Teenagers Have Sex: Deal With It

@RHRealityCheck

This week, a two-year-old program allowing New York City schools to distribute emergency contraception (EC) in high schools finally made news, and not in a good way. Though schools allow parents to “opt out” of the program, some parents say they should have been asked to “opt in.”

This would make it even harder for kids to access EC (sometimes known as the “morning-after” pill). This is a serious mistake. I don’t think parents should be asked at all. They should be informed when their child enters high school that EC is available, and again if or when their daughter needs it. The health professional should also have the option of not informing parents at all, if the child expresses compelling reasons not to do so.

First, some context for how the program was conceived and implemented.

New York State has the eleventh-highest teenage pregnancy rate in the nation, with almost 60 pregnancies per 1,000 girls, ages 15-to-19 each year. Thirteen percent of U.S. teens have had sex at age 15, and about 70 percent by the time they are age 19. In New York State, approximately 40 percent of high-school students are sexually active. While 85 percent of teenagers say they use contraception during their first sexual encounter, contraception has been known to fail (and teenagers have been known to exaggerate.) Then there are the remaining 15 percent (plus) who don’t use any protection.

Clearly, high school—and potentially middle school—is ground zero for prevention. New York City has stepped up to the plate in recent years with the morning-after pill program and a city-wide sex-education mandate.

The teen-pregnancy rate in New York and other states with similar rates is not likely to drop anytime soon. A month ago, a New York Civil Liberties Union report on sex education in New York state revealed how little and how poorly students are being prepared for the sex they are having. And at what cost. Those under the age of 19 account for approximately one-third of all newly diagnosed sexually transmitted infections in the state. And not surprisingly, teen mothers are much less likely to graduate from high school than their peers who are not pregnant.

Here are a few other thoughts on why comprehensive sex education should be mandatory, and the morning-after pill available to all high-school students, regardless of where they live.

• Many teens have sex, whether you tell them about it or not. And telling them not to have sex definitely does not work. Abstinence-only sex education has been proven to fail time and again. My devoutly Catholic adoptive mother, a lifelong education professional, told me more than once that working in middle schools made her want to stand in the hallways and hand out condoms.
  
  
  
• The majority of teenagers, especially younger ones, do talk to their parents about sex. Those who do not usually have good reasons not to. Studies have shown that kids are very good at predicting their parents’ reactions. Even those who do talk to their parents don’t always get the full picture. More than three-fourths of teenagers don’t know how to bring up sexual-health issues that their parents haven’t already addressed. If parents do not bring up the morning-after pill or any other contraceptive option, teenagers may have to depend on piecemeal (and often incorrect) information from peers.
  
   
• The morning-after pill safely prevents pregnancy after a condom has broken; after a sexual encounter in which the partners were too embarrassed to ask about contraception; after rape; or in any other emergency. But the morning-after pill is effective only when used within a narrow time frame. If EC is readily available in schools, it can speed up the process.

The fact is, I can't imagine what would possess a parent to prevent his or her child from accessing information or health care they might need.

More important, I don’t believe parents have the right to do so. Children are entitled to be heard, and to have their interests protected. If there is anything I have learned from interviewing teen mothers across the Americas, it’s that we cannot assume that parental decision making in the area of sexuality is always in the child’s best interest.

I am not a disinterested party. My daughter, if things go as planned, will be a New York City high-school student in five years. Statistically speaking, she is likely to have sex at some point shortly thereafter. I want her and her classmates to be able to negotiate safe, consensual, and enjoyable sex. I want her to have access to the morning-after pill as soon as possible, should she need it—whether at school or over the counter at the pharmacy.

The real news flash of the week should have been: Teenagers have sex. Deal with it.

In Europe, Same-Sex Couples Face High Barriers to Parenthood

@RHRealityCheck

There was big news this week for same-sex couples who want to have kids, especially if they are trying to figure out where to have them. Europe, it seems, is not the place, despite a reputation as the world's most gay-friendly continent.

On Wednesday, the French daily Le Figaro published an article titled, “Shrinks Warn against Adoption,” referring to a legislative proposal to allow same-sex couples to adopt. Also on Wednesday, the European Court of Human Rights heard from the Austrian government that its adoption policies are based on the biological principle that a child has one father and one mother, and that this is to secure the child’s well-being.

