the HPV vaccine. I don't remember anyone abstaining from sex because they were worried they'd catch it and therefore put themselves at risk of cervical cancer.

GP magazine found that the majority of the schools opting out of the programme did not inform local GPs of their decision, nor did they inform parents and pupils where they could be vaccinated instead. The reasons given for declining to offer the vaccine are concerning - from "Not in keeping with the school ethos" to "pupils...do not practise sex outside marriage" and "the school...does not want pupils to feel pressured by peers". All of these statements indicate that the schools in question subscribe to the belief that the HPV vaccine encourages sexual activity, which would be at odds with Christian teaching. They also indicate that the schools see sexual health as somehow irrelevant to their pupils: "Our girls aren't having sex so they don't need the vaccine!" - as if they're somehow above HPV and cervical cancer and will remain this way in the years to come.

There is absolutely no way that the schools in question are fully aware of what pupils are getting up to in their spare time and the extent to which they are or are not sexually active. As a Christian who attended a Christian school I can confidently state that abstinence was not on the agenda for most people I knew. Like the US teens who have taken "purity" pledges and then proceed to go back on their word once they start dating someone, many UK teens - no matter what they have been taught, or encouraged to believe - will go ahead and become sexually active. Attending a faith school is by no means an indicator of religious belief in the first place - I say this as someone who knew plenty of people for whom church attendance was about getting into a good school rather than acquiring a faith. What good does keeping young people in the dark do? About as much good as years of abstinence-only sex education lessons did for US youngsters: none. Are they expected to acquire knowledge about sexual health only as adults, when it might be too late for some?

Scaremongering around the issue of teens and sex while refusing to prepare them for its potential consequences is a tried and tested tactic that achieves nothing. Far better to let young people and their parents decide for themselves whether or not they wish to have the vaccine at the very least, rather than make completely unfounded assumptions about their personal lives. If it saves lives, surely it should be a no-brainer? The idea that giving young people knowledge about sex will lead to them behaving irresponsibly is unfounded and surely one that people need to get over, given the ignorance of many teens surrounding it.

Obviously vaccinations aren't compulsory but the decisions made by these schools as a result of their "ethos", or what they assume about pupils' personal lives, is putting girls at risk in later life. It's sad to see schools buying into the moral panic; this is not something they would do in the case of other vaccinations, and it implies an attitude towards sex that I'd rather not see in UK schools. As the Guardian story states, responsibility for administering the HPV vaccine will change next year, meaning that "there will no longer be any excuse for failing to protect children in this way". 2013 can't come soon enough.

Giving girls power with family planning

Like every woman I know, I've always taken it for granted that I can choose when I want to have children, how many I want to have, and how long I will leave between pregnancies. I've done so because I was taught about what contraception when I was at school. Over the years I've learned more about it - and also where I can get it, which thanks to the NHS, is from my doctor, for free. Pregnancy and contraception are things my husband and I have made decisions about together - meaning that after almost ten years as a couple, I recently gave birth to our first child.

Most of you reading this won't find that unusual, but for hundreds of millions of women the world over, the reality is very different. Right now, 22 million women have an unmet need for family planning. For them, accessing birth control is difficult, even impossible. They might have to walk for several days to reach a clinic, or deal with judgmental attitudes from people in their communities or healthcare providers. That is, of course, if they're aware of the different methods of contraception and how they work. Myths and misinformation abound, and often, their husbands are resistant to the idea.

This is obviously bad news for women and girls. Lack of access to birth control is one problem, but when you combine this with poverty, poor nutrition, child marriage, gender inequality, and poor medical care, it results in thousands of lives being lost every year. On Monday I was able to find out more about just how family planning can save lives, at an evening hosted by Save the Children to promote their Give Girls Power campaign. The charity has been just one of many mobilising to encourage governments to take action this week at Wednesday's family planning summit in London, and commit to helping millions of women access contraception.

I didn't know that pregnancy and childbirth is the number one killer of young women aged between 15 and 19. That's a huge issue in countries where child marriage is common, where discussion of sex and contraception is taboo and where patriarchal culture dictates that men make the rules, while women do as they're told. Save the Children's interactive game created as part of the campaign asks us: "Imagine what life would be like if you weren't able to make your own decisions". It illustrates just how tough - and dangerous - life is for millions of teenage girls.

Visiting the event on Monday was 17-year-old Aselefe, a family planning campaigner and peer educator from Ethiopia. She told us about phoning a contraception helpline at the age of 16, only to be told that they couldn't provide her with any information as she was "too young", and unmarried. Aselefe explained about the "silence" surrounding sex she feels exists between Ethiopian mothers and daughters, meaning that many young women don't know the facts of life - something that frequently causes problems, especially since the average age of marriage in rural areas is just 14.

One of ten children, Aselefe said she didn't want the same sort of life as her mother. She told us that she is literally changing lives through her work as a peer educator, and spoke of her wish to see sex education made part of the school curriculum, and family planning available in all rural health centres.

"It's important to give decision-making abilities to girls," she said.

Wednesday's summit, organised by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK government, resulted in global leaders promising $2.6bn to make sure that family planning services will reach an additional 120 million women and girls in the world's poorest countries by 2020. David Cameron also met Aselefe at the summit. 

