Asking for it: Update

On this cold and snowy day here at Nutwood, I'll revisit my previous post. My friend has sent a letter to the school board about her discussion with the teacher. Names have been changed to protect the innocent (I've always wanted to say that!) and I have removed some things for the sake of both her privacy and brevity here. Printed here with her permission. Commentary to follow.

Dear Dr. So-and-So,

I’m writing to you today to address an area that I find personally offensive on many levels concerning the specific practices of a certain teacher. You are my first step in this matter, as I feel you are a man of integrity and very open. I am not sure where to proceed from here. I have considered consulting the ACLU and/or taking this up with the school board if I don’t have resolution. However, that seems extreme at this moment. I’d prefer to consult with you first and see if perhaps this can be dealt with on a personal level first.

Here is the situation:

My youngest daughter, J., attends 8^th grade at W. School—a school I’ve greatly enjoyed and have had, until this moment, the utmost respect for the staff and administrators. Yesterday, 12/09/2010, J. came home from sex education, taught by Mr. Jones. She informed me that during this class, Mr. Jones told the children, (a mixed group of boys and girls) that, “Girls should be careful how they dress, as they can send ‘signals’ to boys that mean they want to have sex.” And also talked about girls being “provocatively dressed,” and how this could turn on boys and incur unwanted sexual advances. To quote him, “These things make girls look like they want sex.”

I contacted Mr. Jones about this to confirm his opinion. In a rather heated discussion, Mr. Jones not only confirmed these statements, but also informed me that he felt girls in miniskirts with cleavage, were indeed a “type” that did incite male attention. He further related that fishnet tights that girls or women wore were “inviting trouble.” (It could be pointed out that many career women wear these in the board room and that the well-respected Principal of W. School has worn short skirts in a very professional and becoming fashion).

During the 20 minute conversation, Mr. Jones shared that he felt women in such attire essentially were wide open to male advances. And when I asked him if he felt that these girls, who might be “provocative” by his standards, looked trashy, he said, “Not all of them.” His exact words were, “Cleavage and miniskirts make a woman or a girl look like they want sex.” And "If a girl dresses in a mini skirt with cleavage, I mean, doesn't that imply she wants to have sex or is thinking about sex?"

He also gave me the analogy of me seeing a muscular body-builder on the beach, flexing his muscles while scantily clad and asked if I thought that man was sending sexual messages. Mr. Jones seemed shocked when I told him, “No” to both questions.

Here are the problems I have with this:

1. To tell girls their attire is responsible for male advances is to lay blame on the female culture for sexual inappropriateness. We women have tried the gambit of dressing man-like in business (and I’m one of those females) to wearing no makeup to shabby attire and we still gain unwanted and unwelcome advances. How we dress is a personal statement and often independent of anyone else’s approval. Believe it or not, when I get up in the morning, whether I opt for a skirt, jeans, sweats or a business suit, has nothing to do with inviting male advances--and yet, we women will acquire these regardless of our choice of attire.

I resent this cultural throwback. I resent the work I do to make myself, my daughters and my sister females appear credible, intelligent and with something to offer which is lightly cast aside by archaic, detrimental statements such as those uttered by Mr. Jones. Neither I, nor my daughters, nor any woman should be “blamed” by virtue of how she dresses for males acting inappropriately.

I do not want “sex” if I wear a miniskirt. I do not want “sex” if I have cleavage showing. Likewise, my daughters do not want to have sex because they are wearing certain items. And I am deeply offended that Mr. Jones told a group of young women that these things were what men or boys would think of them—that girls look like they want sex because they wore a miniskirt.

While women do receive too frequent male attention, I don’t believe all males respond this way. Unlike Mr. Jones, I have a better opinion of the male race because I have also encountered men who did not regard me as a sexual object, regardless of what I wore, but instead treated me like an equal human being. So in this mindset, Mr. Jones also demeaned males by lowering them universally to his standards.

It’s appalling to me that my daughter was told this today. It lays the blame in her mind for times when boys do act inappropriately. “Did I do something wrong?” “Was it me?” I could see her ask, like many women before her. Whether male or female, the person responsible for inappropriate behavior is the offender--not the victim. I do not send my daughter to a public school to have this message taught to her, that in the future when she’s victimized and discriminated against in college or in the workforce someday, this is her fault for choosing to wear a tank top or a skirt.