Meanwhile, Australia granted gay parents the same rights to paid parental leave as those granted to straight parents. In contrast, same-sex adoption is legal only in part of that country.

In truth, gay parents make some people uncomfortable. This discomfort is at the root of opposition to same-sex marriage. Opponents of marriage equality often argue that reproduction is the main purpose of marriage. As many have pointed out, if the point were to reserve marriage exclusively for couples who can biologically reproduce, the institution would be off limits to the elderly and the infertile, as well as to same-sex couples.

Of course, that's not the point. The point is to prevent same-sex couples from having children through in vitro fertilization or adoption. In many countries, these options are available only to married couples. France, for example, refused to allow a lesbian to adopt her partner's biological child whom she had cared for since infancy. The couple were told earlier this year by the European Court of Human Rights that France’s refusal did not constitute discrimination. After all, the court said, straight unmarried couples would also not have been allowed to adopt each other’s children. But a straight couple could have remedied the situation by getting married, a route that is not open to same-sex couples. This was irrelevant to the court.

It is, however, relevant to same-sex couples who wish to be parents, and to the children many of them already have.

In fact, hundreds of thousands of children grow up in same-sex households or with parents who are not straight. In the United States alone, an estimated 2 million LGBTI people are interested in adoption, and one-quarter of same-sex couples are raising children. These children are adversely affected by laws and policies that exclude their de facto guardians from legal protections and privileges that straight parents enjoy. Such protections might include the right to make medical and other crucial decisions, the right to support educational decisions, and the right to bequeath property.

Most opponents of marriage equality, adoption, and parental benefits would object to any implication that their position hurts children—though that is the inevitable consequence. Many of these opponents would say that they are trying to protect children against the “dangers” of growing up with gay parents. The belief that gay parents are not as capable as heterosexual parents of raising well-balanced, healthy, and happy children is a common, and damaging, stereotype. It is constantly contradicted by studies on the well-being of children in same-sex families. Study after study shows that the welfare of children closely correlates with parental support and love, not with the parents’ sexual orientation or gender expression.

In deliberating adoption by same-sex couples, the European Court of Human Rights and the French legislature should focus on children’s rights and dignity. If they do, they will quickly conclude that children deserve parents who love and care for them. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with a parent's capacity to do just that.

Yes We Can! (End Rape in War)

@HuffingtonPost

Last Tuesday in New York, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague announced that the UK government will give £1M for the United Nations' efforts to end, punish, and prevent sexual violence in conflict. The donation is both commendable and necessary. Statistics on rape in war are notoriously unreliable and hard to compare and collate, but it is safe to say that civilians have been targeted for sexual assault in every conflict everywhere since forever. Most recently, news are surfacing about systematic use of sexual violence as torture in the protracted violence in Syria.

However, precisely because it would be hard to think of a conflict where sexual violence has not been used to terrorize civilian populations, it is valid to ask if this is a good investment. In other words, can we do anything useful to stop sexual assault in conflict, and, if so, is the United Nations the entity to do it?

To the first question, the answer is a resounding yes.

Sure, rape is a particular effective weapon in terms of terrorizing civilian populations, and so, from a pragmatic perspective, warring parties might to loath to give it up. But there is ample precedent for effective bans--at least on paper--of equally efficient and vicious weapons: land mines, cluster bombs, chemical weapons. So while it is the efficiency of rape as a weapon that has kept it in business for centuries, this can be no excuse to give up in advance on capping its use.

The reason that rape in conflict is completely avoidable is that the weapon is a human being, in most cases a man.

This, in fact, was for many years the main excuse for the action. "Boys will be boys," commentators and military commanders shrugged when confronted with the news that a particular platoon had raped civilians, as if men are genetically disposed to force sex on others. I have even heard well-meaning activists suggest increasing spousal visits for soldiers in active combat as a way to prevent rape in war, as if raping was an expression of sexual desire and need.