"Today we are investing in hope for Aselefe and girls like her," he said. He pledged to double Britain's current commitment to family planning by contributing over £500m over the next eight years. According to the summit's organisers, the commitments made on Wednesday will result in 200,000 fewer women dying in pregnancy and childbirth, 110m fewer unintended pregnancies, 50m fewer abortions, and 3m fewer babies dying in their first year of life. 

The hard work of Save the Children and other organisations seems to have paid off, and they're looking forward to a future of "groundbreaking" changes for women and girls. 

Read Save the Children's report, Every Woman's Right: How family planning saves women's lives. Or share your personal experiences with contraception and access at the Gates Foundation's No Controversy.

This post was originally published at BitchBuzz.

Pregnancy, me, and the GOP

I haven't really felt compelled to blog about my pregnancy. I did wonder, when I wrote that post at the end of my first trimester, whether it would be something I'd start writing about a lot more. And next week, I enter my third trimester. The home strait. To tell you the truth, I've just been getting on with things. My second trimester bought with it a new job and a good deal more energy. Not, mind you, to the extent that I'd say I felt "full of energy", as some women say. I've had to make sure that I get enough rest. But I have been very well. The past three months have been full of projects, planning, and writing again. And of course, I've been spending a lot of time thinking about my impending motherhood situation.

Thinking about it - but not writing about it. Being pregnant has taught me a few things. Firstly, I now know that I truly have no interest in writing about anything that's going to make me an unwilling participant in the "Mommy/Mummy Wars" of sniping about differing parenting choices. Secondly, I know that I'm not going to get stressed, via my blog, over things that have the potential to change completely through no fault of my own and have no bearing on me as a person. My birth plan. My symptoms. Thirdly, it's taught me that I really am so grateful for the circumstances of this pregnancy and the choices I have been able to make about it.

Some time ago I had some commenters on a blog post insinuate to me that my opinions about reproductive rights, feminism and gender equality were somehow naïve and uninformed because I was young and had yet to have children of my own. As if having a child would make me see the error of my ways and suddenly start telling other women that having "only" two children is "selfish" and that I didn't know how they could call themselves Christians yet be pro-choice.

The child is still inside me, but as yet, this change hasn't happened. I was concerned about the issues surrounding motherhood and reproduction before I became pregnant, but creating this baby has only made me feel more strongly about the positions I've always held. Part of that's down to the frankly terrifying situation in the US that began unfolding in 2011, dubbed the year of "The War On Contraception" by Amanda Marcotte. As my pregnancy has progressed, the situation for women in the US has regressed.

Everyone was so excited when the news broke that women were finally going to be able to access birth control without copays through their health insurance. Unfortunately it was all of five minutes before conservatives started kicking up a fuss. Fast forward to this week and today I tweeted that I'm just going to start referring to the US as the "Republic of Gilead" because goodness knows there's a bunch of politicians and people of influence over there who seem to be all geared up to go down that route. On Thursday we sat  dumbfounded as a panel comprised entirely of men decided that the input of a woman in favour of contraception coverage wasn't relevant to their discussion on birth control and health insurance. Democratic women walked out of Rep. Darrell Issa's hearing in protest.

The woman the Republicans had refused to allow to speak had planned to talk about the experiences of women she knew who had been denied birth control coverage, including:

"...a woman who has lost an ovary because she was even denied coverage for pill not even needed for contraceptive, but for medical purposes. As a result of not having the proper medical care, the woman, now 32 years old, lost an ovary and is experiencing an early menopause, threatening her ability to have children."

The panel felt that this woman did not have the "credentials" to speak. A woman. Not having the "credentials" to speak with any authority to men about women's reproductive health. This is the reality of what happens when women are blocked from easily accessing contraception because of ridiculous notions about who should be using it and why - coming, incidentally, from the same people who no qualms about making medication for men who are affected by erectile dysfunction easily accessible as a necessity.

Because of course men aren't the problem here for the GOP. That's abundantly clear. No matter that their desire to see the number of abortions being carried out in the US decrease might actually become reality should they make contraception available to all. No, despite the fact that 99% of all sexually active women have used or are using birth control (and 98% of sexually active Catholic women are doing the same, for those making the fuss about Catholic employers being required to cover contraception), the powers that be would like to make it so that they can't. And just in case you weren't sure exactly why they hold this opinion, billionaire Santorum supporter Foster Friess was happy to give us all a good idea.

“Back in my day, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly,” he said on Thursday.

You'd better be keeping your legs closed, gals. Keeping your legs closed or popping out kids. That's what it comes down to.

And you know what? I haven't even mentioned the mess that is the proposed Virginia ultrasound law. You need to read about it, but what you need to know is this: forced transvaginal probing. David Englin, opposing the bill, has apparently recalled a conversation with a GOP lawmaker who:

"...told him that women had already made the decision to be vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant."

But wait - there's more! Yes, there's also the small matter of a bill passed by the Oklahoma State Senate on Wednesday, defining "personhood" as beginning at conception and therefore granting rights to fertilised eggs. Says the Ms. Magazine newswire:

"If the personhood initiative appears on the ballot, emergency contraception, birth control pills, IUDs, and abortions - even in cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the woman or girl - would be threatened. The initiative would even go so far as to eliminate medical choices for women, including some cancer treatments, in vitro fertilization, and could allow the state to investigate and even prosecute a woman for a miscarriage."