2. As this was told in a classroom of mixed group of boys and girls, this same message has an even more detrimental effect on young males—males that will someday grow up into adult men. These men armed with this information will see a woman they regard as “sexually provocative” and will feel she must therefore “want sex.” I may point out that there have been numerous and well published rapes of women who were victims of this mentality. And the truth of the matter is that date rape, an all too common event that young women tragically experience, has often been blamed by the perpetrator on what a woman wore. Although vastly underreported, this crime been proven in courts across the United States to have NOTHING to do with female attire.

Boys do not suddenly wake up and decide to rape young women, victimize or sexually discriminate against them. However the classic male predator develops a feeling of “entitlement” to what is in front of them and some act on this in horrific ways. That sense of “entitlement” is what is being cultivated in Mr. Jones’s class, along with a sickening dose of blaming the female and removing the culpability from young men for inappropriate behavior.

Last I checked, accepting responsibility for one’s actions is a principle that IS being taught in W. School—except perhaps in Mr. Jones’s classroom. Even apart from rape, sexual pressure will increase not decrease due to this teaching. I imagine now, boys will look around the room, based on knowing “girls who dress provocatively want sex” and begin selecting females they can easily pressure into sex, due to what the girls are wearing.

3. I would also ask, “Precisely what is inappropriate attire that incites the male testosterone to extreme and unacceptable proportions?” What is defined as “sexy” and “provocative” has a great cultural variance, even among young men in the same classroom. To some kids from very conservative homes, a girl in jeans is “provocative” based on the child’s world view of mothers or sisters who wear dresses all the time. I asked Mr. Jones this question and he replied, “Clothing that draws attention to their breasts.”

What Mr. Jones defines as attire “inviting male advances” is not what the next man may find sexually charged clothing. Hence, this entire topic is horrifically ridden with blame, inappropriate doling of culpability, vague definitions and incites the opposite of what is intended by an abstinence based sex ed class.

Mr. Jones asked me if I approved of the dress code. Of course I do, because the purpose of a dress code is to develop a bit of uniformity amongst kids and prevent gang involvement. The purpose of a dress code is NOT to protect innocent boys from evil, scantily-clad girls who may tempt them into sex. The topic of a dress code and my objections to discriminatory teaching are two entirely different matters. However this only demonstrated Mr. Jones’s inability to grasp of the seriousness of my statements.

The topic should have been simply and easily addressed with the following:

“No matter what a woman wears, or how sexy you think she is, does NOT mean she wants sex. Therefore you shouldn’t expect sex or pressure her or assume she’s easy.”

“A girl is a human being with feelings and does not always dress for inviting males or even want sex, no matter how “cute” she looks to you.” You are responsible for your own hormones and actions. It is therefore not the fault of the woman if you think she’s hot.”

That is how I’d expect a seasoned teacher, in a public school, to teach my child. I’d also expect teaching about date rape and how to avoid the pressure of, “But I thought you wanted it, you were dressed so sexy” that guys do tell girls. I’D EXPECT MY DAUGHTER TO BE TOLD THE REVERSE OF WHAT MR. JONES IS TELLING THE CLASS—THAT WOMEN DO NOT DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS OBJECTS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ARE WEARING.

And the above statements are precisely what I’m requesting. I am also requesting that you revisit having Mr. Jones teach this to students, especially females—since obviously his view of the female race is sexist, and repressive of their civil rights as equal human beings. I will not tolerate, not only for my daughter’s sake, but for the other and future students to have their rights infringed upon, nor have sexually discriminatory talk be posed in a classroom.

I look forward to your response.

Wow...do I have impressive friends, or what? As my friend investigated this further, it seems that this teacher attends a church in which the previous Sunday's sermon was about women's attire and the problems it can cause. He had scheduled a pastor to come in and discuss things with the kids. Well, cut off my legs and call me Shorty! Of course, such attitudes aren't exclusive to the religious right, but I've seen it in a higher proportion there.