Of course, we know now that this is not true. Rape, like other sexual assault and sexual harassment, is not about attraction, desire, or sexual expression. It is about power, humiliation, and control. When we say that all men are genetically predisposed to have a pathological need to control another human being physically and emotionally it is as insulting as it is to say that all women are peaceful or weak. If I were a man, I would certainly resent the implications. Or, as Nobel Laureate Jody Williams said this week at the same event at which Mr. Hague pledged for the UK: "We need men to stand up and say: 'I don't want anyone to look at me and think I am capable of that.'"

Which brings me to the second part of my initial query: is the United Nations the best vehicle for preventing rape in war?

On the face of it, the track-record is not good. The United Nations Security Council has historically been notoriously reticent to address sexual violence in war. A 2000 resolution known mostly for its number (1325/2000) included calls to end impunity for rape and to prevent such atrocities. Still, it took almost 8 years before this abstract commitment was translated into something as ephemerally concrete as "let's start getting real information on what is happening." It took another 12 months plus before the Council thought to create a dedicated office to process the gathered information and coordinate scattered UN efforts on rape in war, and an additional many months before the office was at least partially staffed and funded. (It is this office the UK has pledged to support). Meanwhile, rapes continue, with the main discernible difference being that we now know about it.

At the same time, UN efforts, troops, and aid officials may be able to bring support and supplies where community efforts are stretched to the limit. In fact, it is not so much a question of identifying one key road to change as it is of accepting that we all have work to do. That is the thrust behind the International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence in Conflict, launched this year in May by the Nobel Women's Initiative. The campaign asks each of us to make a pledge to help end rape in conflict. William Hague pledged £1M on behalf of the United Kingdom.

What will you pledge?

In America, Our Inalienable Right to Vote is in Jeopardy

@RHRealityCheck

The right to vote is an illusion for me: I have been allowed to vote only once in my more than two decades as an emancipated adult. But while I have never been completely at peace with this disenfranchisement, it is the consequence of my personal choice to migrate early and often: my home country, Denmark, extends only limited democratic rights for citizens living abroad.

It is, however, not a choice for the millions of U.S. citizens who will not be allowed to vote in the upcoming presidential election, either because they have been convicted of a felony, or because they are excluded from voting through voting roll purges, strict voter ID laws, or existing or new restrictions on when and how eligible citizens are allowed to vote.

These restrictions on who is allowed to vote and how are based on two erroneous assumptions.

The first and most easily dismissed assumption is that voter fraud is rampant in the United States, requiring stricter regulations on new voter registration, voter ID requirements, and limits on voting hours. This notion is so obviously false that it has been debunked numerous times by independent watchdog organizations and in the mainstream media. Latest figures show that about one in 16,000 registered voters might have a problem, though some issues are neither intentional nor malicious but rather the result of people moving, changing their signature, or misspelling the name of the city in which they live.

Unfortunately, widespread voter fraud is a notion that has traction with those who already believe the United States consists of the deserving and the undeserving. In this way, some commentators conflate welfare recipients, urban residents, and individuals likely to engage in voter fraud. More damningly, non-governmental groups ostensibly working to verify voter registers across the country have seemingly been targeting counties with predominantly minority populations, or low-income communities, using methods that have been discredited by government agencies, such as the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.  Just this weekend, the New York Times reported that some are so focused on proving fraud that they fabricate the proof. As a result, hundreds of legitimate voters have been purged from registers.

These efforts are usually partisan. The ongoing case in Ohio, in which the state government is seeking to strike down early voting in selected districts and for selected populations, has the possibility of preventing more registered Democrats than Republicans from accessing polls on non-work days.

The second assumption behind the exclusion of voters in the United States is that voting is a privilege and not a human right. International human rights treaties define the equal right and opportunity to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections as key to democracy, peace, and human dignity. And while the United States is historically reluctant to sign on to international human rights obligations, the U.S. Senate accepted the ongoing obligation to implement the right to vote as defined in international law in 1992.

To be sure, some will say that the millions of convicted felons who are excluded from voting for life have brought it upon themselves and do not deserve to participate in democracy. No amount of data showing the disproportionate (and perhaps intentional) impact of this policy on communities of color will convince this group that those convicted of crimes should not be excluded from voting. The notion that voting as a human right means there can be no distinction between the deserving and the undeserving will also not have any impact: people who believe that those convicted of felonies should lose all rights for life do not believe in human rights at all.