Put simply, it makes me want to tear my hair out. I don't expect anything approaching a measured position on reproductive rights from the GOP any more and I know that as a woman living in the UK, these decisions don't affect me, do why does it bother me so much? It just makes me so disappointed and angry that the lives of millions of women are being played with like this thanks to the ideological position of a sadly powerful minority, who would prevent women from accessing vital and possibly life-saving medical treatment, rob them of the right to use contraception and when challenged, tell them they just need to keep their legs closed.

Being pregnant has made me so grateful for the way I've been able to exercise choice in the matter, grateful that Luke and I have been able to make decisions about having a child together, aided by easy access to contraception, free healthcare, and the knowledge that the law is not working against me to discount my own life should anything go wrong. If I'd had a miscarriage, I would not have had to worry about the potential of being arrested. If I'd had to have a termination out of medical necessity, I know there would not have been people waiting outside the hospital to shout abuse at me and my husband.

And it makes me so angry for the millions of women who don't have those privileges, in "the land of the free". The "land of opportunity". Where a party that wants "small government" thinks all this is somehow an example of that, not to mention an example of the "separation of church and state". All thanks to the unbelievable crusades of a bunch of politicians who will never, ever become pregnant or know what it is like to have a womb, or ovaries.

The battle against 'sexualisation': what next?

So it's just over a week since the publication of the controversial Bailey Review, the independent review carried out in an attempt to address that buzzword of our times, 'sexualisation' - and how it affects children and teens.

The report, carried out by Reg Bailey, Chief Executive of the Mother's Union under the banner 'Letting Children Be Children', has issued a series of recommendations to businesses, advertisers and the media after finding that some parents are concerned about the way their children are exposed to 'inappropriate' messages and 'sexualised' imagery.

It comes after many months of discussion surrounding the concept of 'sexualisation', and the effect it may be having on young people, but how much of an impact is it going to have - and how useful are its findings?

One of the issues I've had with the outcry against 'sexualisation' is that a lot of it seems to be about expressing shock and disgust at high heels for little girls, or Rihanna's dance moves on primetime television, or Bratz dolls - but that's as far as it gets.

Every few days you'll come across an 'Ooh, isn't this awful! Think of the children!' story in a tabloid newspaper, or a programme like Channel 4's Stop Pimping Our Kids will feature a presenter showing passers-by on the street miniature miniskirts or thongs. The passers-by will look shocked, talk about how they wouldn't want their daughters wearing clothes like that and the presenter will nod triumphantly.

But what has it actually achieved? Very little, so far. What I see is a lot of people very happy to moralise about the state of the world today but far fewer people showing an interest in the issues behind the problems they see.

In the days following the report's publication I read some really insightful blog posts and articles from people talking about looking past 'sexualisation' - this word which is fast becoming meaningless - and at the expectations surrounding sex and relationships, commercialisation and obsession with money which is fueling the issues detailed in the Bailey Review.

"The problem is not the sexualisation of childhood, but the commercialisation of sexuality," wrote Symon Hill for Ekklesia.

Suzanne Moore, writing in the Guardian, accused the review of telling us nothing we already knew and providing no evidence to back up its claims.

"What is needed then is not some weird repression of sexuality or of young people, but of a rapacious capitalism that commodifies every desire and yes, will sell sex to children," she said.

There's also been criticism of the snobbery implicit in the furore, with some commenting that the government are only taking steps to placate middle-class parents and care little about anyone else.

My major problem with those clutching at their pearls about 'sexualisation' is that they often offer little in the way of criticism of what our culture expects of women in general.

They get upset at children being sold padded bras and heels or wanting to be 'sexy', but say nothing of the fact this is pretty much expected of adult women - the role models girls emulate. They talk of little girls looking and acting like 'tarts' and 'sluts' without a second thought at what that says about sexism in our society and gender stereotyping.

As Holly Dustin said, also in the Guardian, our culture:

"...reinforces stereotypes of women and girls as sexual objects who are sexually available to men and boys and sends strong messages about what it means to be a man or a woman."

The Bailey Review has recommended such solutions as getting retailers to sign up to a code of practice stating they will not sell 'inappropriate' clothes, covering up sexualised images on magazines and restricting the types of advertising which can be displayed near schools and playgrounds.

But these are recommendations and voluntary measures rather than new laws. One newspaper report last week suggested that the media industry is taking a 'relaxed' view of the review and that there is relief that measures will not be enforced.

There's been talk of tighter controls on what gets shown on television early in the evening, but all in all the media has reverted back to the usual outrage about children's beauty parlours and pole dancing classes for three-year-olds.

All at the same time, of course, as running the usual dearth of stories about celebrity starlets, models and hot royals 'showing off' their 'stunning' legs/curves/bikini bodies and posing for 'steamy' photoshoots. On the front pages of their newspapers or with large photos on their websites.

Want a comprehensive unpacking and discussion of the issues surrounding the Bailey Review and 'sexualisation', without the media spin? Sex educator Dr Petra Boynton has done a great job over at her blog.

Post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via natalialove's Flickr.

Nadine Dorries, abstinence and abuse

She's known for being the politician who's teamed up with self-described religious fundamentalists and used fabricated statistics to push her completely anti-choice agenda. She's had very public fall-outs with bloggers and threatened journalists. She's the woman who admitted, when questioned about her expenses and second home, that:

"My blog is 70 per cent fiction and 30 per cent fact. I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another."

No wonder it's been said that she's Britain's answer to Sarah Palin. I'm talking, of course, about the car crash that is Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, who's hitting the headlines afresh this month - not because of friendships with fundamentalists and bust-ups with bloggers, but because of her latest agenda: abstinence education.