I find it disturbing that such things are being taught in abstinence-only curricula. It is perpetuating an attitude of discrimination, prejudice, and an unrealistic and unhealthy view of sexuality. I hope my friend is successful in keeping this teacher from heading up sex ed classes, and I have told her that I will do whatever I can to help. The U.S. is already ignorant enough about sexuality, and I blame some of that on our repressive religious attitudes and some on the continued prudishness fostered by those who think that exposure to sexuality is much more of a problem than exposure to violence. My friend has worked hard to engender a healthy attitude about sex in her children, and has been very open to discussions and questions from them. All of her hard work is in jeopardy with the attitude of idiots like Mr. Jones. Not that her kids would buy into such ignorance, but what about the other kids in the class who aren't as lucky to have such open and responsive parents? What are they taking away from Mr. Jones's instructions?

Knowledge is power

I still plan on putting up some pictures and videos of the Devo show, but yeah...just haven't gotten around to editing all of that yet! I'm hoping that the videos turned out okay. I got "Smart Patrol/Mr. DNA" for Darren, "Girl U Want" for Deb, and "Uncontrollable Urge" for me, me, ME! It was a fantastic show, and I was so happy to see a band that I've loved for decades (literally). More soon, I promise.

So instead of this entry being about Devo, you'll have to settle for sex. Oh, stop your bellyaching. It'll be fun!

I was quite amazed today to see a post on a forum from a young man who was a little concerned about some things that he and his girlfriend had done. This young man, whose parents have been taking him to church for many years, had engaged in some "rubbing" (I guess that would be what we used to call "dry humping" back in the day) with his girlfriend, and although he pulled away and didn't ejaculate on her, they were both freaking out and worried that she could somehow get pregnant from this.

Oh, and she is on the Pill.

Oh, and this wasn't a sixth-grader or anything like that. This was an 18-year-old. Someone who is allowed to vote. Someone who can join the military and go abroad and shoot people.

Are you freaking kidding me?!

This is pathetic. I don't know the kid's educational background, but if his school wasn't teaching him more than that, that is one stupid school. And if his parents were trying to keep some of these things from him, whether from their religious beliefs or otherwise, those are some stupid parents. Furthermore, if the kid is lame enough that he couldn't do a little research on his own and had to ask such a stupid question on a public forum, then the kid is pretty damn stupid, too. (This wasn't a bogus question, either. You could tell that it was legitimate.)

Okay, people. Let's talk about sex, baby. When it comes to sex, ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance leads to STIs and unwanted pregnancies. Ignorance can lead to infertility from STIs and the infection of numerous others. Ignorance leads to unexpected babies and children starting families before they are even out of high school. There is no excuse for ignorance. If the school isn't teaching kids about the reality of such matters, why aren't the parents? Is it because of their religious convictions? Yeah, that whole religious guilt trip really works. Is it because they think that if they don't give their kid information, the dalliances aren't going to happen? Do any of these people remember how they felt when they were 18? Good grief, it's possibly the horniest time of all.

When I was 18, I was snow white, although like Mae West said, I drifted. I was not doing research in the field, so to speak, but as a curious teenager and a reader, I can assure you that I did plenty of reading on the matter. I somehow knew, even at that tender age, that the more knowledgeable I was about such things, the better off I would be. The healthier I would be, and I would stand a better chance of finishing my college career instead of cutting it short to have an unplanned child.

I was appalled on three levels to read such a thing from that kid. In 2010, there are actually kids wondering if they can get their girlfriend pregnant because they came in her vicinity, even though she was on the Pill? Really? I blame many factors here, including any religion that teaches that sex is a bad and shameful thing; the parents that apparently are so uncomfortable with talking to their kid that they can't give them basic fucking information (pun intended); and I also blame the kid for not being smart enough to do his own research and find things out for himself. I had to work a little harder when I was in high school, because there was no Internet way back then, but I still managed to find information. There is no excuse for anyone today not being better informed about such matters. This is not a trivial matter; this is a matter of public health and a matter of kids being able to be themselves without the worry of a pregnancy or the worry that they are condemned to hell for the natural urges that they have.

