Is Feminism Still Relevant?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
and research will show that comprehensive sex education is better at this than abstinence education.

Hasn't the US public education system been doing this for the last 30 or 40 years? Even when I was in HS in the 80's, there was little mention of abstinence as a valid choice. It was pretty much assumed everyone was either having sex - or would soon have sex.
 
and research will show that comprehensive sex education is better at this than abstinence education.

the same could be said for parenting.

teens who sneak around and view sex as an impulsive, forbidden thing like drinking and drugs are much more likely to end up pregnant and/or with an STD.

I agree but I don't necessarily see it as an either/or proposition.

My parents certainly emphasized to us that they would prefer that we wait, not necessarily until marriage (though they probably would have but accepted the reality around them) and yet at the same time, my Mom had no issue taking me to the family doctor and paying for my birth control pills when I was 19. So I think that it is possible for parents to raise their children with the view that sex when you are emotionally immature, which isn't the same age/stage for everyone, is not the best idea. That sex when you are drunk and unable to really consent, is not the best idea. That sex which makes you sad afterwards, is not the best idea. Etc, etc. But those same parents can impart upon that teenager knowledge about fertility, reproduction so that the teenager is, at a minimum, informed enough to procure their own birth control, or more optimally, feel comfortable enough with the parents to discuss with them, have them provide access to a medical professional and so on.
 
While I'm not totally comfortable with the ideas expressed in the dutch study I have to admit there's a lot of sense in it. Certainly it seems like the worst sexual troubles kids get into occur in a vaccum of adult help and communication. I can see how that level of openness could help with a lot of things.

Please check back to this comment when that day comes...

I often here this attitude- that you'll discover you don't want your kids to have sex as soon as it becomes a real possibility. My oldest child is an early adolescent, and I can feel that day getting close. We know a bunch of boys that I think will probably be delightful first partners in a few years. But the first time she really took a shine to someone, it was an absolutely beautiful, charming, lovable boy whose dad I know is an abusive alcoholic and has had some pretty atrocious relationship modeling. I was terrified of their connection not because they might touch each other, but because she might fall in love with someone with abusive tendencies and not recognize them. I would much, much rather have her feel totally able to talk to me about the person who she's interested in, than to feel like she's got something to hide physically and so can't tell me about the power dynamics because I might find out. The thought of her having sex too young doesn't make me want to puke nearly as much as the thought of her in an emotionally manipulative relationship.

It's interesting that one reason the Dutch study cites that accepting teen sex can be good is that it promotes monogamy. I honestly have mixed feelings about teen monogamy. It's not that I think running around and serial screwing is great. But I grew up in a rural religious culture where it was common for teens to develop a relationship that was essentially like being married, and I don't think it was super. It looked a lot like the kids owned each other, to be honest. It's so natural to be interested in many different people especially when you're young and it's all brand new, and yet the rules were very specific that once you make a contract to go out with someone you're doing something very, very wrong to be interested in someone else. Very often they'd have a first or second boyfriend at 15 and literally marry the same person after a few years together. It was quite territorial, and it made me uncomfortable.

I guess I just don't see monogamy as an independent value of its own like kindness or honesty. What I'd like to do is teach my kids honesty, good communication, ethical treatment of others and safety. Those things can be present in relationships of any duration or kind.
 
Hasn't the US public education system been doing this for the last 30 or 40 years? Even when I was in HS in the 80's, there was little mention of abstinence as a valid choice. It was pretty much assumed everyone was either having sex - or would soon have sex.

What the US has been doing is called risk-reduction sex ed. In other words, "It's best that you don't have sex but we know you will, so here's not not to get yourself killed." It's still pretty sex negative and not at all trusting of young people. This topic might deserve its own thread, but there's a developing model called pleasure-based sex ed that is very, very different. In fact, I'll just put up the article in a new thread rather than linking it here.
 
Hasn't the US public education system been doing this for the last 30 or 40 years? Even when I was in HS in the 80's, there was little mention of abstinence as a valid choice. It was pretty much assumed everyone was either having sex - or would soon have sex.

What the US has been doing is called risk-reduction sex ed. In other words, "It's best that you don't have sex but we know you will, so here's not not to get yourself killed." It's still pretty sex negative and not at all trusting of young people. This topic might deserve its own thread, but there's a developing model called pleasure-based sex ed that is very, very different. In fact, I'll just put up the article in a new thread rather than linking it here.

A lot of states, particularly Texas, have abstinence-only programs, which is behind the spike in teen pregnancy rates in those places.

I agree that having a sex-positive attitude is the best road to sexual responsibility.
 
Hasn't the US public education system been doing this for the last 30 or 40 years? Even when I was in HS in the 80's, there was little mention of abstinence as a valid choice. It was pretty much assumed everyone was either having sex - or would soon have sex.


no.

compare rates of STDs and pregnancy in states like Texas to states like Massachusetts.

also, teen pregnancy nationwide is at a 30 year low or something. kids are having less sex and safer sex than in the 1980s.
 
It's interesting that one reason the Dutch study cites that accepting teen sex can be good is that it promotes monogamy. I honestly have mixed feelings about teen monogamy. It's not that I think running around and serial screwing is great. But I grew up in a rural religious culture where it was common for teens to develop a relationship that was essentially like being married, and I don't think it was super. It looked a lot like the kids owned each other, to be honest. It's so natural to be interested in many different people especially when you're young and it's all brand new, and yet the rules were very specific that once you make a contract to go out with someone you're doing something very, very wrong to be interested in someone else. Very often they'd have a first or second boyfriend at 15 and literally marry the same person after a few years together. It was quite territorial, and it made me uncomfortable.