Earlier this month Dorries proposed a bill which would mean girls - and only girls - between the ages of 13 and 16 would receive abstinence education. Somewhat worryingly, despite being founded on yet more fabricated information it passed its first reading.

As those of you well-versed in the major issues surrounding teaching of abstinence-only sex education in the US will know, the attitudes involved in this sort of 'education' need to be combated. I think we all agree that it did major damage in the years it was implemented Stateside and although Dorries isn't advocating an abstinence-only approach, the hallmarks are all there. Only teaching girls about it, for a start. Saying things like:

"Girls are taught to have safe sex, but not how to say no to a boyfriend who insists on sexual relations."

It's plain to see that her approach to young people and sex is incredibly one-sided, as well as that she seems to be ignoring the fact that teens are already most definitely taught that it's okay to 'say no' and that they definitely should if they have any doubts about the situation.

This week, however, Dorries has gone one step further. Appearing as a guest on Channel 5's The Vanessa Show on Monday, host Vanessa Feltz suggested that teaching children they can 'say no' already happens and that it already happens in an appropriate and sensitive way. The MP replied:

"Well do you know that’s really interesting because...if a stronger just say no message was given to children in school that there might be an impact on sex abuse."

Not content with putting the onus completely on girls to take responsibility for sexual activity, she now appears to be saying they should also be taking responsibility to prevent being abused.

Immediately and understandably, there was uproar. Supporting abstinence-based sex ed is one thing, blaming girls for being abused because they should have "just said no" is another. She moved on to linking the whole thing with high street shops selling bikinis to seven-year-olds and 11-year-olds learning the facts of life.

I don't really want people like Nadine Dorries dictating how things get done in this country. In addition to the list of embarrassments surrounding her, we now know she's the sort of person who holds these really quite damaging views about sexual abuse, its victims and its perpetrators. The idea that young people should be able to prevent sexual abuse from happening simply by saying "no" is ignorant. It's an attack on people who might already feel very much at fault for what happened to them and it lets abusers off the hook.

Since she made these comments I've seen tweets and posts from survivors of abuse, appalled at her insinuation that "saying no" could have stopped it from happening, that their abusers would have listened or that they were at fault for "letting" it happen. Posts like this one at Nightmares & Boners, entitled "Nadine Dorries Thinks I Was Asking For It", where Vanessa tells her own personal story and says:

"To say I am insulted that someone would insinuate that I caused my own abuse is an understatement. But this isn’t just about me, this is about everyone who isn’t able to live with the memory of what happened to them. It’s about children who even now are being abused and being blamed for their abuse: by their parents, by their abusers, by Nadine Dorries."

Vanessa ends by encouraging people to contact Dorries and express their feelings about her remarks and I think that's a good idea. It probably won't make her change her mind; she seems fairly set on promoting her unpleasant agenda no matter what. But maybe it'll give her food for thought.

At present, when she's criticised, she doesn't take it well. A recent interview in the Sunday Times had her ranting about those who don't agree with her, saying she "makes no apologies" for being sexist and lashing out at her critics on Twitter, calling the site a "sewer" full of "Trots" and the "socialist elite".

It's probably asking far too much to expect anything resembling an apology. But we can make more people aware that people like her are in government and they're out to cause nothing but damage.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via Juliette Culver's Flickr.

Thoughts on Nadine Dorries' abstinence crusade

This week, Nadine Dorries tabled her Ten Minute Rule Bill, entitled 'Sex Education (Required Content). 67 MPs voted in favour of the proposal, with 61 voting against. A narrow victory, but it meant that the bill passed its first reading. I don't think there's much need for us to go into all-out panic mode. The level of interest shown by MPs on Wednesday was low and it doesn't have much chance of becoming law. Dorries herself is spectacularly untrustworthy as an MP. But you can't deny she's on a bit of a mission and that she's not going to give up.

There's her connections with self-described Christian fundamentalist Andrea Minichiello Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre who wants to see abortion made completely illegal and is somewhat partial to hate speech. There's her ongoing attempts to limit access to abortion services using dodgy 'research' and promotion of so-called 'non-aligned' advice services which have turned out be anything but.

And now, she's pushing the intriguing view that it's teenage girls - not boys - who need to be given abstinence education. There's no point in me rehashing other blog posts from earlier this week, so here's a link to a post explaining exactly what her plans are. And here's one debunking the 'facts' which Dorries detailed in the Commons this week. It's laughable, really that she's in the business of believing that seven-year-olds are learning about STIs and using condoms as part of the school curriculum. There may have been a lot of noise, in recent years, from certain tabloids about what sort of sex education children are getting, but the fact is that seven-year olds are being taught about the differences between male and female bodies, families and self esteem. No-one's teaching them how to use contraception or how to avoid chlamydia and she should know better than to believe Daily Mail scaremongering.

When people hear the word 'abstinence', they think of the deplorable state of affairs which emerged in schools across the US during the 90s, continuing during George W Bush's presidency. Schools banned from giving students any information about safe sex, STIs, what to do if they found themselves pregnant. Around a third of schools using 'abstinence-only' education. A focus on shaming young people, outdated gender roles and misinformation. Promoting victim-blaming, likening young people who have been sexually active to half-eaten cakes or used and discarded chewing gum. As I mention in my post on the subject, a 2004 report from Representative Henry Waxman found that over 80 per cent of federally funded abstinence programs contained false or misleading information about sex and reproductive health.