I have no problem with anyone—parents, teachers, clergy, friends, what have you—telling a kid that it is okay to wait for a while before they have sex. But please be realistic. Abstinence-only sex education is ludicrous. Hormones run rampant, and things are going to happen. Education is key, and will always help anyone, young or old, make better choices, and possibly keep them from making some bad ones. It might even save their lives. Shame on everyone who dropped the ball for this kid, or any other kid who is so ill-informed.

In the spirit of things, enjoy this video. it's one of my favorite songs from the '80s!

Hope I can return the wedding gift

You've probably all heard by now that Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston have not just called off their wedding, they've broken up, just two and a half months after she had their baby.

Some of you might be expecting jokes, or think that I might even...I don't know...gloat about it. No gloating here. I find the whole thing just plain sad.

They didn't take the step of committing to a marriage they weren't ready for, but then, of course, there's still the small matter of having a child to raise. Apparently Bristol is taking courses mostly from home to get her high school diploma, but as far as I know, Levi is still a dropout, and working in the oil fields. The whole thing just makes me kind of ill. As much as I dislike Bristol's mother, I don't feel even a little bit of schadenfreude.

They paraded these kids--and yes, they are kids--out during the convention as an example of family values...saying that yes, they made a mistake but they were committed to making a good life for their baby. In her interview with Greta van Susteren, Bristol said, "Eventually, we'd like to get married. We're focusing on, like, getting through school and just getting an education and stuff, getting a career going." In October, Levi told AP, "We both love each other. We both want to marry each other. And that's what we are going to do."

Fast forward a few months, and what have we got? A young girl trying to get her high school diploma while she takes care of a baby, and the dad a high school dropout, working to pay child support. (I'm assuming that he's paying child support.) Bristol is actually a lot luckier than most young girls who have babies--she's got a family support system that is probably pretty good. Many don't have that.

And yes, I believe this is partly a result of that stupid "abstinence-only" teaching. You know, the stuff that doesn't freakin' work. I'll reiterate: I am not anti-abstinence. Encourage it in kids--after all, it's the safest sex you can have--and encourage them to wait. But be realistic, too, and understand that knowledge is power. If they know all the consequences of unsafe sex, whether it's pregnancy or STD's, perhaps they'll think twice about whether to say yes or no, and if the answer is yes, maybe--just maybe--they'll understand that they need to be safe.

Sarah Palin talkin', and just DON'T do it!

I was happy I got my Christmas cards done today. When I told Ken, he (jokingly) said, "Wow, you really got an early start!" As soon as I said what I did, I realized that it didn't sound quite right. "Doing my Christmas cards" meant that I took all the Christmas cards we got this past Christmas and cut them up into gift tags. What I couldn't use, I put into recycling. It's a great way to use your cards, and it will be a nice reminder of family and friends when I wrap gifts next year! Get creative, too. Remember there are often little logos on the backs of cards, so just put the holiday logo in the lower corner, and hey presto! You've got a nice little gift tag. There were some cards that I got 6 tags out of! And some cards were so pretty that I was able to use the entire front, and I can put those on large presents. Give it a try--I guar-ohn-tee you'll never have to buy another gift tag!

I've mentioned Sarah Palin's most recent interview, this time with a guy named John Ziegler. I'm not familiar with him, but he is a conservative something-or-another (writer? blogger? radio personality? I don't know, and don't care enough to investigate further.), and he has a website titled How Obama Got Elected. When I went to the blog, there was the picture of Obama by artist Shepard Fairey, except Ziegler had added a halo to it. That told me all I needed to know. I'll preface the rest of this entry by saying that I've made no bones about my utter disdain for and dislike of Sarah Palin, and I gave up trying to be kind shortly before the election, when she disrespected fruit flies. I'm not going to be kind here, either--not by a longshot--so if you choose not to read this, I'm cool with that and will not be offended. You have been fairly warned.

The title of Ziegler's documentary for which he interviewed Palin is called "Media Malpractice," so it obviously takes the position that Palin was unfairly treated by the media. (By the way, I'm not going to link to Ziegler's site, because it almost locked up my computer. You can Google it or search on YouTube for excerpts from the interview.) Palin is on her "unfair treatment" like mud on a pig, and although she previously said she got a real kick out of Tina Fey's portrayal of her, she now says that both Fey and Katie Couric "exploited" her candidacy, and that "says a great deal about our society." WTF? What exactly does that say about our society? That we like political satire, and that news anchors like to interview political candidates? How dare they?!