So far, politicians have assumed they have support for voter ID laws because some three-quarters of the U.S. population poll in favor of these laws. However, the same polls show an almost equal concern among the population that legitimate voters will be excluded from the polls in November. The difference between these two concerns is that the latter is real and the former is largely fabricated, as is the worry that those convicted of felonies are undeserving of the right to vote.

More to the point, ensuring the right to vote should not be based on polling data. The U.S. government—including both the executive and the legislative branches—has the obligation to ensure that the right to vote is more than an illusion for all U.S. citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, home, or history of conflict with the law.

Why Boys Are Inclined to Under-Achieve and Girls Lose Self-Esteem in Early School Years

As the new school year starts, schoolyard lamentations about boys’ academic underachievement resurface. And the worry is real: girls most definitely do better than boys at school.

But as the mother of a girl (and a women’s rights advocate), my first reaction, when fellow parents complain about their boys’ needs being ignored, is: hmmmm, sure. For those of us who, like me, are the mother of girls, the school year means we might be dealing with the sudden loss in self-esteem most girls apparently experience right about middle school, brought on by the pressure to be sweet and beautiful (or worse: sexy) rather than strong and smart.

And both with regard to boys’ academic under-achievement and with regard to girls’ self-erasure: how does that happen?

For most children in the United States, school is definitely the place where they spend the most time. What adults they see there, and how those adults behave and expect them to behave, is therefore likely to be a significant influence on their lives.  

Another big influence in entertainment media, including video games. Studies show that, on average, 8-to-18-year-olds spend more than 53 hours a week on entertainment media, and that girls and boys play video games to an almost equal extent.

From even a superficial look at each of these key influences in turn, it’s clear that something is askew. There are a distinct lack of male role models at school and a dearth of empowered female role models in video games. This bias is exacerbated for children of color: African American men are seriously underrepresented in the teaching profession, and good luck finding a strong black female character in a video game.

The question: Does any of this matter?

Teaching, in particular in lower grades, has been considered a woman’s profession for more than a century. Likewise for the notion that boys can’t sit still or that classroom learning is not designed for male style learning: while it is potentially true that some boys are less used to sitting down and concentrating on a book-ish task than some girls, the sit-down-and-learn style of schooling is nothing new.  

In other words: there is no reason that the lack of male teachers or the prevalent teaching philosophy suddenly should affect boys’ academic performance negatively.

It is also not unusual that boys and men are the main characters in whichever narrative media format kids are into at any given time. Most fairy tales and folk stories have male protagonists, or depict women as dependent on male initiative and strength. It is this bias—reflective of societally accepted gender roles--that carried over in early children’s literature and now video games. And don’t get me started on superheroes…

That said (and a lot could, should, and has been said about gender bias in literature and children’s narratives) the prejudices that led to this bias have been around for a while.  

In other words: the dip in girls’ self confidence around middle school age which psychologists began to document more systematically in the late 20th century has likely existed for a long time. In fact, younger girls have not been encouraged to think of themselves as individuals or protagonists until very recently. It is therefore possible that what is new is the higher levels of self confidence and esteem in early childhood rather than the later dip.

Does this mean that biased gender representation in teaching and video games are not a problem?

I don’t think so. There is quite a lot to be said for providing a concrete example that children might project themselves onto. Filmmaker Spike Lee has repeatedly made the case that the recruitment of black male teachers in the United States might motivate more black boys to stay in school for longer.

And while male superheroes, on and off the screen, can provide a moral compass for boys, girls have preciously few models to lean on. A new documentary on the legacy of Wonder Woman shows how important, and at the same time insufficient, this one prominent female superhero has been for girls growing up during the past several decades.

Fortunately, times are changing slowly, at least for white girls. The popularity of the Hunger Games and  similar narratives shows that there is a growing appetite for female leads. But the minor furor that erupted when moviegoers realized that one of the most likable characters in that dystopic setting is black shows that there is still no real openness to narratives that represent all of us.

So the next time a parent corners me in the school yard to comment on boys lagging behind in education, I will know what to say. Let’s work together to get a better gender and race balance in our schools and on our screens. Let’s not expect all boys to be noisy and all girls to be neat. Let’s not assume that all heroes are white. It may not be directly related to exam scores, but it is pretty darn close.