It wasn't the right way to go about things and this has been proved. As everyone knows, a lot of teens will ignore the advice of abstinence-only sex ed. Unfortunately, it's left them without the knowledge they need of they are going to be sexually active. Or it's left them with the view that it's okay, it doesn't count as sex if it's 'just' oral or anal sex. Or it's left them with the view that they should feel ashamed of any sexual activity they do take part in. What happens if they later become the victim of rape or assault? This post over at Sociological Images shows where they are in the US with teen pregnancy, with STI rates, compared to some countries in Europe which are renowned for their more 'liberal' sex education policy. And it's not looking good.

Thankfully, Nadine Dorries hasn't used the term 'abstinence-only'. A lot of what she talked about on Wednesday seemed to be related to the fact she wants schools to tell girls it's 'okay to say no'. She mentioned this repeatedly. That girls should be 'empowered to say no'. And she talked about it as if it's something which doesn't already happen. Now I know sex education in schools is patchy and invariably dodgy. It desperately needs sorting out. But I do know that young people are, in general, given 'saying no' as an option that's open to them and an option which they absolutely should consider if they don't want to engage in sexual activity. It's also an option echoed by teen magazines and sexual health educators. As Lisa from Education for Choice said in a blog post last month:

"In my experience sex educators are always talking about: a) the fact that not having sex is the best way to guarantee you won’t get pregnant b)the importance of feeling ready for sex, c) how unacceptable it is to pressure someone into sex d) how eminently sensible and reasonable it can be to choose not to have sex...etc."

This has been backed up by teachers and I know it was also the case with the (limited, patchy and ineffective) sex education classes I had as a teenager. So Dorries to be primarily concerned with something which already happens - and preoccupied with only telling half of all young people about it.

Some people have pointed out that her focus on teaching girls about abstinence is down to the fact that it's girls who will be the ones who might end up pregnant. But there's very little point giving out particular messages to one gender - when boys, who will certainly be participating in any sexual activity with these girls, will receive different messages.

"Girls are taught to have safe sex, but not how to say no to a boyfriend who insists on sexual relations," she said on Wednesday.

In this case, shouldn't we also be telling boys that they should not 'insist on sexual relations'? It's not long since the publication of the landmark NSPCC report which documented the prevalence of violence and abuse in teen relationships. The report told of how a third of teenage girls have been forced into sexual acts by their boyfriends and that a quarter had faced violence. In recent months I've had several conversations with sexual health and sexual violence workers who have spoken of confusion and acceptance about this sort of behaviour from teens. They feel it's just a normal part of being in a relationship. Or that it 'shows that he cares'.

It's been said since that Dorries is focusing too much on making girls the 'gatekeepers' when it comes to relationships and this is an attitude which desperately needs to be confined to the past. When girls are the 'gatekeepers' they're the ones who get the blame for any consequences. They're the ones who get branded as 'dirty' or 'slags' or 'go and get themselves pregnant' while people shrug their shoulders and make noises about 'what boys are like'. The onus should be on boys as much as girls to show respect, not to pressurize or to force and not to see responsibility as lying with one partner. Whatever Dorries wants, this doesn't seem to come into it.

Abstinence is a completely valid choice and there's nothing wrong with telling young people that they can make this choice. But it needs to be taught as part of comprehensive sex education involving both boys and girls. I sometimes think, that as a Christian (and actually, as someone who has practiced abstinence), comprehensive sex education gets a really bad rap among 'people like me'. It's the worry that education is tantamount to encouragement and the fear of it being 'at odds' with Biblical teaching.

But when I look at what happened in the US and what the people who Nadine Dorries associates with want for this country, I'm very happy to not toe the party line. It's up to parents, youth leaders and churches it they want to promote a specific stance on sex and relationships, but a teacher's duty should be to educate accurately and responsibly. The majority of teenagers don't live in the 'church bubble', with the support of parents and youth leaders and they shouldn't have to suffer because of it. Dorries has spoken in the past of the fact she wants more church leaders and Christians to get behind her and give her support. Unless she's about to start acting with integrity as a politician, I really do think we shouldn't.

The 'sexualisation of our daughters' and double standards

Last night I decided to watch The Sex Education Show in the hope that it might provide some food for thought of a bit more substance than the recent edition of Panorama, entitled 'Too Much Too Young' focusing on the moral panic over 'girls growing up too fast', 'sexualisation' (which now seems to be the accepted shorthand for the whole phenomenon) and high street stores selling 'inappropriate' clothing.

Coverage of this issue on television and in the media has been problematic for a number of reasons. Take the comments of the mother on the Panorama documentary, who was concerned that her daughter wearing short skirts and 'showing her legs' would lead to an underage pregnancy. Or the tabloid headlines which labelled Primark's padded swimwear for seven-year-olds as the 'PAEDO BIKINI'. The fact that the outrage exclusively focuses on girls, the way they might behave or the things that might happen to them as a result of liking or wearing certain clothes or being exposed to sexual imagery, rather than addressing the issues in the ways they affect boys, looking at the wider problems surrounding the way we view sex and relationships as a society, or asking the girls themselves what they actually think about it all. The way it practically demonizes sexuality at an age where children are probably going to be having a lot of questions about it and getting a lot of messages from society which are pretty confusing to them.