Palin went on to say that the press treated her harshly because of her background. Personally, I saw none of that, although she and McCain often spoke of the "liberal elite media," and "liberal elites," who McCain said live in the fine cities of Washington, D.C. and New York City. Seems to me that her alleged harsh treatment was more of an insecurity problem, i.e., she herself felt inferior, so was quick to attack others for their "uppity ways." She even spoke of the question asked by Couric about the newspapers she reads (and Palin's infamous answer), and says that she found the question offensive, and felt that Couric was implying that people in Alaska don't read. "To me the question was more along the lines of, ‘Do you read, what do you guys do up there, what is it that you read?’" If she read that Couric was implying Alaskan ignorance with that question, that tells me more about Palin and her insecurities and paranoia than anything else. I know people like that in my life, and it's pretty obvious when someone has an inferiority complex.

Palin really didn't care for Fey's line (when Fey was portraying Palin in the VP debate skit, in response to a question about gay marriage), "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers." Palin commented, "The mama grizzly rises up in me, hearing things like that. Here again, cool, fine, come attack me. But when you make a suggestion like that that attacks a kid, it kills me."

I'll admit to laughing at the line in the skit, but I am not laughing about the fate of Bristol Palin, nor am I laughing about her future. I honestly feel sorry for that kid and her boyfriend and their child, and if I've ever sounded like I'm attacking them, that was not my intention (but I still think Tripp is a silly name). What infuriated me about the whole thing is that Palin is an advocate of abstinence-only education, and my question is still, "How's that workin' for ya?" A recent study shows that abstinence-only education does not work. I urge you to take a look at the graphs in the study: they show statistically identical results for those who received abstinence-only sex education and those who did not. However, those who pledge abstinence are less likely to use birth control and protection. I know it's a noble goal to promote abstinence, and I applaud any kid who decides to wait, and I applaud the parents who are able to get a kid to make that decision. But I believe that it is wrong to teach only abstinence, because hey--have we collectively forgotten what it's like to be a teenager with raging hormones?! Forewarned is forearmed, people, and I would much rather any kid of mine--kids in general, for that matter--be conscientious about the consequences of unprotected sex, rather than block them from access to birth control, protection, and knowledge! Why are some people still stuck in that rut that knowledge is dangerous? Knowledge is POWER.

Palin also wasn't happy with McCain's campaign, because after her first poor performance in an interview with Couric, she realized that it didn't go well, but the campaign gave the go-ahead for a couple more sessions. Sorry, Palin, but I remember at that time that you were virtually inaccessible to the media, and it was getting to the point where you had to give interviews, otherwise the media was going to get royally pissed. For a while, weren't you pissed that the campaign wasn't allowing you to give interviews? Which way is it? The fact is that you were woefully unprepared, both for interviews and for the vice-presidency, so I have no sympathy for you, the campaign, or McCain. He made the decision and the offer, you accepted. End of story.

The comment that really made me laugh was when she was talking about the Couric interviews, she said, "Katie, you’re not the center of everybody’s universe." Wow, nice job. Way to win friends and influence people--piss off a national news anchor. Here's a news flash, Palin: if you want to be part of the national scene in politics, you are going to face much tougher interviewers than Katie Couric. Couric was asking simple questions, and you couldn't handle it. Couric was not acting like she was the "center of everybody's universe," she was doing her job.

Ziegler said that he enjoyed his interview with Palin, and that anyone who thinks she is "stupid" is seriously misinformed. I've never thought she is stupid. I wouldn't say she's particularly smart, and would be more likely to say she is..."unstupid." I think she's a canny politician, and has a knack for seeing which way the wind is blowing. I do, however, think she is willfully ignorant. As I've written before, she is intellectually incurious, and anything that doesn't make sense in her world she deems as being of no consequence to anyone else. If you wonder why I'm still writing about this woman, it's because she keeps putting herself out there. Meanwhile, John McCain has kept a low profile and has quietly gone back to doing his thing in the Senate. Palin seems to be aiming for national office, and as long as she does so, I'll keep aiming for her...with words only, obviously.