This week's NOW, the newsmagazine on PBS, detailed movements in South Dakota that seek to not only eliminate abortion (as they have just succeeded in doing) but also to impose an agenda of abstinence. As part of this latter effort, groups have established "purity balls" where young girls (it does always seem to be girls for some reason) pledge abstinence until, get this, "the day when they give themselves as wedding gifts to their husbands".
From ERA to "wedding gifts" in thirty years, women really have come a long way. Regardless of who is behind such efforts (the religious right, simple anti-feminists, prudes, etc), do we really want girls believing they are gifts to their future husbands? Here we go again with the glorification of female virginity, to such an extent that it has regained its place as a prize, a gift. Abstinence, of course, goes hand-in-hand with this approach. And, as a result, the use of contraceptive is vilified.
I see two ramifications of such a policy. First, young people become ignorant about sexuality and protection. Some studies have indicated that leads to increased STD infection rates, for the uninformed do not use condoms. In other cases, because vaginal sex is not an option, teenagers choose alternative routes of gratification. The other result may be far worse: young girls connect their importance with their sexual value. If the paramount moment of their lives is giving their virginity as a gift to their husband, then do they not associate sexuality with their chief role in society? It sounds paradoxical to the goals of the program but it may one of its chief unintended consequences.
With increased sexual imagery in the media, the means of exchange between individuals has increasingly been predicated on sexual identity. Mix this atmosphere with a program that rises to highest heights female sexuality and you have a problem. A girl's body becomes her chief commodity, more than her mind, her ambitions, her other skills. While men receive their wives are gifts, their sexuality seems to matter far less; their commodity, of course, is that they earn money for a family. Essentially, this desire to emphasis "purity" reasserts the gender roles of past centuries and subordinates females indefinitely. It also limits control of women over their own pleasure. But maybe that's the goal...
Young girls have many pressures placed upon them by peers and the images of sexuality that surround them. Instead of saving them, abstinence programs only makes their lives more difficult. For one, that are taught not to participate. On the other hand, though, they are told that their body is their greatest gift. Cognitive dissonance ensues. What happens in several cases is that teenage girls eventually give their body up. But when they do so, they are more likely to be unprotected or engage in untraditional sexual practices, those that have risen in popularity over the last three decades.
Their bodies of course are their chief means of social advance; the purity balls have told them so. So, in essence, they have the effect of degrading women's rights and hampering a woman's ability to succeed in society. But in an age where women are increasingly falling back on their traditional roles, maybe this isn't so surprising after all. It just has the unintended consequences, like blow jobs.
Update (5/7) - An article, "Contra-Contraception", from The New York Times Magazine explores similar topics to this one.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Oops! Wrong Country!
Three years after the short-lived US-Iraq War of 2003, a new enemy of "world freedom" has sprung up: Iran. This neighbor to the debacle-that-is-Iraq has been working on its nuclear program in recent years, after some help from our current ally Pakistan's mad scientist Abdul Qameer Khan. This program, in the eyes of the U.S., threatens the security of the world, because Iran will (not may) choose to make nuclear weapons. Iran, however, claims that they seek merely to use the program for peaceful purposes, in accordance with the NPT. (The U.S. is currently undermining the same treaty by allowing one nation that has skirted it--India--to have access to its nukes.)
But Iran is not truly a new enemy. In fact, for the U.S., that nation is a relatively old one. Before the Reagan government sold it arms in exchange for hostages (and to finance the Contras), Iran was a menace--kidnapping US citizens and bolstering Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the early '80s, they were feared. But after the Iran-Iraq War, in which we essentially supported both countries, our gaze shifted mainly to Sadam Hussein. But with the former dictator downgraded to a contemptable court-room presence, we have set our sights on our older nemesis.
While we invaded Iraq, partially de-stabilized the region, and scared the nuclear-program out of Libya, Iran worried about its own security and intensified nuclear experimentation. U.S. troops are right next to their country, no kidding their frightened. Before the U.S. invasion/occupation of their neighbor, Iran was leaning toward increased democracy--its president of several years, Mohammed Khatami, was a moderating influence and the mullahs were being tamed as much as possible. For some unknown reason, however, the country began to experience problems in 2003. The mullahs began a crackdown on elections and many moderate officials resigned in protest. In the past three years, the situation has only grown worse. Now, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes a provocative remark daily and the U.S. responds with condemnation. Relations between Iran and the West is the perhaps the worst it has been in 25 years.
Still, with all the controversy over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. government has refused to negotiate with the country. Instead, they have simply backed the efforts of Britain, France, and Germany. Now would be the time for U.S. to take some intiative. Furthermore, in the days following 9/11 (and in the report about the events), many spoke about the need for better human intelligence; now would be the time for that to come to fruition. In the case of Iraq, intelligence was manipulated and botched; we launched a preemptive strike, invaded a country without any clear and present danger to the U.S. Such an act is against international law. We do not want to repeat this mistake in Iran--a larger, more heavily armed and infuential state. Accurate intelligence is essential in gaging the intentions of Tehran.
No one is entirely sure what Iran is planning for their newly discovered ability to enrich uranium. Yet, according the Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, the U.S. government is currently planning for the possibility of targeted nuclear attacks against Iran to destroy any potential weapons program. Such consideration is madness, while the emphasis on the military is premature. Diplomacy must prevail. The international community can ensure a peaceful resolution to this situation, if the U.S. will allow this happen.
But Iran is not truly a new enemy. In fact, for the U.S., that nation is a relatively old one. Before the Reagan government sold it arms in exchange for hostages (and to finance the Contras), Iran was a menace--kidnapping US citizens and bolstering Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the early '80s, they were feared. But after the Iran-Iraq War, in which we essentially supported both countries, our gaze shifted mainly to Sadam Hussein. But with the former dictator downgraded to a contemptable court-room presence, we have set our sights on our older nemesis.
While we invaded Iraq, partially de-stabilized the region, and scared the nuclear-program out of Libya, Iran worried about its own security and intensified nuclear experimentation. U.S. troops are right next to their country, no kidding their frightened. Before the U.S. invasion/occupation of their neighbor, Iran was leaning toward increased democracy--its president of several years, Mohammed Khatami, was a moderating influence and the mullahs were being tamed as much as possible. For some unknown reason, however, the country began to experience problems in 2003. The mullahs began a crackdown on elections and many moderate officials resigned in protest. In the past three years, the situation has only grown worse. Now, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes a provocative remark daily and the U.S. responds with condemnation. Relations between Iran and the West is the perhaps the worst it has been in 25 years.
Still, with all the controversy over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. government has refused to negotiate with the country. Instead, they have simply backed the efforts of Britain, France, and Germany. Now would be the time for U.S. to take some intiative. Furthermore, in the days following 9/11 (and in the report about the events), many spoke about the need for better human intelligence; now would be the time for that to come to fruition. In the case of Iraq, intelligence was manipulated and botched; we launched a preemptive strike, invaded a country without any clear and present danger to the U.S. Such an act is against international law. We do not want to repeat this mistake in Iran--a larger, more heavily armed and infuential state. Accurate intelligence is essential in gaging the intentions of Tehran.
No one is entirely sure what Iran is planning for their newly discovered ability to enrich uranium. Yet, according the Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, the U.S. government is currently planning for the possibility of targeted nuclear attacks against Iran to destroy any potential weapons program. Such consideration is madness, while the emphasis on the military is premature. Diplomacy must prevail. The international community can ensure a peaceful resolution to this situation, if the U.S. will allow this happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