As I'd expected, The Sex Education Show went down the usual track of hand-wringing about miniature heels and bras, then filming 'stunts' which involved entering and protesting at 'guilty' stores such as Primark and Matalan, something which was particularly unproductive.

What struck me, perhaps over anything else, was the huge double standard which exists in all this media coverage and all these documentaries. People are horrified that young girls might be 'pressurized' into wearing heels or makeup or padded bras or showing themselves to be sexually 'available' and 'raunchy', despite the fact they're only seven, or 10, or 12. It's taking away their innocence, leading them down the wrong path, making them focus on the wrong things. Many people interviewed about it all have said that they want their daughters to be interested in a diverse range of pursuits, like sport or science or music. This is all great.

But the moment these girls pass the point where they're no longer considered 'children' any more, everything changes. As women, they'll no longer be expected to shun padded bras and makeup and an obsession with being attractive as 'inappropriate'. It will be become a requirement. If they have small breasts they'll constantly receive messages from shops and the media that they need to look more 'curvy', 'create the illusion of cleavage' and possibly have surgery to get the perfect figure. If they show up at the office without makeup on or in flat shoes, they might be asked to do something about it. Women's magazines will tell them how they should modify their behaviour in order to attract - and 'keep' a man. There's still the ridiculous stereotype, in some quarters, that men don't like 'brainy' women.

In short, if the 'too much too young' culture is going to change, this change needs to happen from the top down.

Young girls seek to emulate famous women, their mothers, their older sisters. If they see that these women's lives are controlled to a massive extent by diets, looking conventionally attractive and personal grooming, what choice is there for them? They are learning from a very young age that our society teaches women they must live up to certain standards in order to gain approval and be a 'real woman'. Who is helping them to see through this? If they hear their clothes being blamed for negative attention or harassment they might receive from the opposite sex, where does this leave their self-esteem in the face of victim-blaming? If they're told that sexual activity and curiosity at a young age is bad, but don't receive comprehensive, careful and thoughtful education and advice about it from their schools, friends or parents, they'll only end up confused further, especially when the moral panic is exclusively targeted at one gender.

I'm sure that we're going to continue seeing a great deal about the problem of 'sexualisation' in the news and on television. What this coverage needs is a more rounded and balanced perspective on the issues involved - and acknowledgement that they will not go away unless we stop expecting grown women to live this way while condemning girls for doing the same things.

Stumbling blocks, modesty and respect

This week I was interested to see The Rebelution's Modesty Survey getting coverage on a number of blogs. I remember seeing a couple of pieces about it when the survey was conducted in 2007 and received glowing endorsements from several high profile church leaders and Christian writers. I felt it would be an interesting issue to address now because a few weeks ago I decided to make a point of writing about issues within Christianity a bit more often here.

The Rebelution is a site and organisation set up by two of the younger brothers of Joshua Harris, he of I Kissed Dating Goodbye fame. I was leant another of his books, Boy Meets Girl, by a well-meaning friend while at university and all it succeeded in doing was making me slightly uncomfortable and worried that I had upset God by spending time with my boyfriend unchaperoned and kissing. Ho hum.

Anyway, The Rebelution probably isn't your cup of tea unless you're into all that return-to-biblical-patriarchy-homeschooling-modest-gender-roles kinda stuff. Much as I respect the decisions of people who want to do it (as long as it's not hurtful or abusive) you know it's not my cup of tea. And many of you at this point are likely to think 'LULZ, FUNDIES' and escape as quickly as possible. But looking at this from inside the Christian bubble, it's a concern.

It's interesting to note that the Harris brothers have responded to criticism of the survey and the onus it puts on women to do everything they can in order to 'help' men's feelings. One woman expresses concern that the attitude of the survey was one of victim-blaming. Alex replies and recommends she read A Return to Modesty: Discovering Lost Virtue, the controversial book by Wendy Shalit which claims that if women just went back to wearing long skirts, covering up, keeping quiet and stopped holding hands with men in the cinema, we wouldn't have eating disorders, men would respect us and premarital sex, rape and sexual assault wouldn't happen. Which is fine, as long as you blank out (as Shalit obviously does) the fact that all these things definitely happened pre-1960. Nice bit of victim-blaming there.

As has been pointed out in the post about this over at Sociological Images, the problem with the survey is that it takes worries about clothing and attitudes to a whole new level. I think the majority of churches end up giving their youth groups talks about these sort of issues and I'm not going to go into what's problematic or not problematic about this. It can be done well or really badly and that's another post. But in my experience these talks usually cover the same areas - the showing of 'too much' cleavage and the wearing of items like hot pants and boob tubes.

Although the 'guys' at The Rebelution state it wasn't their intention to be too legalistic and prescriptive about the survey the questions tell a different story. Young men are quizzed on whether or not they feel a variety of things are 'modest' or 'immodest', from high heels to the application of lip gloss to a bag strap across the chest to perfume to every item of makeup, clothing and underwear you can imagine and most confusingly - posture and movement.

48% of respondents felt that a bag with a strap across the chest 'draws too much attention to the bust'. 39% think tights with designs (eg stripes and polka dots) 'draw too much attention to the legs'. A third felt that 'girls with less curves can wear clothes that girls with curves should not'. 75% believe that 'the way a girl walks can be a stumbling block'. 75% believe that 'seeing a girl's chest bounce when she walks or runs is a stumbling block'.