I guess I just don't see monogamy as an independent value of its own like kindness or honesty. What I'd like to do is teach my kids honesty, good communication, ethical treatment of others and safety. Those things can be present in relationships of any duration or kind.


all very interesting observations. i remember couples who were virtually "married" in high school and college, and i think it comes at a cost of personal development to some degree.
 
no.

compare rates of STDs and pregnancy in states like Texas to states like Massachusetts.
Well, doesn't Texas also have a HUGE illegal/recent immigrant population? This must skew the statistics somewhat.

also, teen pregnancy nationwide is at a 30 year low or something. kids are having less sex and safer sex than in the 1980s.
That's a good thing, right?
 
Holy shit. Did you really just say that?

What's so wrong about saying that immigrants have a higher birthrate? Take a breath please. You seem like a cat ready to pounce...

Pew Research
Despite the recent decline, foreign-born mothers continue to give birth to a disproportionate share of the nation’s newborns, as they have for at least the past two decades.
 
You seem to be attributing Texas' higher rates of STDs and teen pregnancy (which I think is what Irvine was referring to, since we've been talking specifically about teen sex for the last few pages) to their population of undocumented immigrants. Is that not the case?
 
You seem to be attributing Texas' higher rates of STDs and teen pregnancy (which I think is what Irvine was referring to, since we've been talking specifically about teen sex for the last few pages) to their population of undocumented immigrants. Is that not the case?

I'm confused too, AEON. It looks like you totally changed the subject.
 
I'm confused too, AEON. It looks like you totally changed the subject.

No - I was referring to Irvine's comparison of the birthrates between Texas and Mass. My point is this is not comparing apples to apples.
 
I'm pretty sure the rates would still skew heavily in favor of Mass if you removed immigrants from the equation.
Yeah, I'm not sure how we could remove that data cleanly but I would tend to agree.
 
all very interesting observations. i remember couples who were virtually "married" in high school and college, and i think it comes at a cost of personal development to some degree.

yet....you argue in favor monogamy.

with monogamy you have accountability, and the negative consequences of sex are virtually nil. if two people are std free and they only have sex with each other, they will never contract an std.
 
I don't think that's what he's saying, but rather that couples that get together when they are 14/15 and immediately become very serious about each other may not get the same benefit of having dated multiple people, learned about what works and what doesn't in a relationship, develop as independent adults and so on.

I have friends who did that and when the relationships (or eventual marriages) broke down years later it was like they didn't know how to function in an adult world in the same way as the rest of us. They had a MUCH harder time coping with being single, with re-entering the dating world, and so on that people who had had a more typical dating background.
 
Great piece that says it all:

What we don’t say is: of course not all men hate women. But culture hates women, so men who grow up in a sexist culture have a tendency to do and say sexist things, often without meaning to. We aren’t judging you for who you are but that doesn’t mean we’re not asking you to change your behaviour. What you feel about women in your heart is of less immediate importance than how you treat them on a daily basis.

You can be the gentlest, sweetest man in the world yet still benefit from sexism. That’s how oppression works. Thousands of otherwise decent people are persuaded to go along with an unfair system because it’s less hassle that way. The appropriate response when somebody demands a change in that unfair system is to listen, rather than turning away or yelling, as a child might, that it’s not your fault. And it isn’t your fault. I’m sure you’re lovely. That doesn’t mean you don’t have a responsibility to do something about it.

Of course all men don’t hate women. But all men must know they benefit from sexism
 
"as a child might"

One day, I'll read a feminist blog free of needless, passive aggressive jabs like this and actually take them seriously
 
It sure doesn't help that plenty of your fellow guys do react that way.

I also think you missed the point of that whole passage, as if you read "as a child might" and scorned everything else.
 
I read the entire article and took nothing from it because it literally offered nothing. Just a couple vague 'solutions' in the final paragraph.

and in regard to that sentence, take the phrase "as a child might" out of it. Does it lose anything? It was nothing more than a petty, passive aggressive remark. If she's trying to reach 'men', maybe learn how to speak to people first
 
I posted the article/op-ed to make a point that when most women do cry sexism, they are not accusing the whole male gender of being women-haters. Maybe you don't feel that we are, but in my experience, quite a few guys do.
 
I'm not even 100% what she's trying to say in this mess of a paragraph, but it's filled with a similar tone

"These days, before we talk about misogyny, women are increasingly being asked to modify our language so we don’t hurt men’s feelings. Don’t say, “Men oppress women” – that’s sexism, as bad as any sexism women ever have to handle, possibly worse. Instead, say, “Some men oppress women.” Whatever you do, don’t generalise. That’s something men do. Not all men – just somemen."
 
I posted the article/op-ed to make a point that when most women do cry sexism, they are not accusing the whole male gender of being women-haters.

But she kind of is. Not individually, but as a whole

"individual man, going about your daily business, eating crisps and playing BioShock 2, may not hate and hurt women, men as a group –men as a structure – certainly do."

She can't have it both ways
 
It should not, therefore, be as difficult as it is to explain to the average male that while you, individual man, going about your daily business, eating crisps and playing BioShock 2....

Like saying all women eat bon-bons and gossip. What an odd way to make a point.
 
Given that 1 out of every 3 women on the planet is abused by a male partner, and given that actual sexism is actually worse than accusations of reverse sexism, I think the poorly written point is a fair one.
 
Given that 1 out of every 3 women on the planet is abused by a male partner, and given that actual sexism is actually worse than accusations of reverse sexism, I think the poorly written point is a fair one.

Apart from the fact the 1 out of 3 stat is highly suspect (though that doesn't diminish the fact that one rape alone is a terrible thing), and the fact that I don't actively engage in any sexist behaviour or abuse, the whole "if you're a man, you're still contributing to the problem" is a lazy, easy out for someone not willing to look at a complicated issue more critically
 
Back
Top Bottom