I'm wondering if we're all expected to wear maximum impact sports bras 24/7 as a consequence. I mean these are things which are just natural aspects of a woman's body. There comes a point - probably around the time that you're worrying whether demin jackets with pockets or stretching in front of a male are 'stumbling blocks' or not - that you're overthinking things. In a big way. I can imagine young women reading the results (and there were a lot of teenagers involved in the survey) and worrying that they might have to monitor their every move in order to be as 'helpful' as possible.

Some of the questions were open-ended and the answers given were extremely wide-ranging.

How do you feel about girls who purposely flaunt their bodies?

"Women like this disgust and frustrate me. They take advantage of something that God intended to be beautiful. They lure men away from that which they truly love. They make men like me fight and struggle, and cause many to fall. THESE WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE ADORED OR FOLLOWED!"

"Saddened; disappointed; sometimes angered. They're distracting good men, dishonoring God and marriage, and offering themselves cheaply--which makes me desire even more strongly a girl who is modest, who is valuable...I always remind myself that if a girl flaunts herself before I marry her, she'll do the same thing afterward. As a husband, that would make me pretty mad."

"Yes, you can turn me on, but don't expect me to respect you. Yes, I might find you attractive on the outside, but that won't make me think of you as attractive on the inside."

I honestly worry about these men and for the women they look to make a life with. Some men attempted to answer from a more sympathetic point of view but it comes across as no more palatable - 'I would wonder where her father was!' being one answer, the assumption that such girls must have mental and emotional problems being another. In a previous post on this blog I know I talked about the problematic opinion which can be so prevalent among some Christian men - that women who adhere to certain standards of 'Biblical femininity' are to be loved and adored and respected, but all women who don't are treated with disdain. In wider culture we know it as the 'virgin/whore' dichotomy. It's really noticeable in some of these responses.

In the post at Sociological Images there is some great analysis of the words used by respondents when speaking of 'immodest' women and the way that it shows that the 'woman as evil temptress' stereotype is very much alive and well, with the words being used to describe them often having violent connotations - 'forces', 'manipulates', 'destroys'.

On the other hand, other open responses did encourage me that somewhere out there, young men are getting good teaching about what it means to treat women with respect and love.

As a guy, what is your responsibility in this area? What is your role in guarding your eyes and mind (as opposed to the women's role of dressing modestly)?

"Think biblically about women as God's creation, some as your sisters in Christ. All are to be treated respectfully and honored."

"Ultimately, responsibility for stumbling lies with each of us personally. I cannot blame a sister's dress for a lustful thought than I can blame a gun for a murder.

"Let's be honest. We're men, and we're responsible for ourselves. We're responsible for our thoughts, for our lusts, for our character. We won't be able to blame the girls when we're called to give account for it in the judgment day."

The Harris brothers wrote that there had been overwhelming demand for this survey and little demand for one which dealt with young womens' desires. Consequently they hadn't looked at it from a female point of view. You wonder where this has left the young women who eagerly awaited the results of the survey. To what extent is their view of sexuality and relationships defined by what men want and expect rather than their own feelings - and do they feel that they are personally responsible for the 'sins' of the opposite sex?

The survey itself and many of the responses show that there is definitely a long way to go in terms of teaching about relationships and attitudes. There's the obsession with women's actions as 'stumbling blocks'. All too often it falls back on outdated stereotypes about 'what guys and girls do/want' which insult everyone - and the often accompanying teaching that males should take the lead or be in charge in all aspects of relationships can be just as confusing and unwelcome.

More posts on this over at Feminist Riposte, Jezebel, Sound Teaching and Women's Views on News.

Rape discussed at school: shocking or sensible?

‘Pupils aged 11 debate rape, pornography and prostitution’ – it’s certainly the sort of headline you can guarantee will have Middle England keeling over with rage.

This week, the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph were reporting that ‘irresponsible’ and ‘controversial’ education packs produced by Rape Crisis in Buckinghamshire – dealing with issues such as female genital mutilation, rape and forced marriage – are now available for schools to purchase and use as teaching material with young people aged 11-18 in line with government efforts to combat violence against women.

One lesson plan suggests that boys and girls debate myths about rape, such as those that the way women dress or act means they are ‘asking for it’.

The pack is an updated version of one which has been successfully trialled in other areas of the country and has the support of the government’s Violence Against Women and Girls strategy.

Predictably this has prompted outcry from campaigners who think that the materials are far too explicit for schools - and that young people simply do not need to be taught about these issues at all.

The attitude taken by the Daily Mail and (of course) the majority of commenters who commented on the story, is that educating ‘children’ about such unpleasant things is ‘shocking’, ‘depraved’ and ‘sick’ – with some commenters recalling that happier, more innocent time before the 1960s where the fact that abuse and violence was hushed up meant it didn’t happen. ‘Let children be children for as long as possible!’ they cry.

It’s worth pointing out again that the educational packs are aimed at those aged 11-18 – young people attending secondary school - and that its author has advised that teachers ‘use discretion’ over what discussions they have with certain age groups.

So while the packs will not be used in lessons where very young children are present, as the papers practically suggested – and most of the ‘children’ discussing these sensitive issues would actually be teenagers well aware of sex – it’s still, for the press, a matter of ‘protecting’ young people by denying them the chance to explore important issues. Issues that could well be affecting them.

Many of us, particularly parents, might wince to think of teens having discussions about rape and FGM at school because at the end of the day, they’re not pleasant things to be talking about. We don’t want young peoples’ first experiences of relationships and sexuality to involve violence and abuse. One critic has claimed that although we know ‘these things’ exist, we simply don’t need to teach our children about them.

But you only have to look at the wealth of evidence which has come to light in recent years to see that young people are hardly unaware of it all in the first place.

We’ve got research from the NSPCC suggesting that a quarter of teenage girls have been in a relationship with a guy who has been violent towards them and a third have had a boyfriend pressure them sexually. We’ve got the government urging schools to look out for signs that teenage girls may be about to be a victim of forced marriage as cases rise every year. And a 2007 study by the Foundation for Women’s Health, Reasearch and Development estimated that 23,000 girls in England and Wales under the age of 15 are at risk of FGM.

So unpleasant as they are, these are issues that are definitely not alien to young people in Britain today. Sadly many thousands will have already had their lives affected by the abuse the packs deal with. Not talking about them isn’t going to make them disappear somehow – it’s education and openness that’s needed.

Some people feel it’s the responsibility of parents or guardians, not teachers, to have these discussions. Where then, does this leave teenagers whose families are simply uncomfortable talking about sex, or are involved in abusive practices? Talking with peers or a teacher might help a young person to speak up about something that is affecting them.

Laura Colclough, who authored the pack, pointed out that young people today are definitely not naïve when it comes to issues surrounding sex.

Gone are the days when young people are not sexualised. Most, if not all, see the music videos. They see the culture and they surf the internet,” she said.

“It's not from an angle of supporting sexuality or pornography but critically evaluating it.”

Other supporters have pointed out the importance of discussing and trying to combat sexual violence in a culture where a quarter of all women will experience it. Stopping discussion of issues and access to information doesn’t solve problems, as those who have grown up in the US and received abstinence-only sex education can testify. Unpleasant as the subject matter may be, it’s not the time to brush it under the carpet and pretend young people aren’t affected by it.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via The Telegraph.

Why we need comprehensive sex education

I'm currently reading The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession With Virginity is Hurting Young Women by Jessica Valenti. As a Christian feminist this is a subject which really interests me. I've known about abstinence-only sex education (where teens are taught that sex is only acceptable within marriage and are not taught about contraception or sexual health) for a long time now and had read some pretty shocking stories about the extent to which this 'education' involves lying to young people. In The Purity Myth, Valenti devotes a chapter to these 'education programs', which have received more than $1.3billion in federal funding since 1996. I could barely contain my rage this morning as I read through the chapter and discovered what passes for 'sex education' in many schools in the US - despite the fact that, according to a study in Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 82 per cent of Americans support sex ed which teaches about contraception and half of all Americans completely oppose abstinence-only sex ed.

'Facts' teenagers are told

- Birth control can kill you - and abortion is likely to result in suicide

- 'Girls give in to sex not because they want sex - it's like a hug. If they can get that from their fathers, they won't need it from a boyfriend' (Abstinence educator Janice Turner on her 'Power of Purity' classes)

- Pre-marital sex is against the law and young people who engage in it could face a prison sentence

- Condoms have a failure rate of 14 per cent and cannot protect against STIs

- Even touching another person's genitals could cause pregnancy and HIV can be transmitted by skin to skin contact

- Having sex will have dire consequences for society

- 'Major Needs of Women: Financial Support; Major Needs of Men: Domestic Support'

- '(Virginity) the bride price is...an honour to the bride...she is valuable to the groom' (nothing like a good women-as-property analogy)

- 'A young man's natural desire for sex is already strong...Females are becoming culturally conditioned to fantasise about sex as well' (because we never thought about sex before that and if we did, something must be wrong)

- If a young woman says she doesn't want to have sex but is wearing tight clothing, her actions are not matching her words (Sounds suspiciously like the excuses used by rape apologists)

- 'Sexual activity...is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects' (program guidelines for teachers)

The Purity Myth talks of teens being sent out of class for asking questions about condoms and STIs, of abstinence-only promoters using sticky tape or half-eaten sweets to illustrate how someone who has sex can easily become 'damaged' or 'dirty'. This is particularly disturbing when you think how many young people are victims of sexual abuse and rape and are now being told that a part of them is missing, that they're used or dirty - and that they will never be able to give the 'special gift of sexuality' to their future husband or wife.

It's evident that abstinence-only sex education is not helpful to young people and that it's part of a social movement rather than borne out of any real desire to help teenagers be responsible and well-informed. You might think after reading this post that I'm anti-abstinence and this is not the case - it's quite obvious to me that young people need to learn about contraception, sexual health and what they can do if they find themselves in various difficult situations. A small percentage of young people do choose to remain abstinent until marriage but the majority do not - and when they've been forbidden even from learning about using condoms, they face huge problems.

A 2004 report from Representative Henry Waxman found that over 80 per cent of federally funded abstinence programs contain false or misleading information about sex and reproductive health ('The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs', United States House of Representatives Committe on Government Reform, Special Investigations Div. 2004). And teenagers who have received abstinence-only sex ed are just as likely to have sex as those who have not. Even when they take a 'virginity pledge'. When they do, they're less likely to use condoms and more likely to engage in oral and anal sex (After The Promise: The STD Consequences of Adolescent Virginity Pledges, Journal of Adolescent Health 36, no 4 2005).

Young people deserve better.