This post is inspired to some extent by Wildly Parenthetical’s post on sex ed – although I’ve thought for a very long time that sex ed should be a normal part of education generally (from a young age). I don’t know the best way to integrate it (but then, I’m not a teacher). However, I do know that knee-jerk reactions are not the best way to deal with anything much.
This post is essentially my reaction to the knee-jerk reactions displayed in this article here. The gist of which is: the federal government is talking about a national sex ed curriculum for primary and high school.
And the gist of my reaction is: *headdesk* after *headdesk* after *headdesk*.
First *headdesk*: the article calls the reactions to the potential curriculum a “row” and a “furore” when the main people against it are the bloody Catholics. Of course!
Second *headdesk*:
Sydney’s Catholic schools head Dan White is warning against the planned national curriculum being used as a ”how-to guide” for children to gain access to contraception and abortion clinics.
Ahhh, because we all know how WELL abstinence-only ed works … anyway, much better for them to have a child at 16 than, you know, all the other alternatives!
Funnily enough, there’s a quote later in the article where White appears to support some mention of contraception and abortion in sex ed, just not as the “preferred methods”. Combined with this first quote, it almost seems that he’s happy for the students to know contraception and abortion exist, but that he doesn’t want students to know how to actually access them.
(Look, if someone I know ever gets pregnant at 16 and wants to keep the child, I will support her, but I’m also going to make sure she knows about the other options and that I’ll help her access them if she wants.)
Third *headdesk*:
Federal Education Minister Julia Gillard promised yesterday there would be extensive consultation with all stakeholders, including religious schools, before the curriculum came into effect.
Anyone mind telling me why the bloody Catholics (or any other religious group) should get to dictate to the rest of us? I mean, I hope that’s not what “extensive consultation” amounts to, but I’m also pretty damn sure that they’re not going to compromise!
Fourth *headdesk*:
British children as young as five could learn about same-sex relationships, how to manage their emotions and the physical changes.
Gahh, how immoral, teaching kids as young as 5 that not everyone is hetero! And that their bodies will change as they grow up! How immoral preparing them for that!
Fifth *headdesk*: *** TRIGGER WARNING *** The following horrific factoid was shoved halfway down the article, in passing, between another quote from the bloody Catholic and a paragraph about condom use:
The 2009 National Survey of Students’ Sexual Health found more than a third of 3000 high school students had experienced unwanted sex, particularly females.
“Unwanted sex” is rape, you bloody ostriches. And the fact that more than a third of high school students surveyed have “experienced unwanted sex” aka THEY HAVE BEEN RAPED seems to be considered unimportant, a point to note in passing.
Sixth *headdesk*:
NSW Secondary Principals’ Council president Jim McAlpine said: ”… With the national curriculum it is still a matter for schools to write their own teaching programs and I would assume the Catholic Church would delete those things they didn’t want to teach.”
The ellipsis is part mine, part the SMH’s, so I’m not sure of the entire context of that quote. But still – wouldn’t “delet[ing] those things they didn’t want to teach” defeat the purpose of a national curriculum?
All of this without even known what the curriculum is, or will be. I’m sure there will be more *headdesk*-ing when we find that out!
At the same time, the Crime Commission is demanding more scrutiny over the sexual health histories of teenage girls in the Northern Territory — http://www.theage.com.au/national/crime-body-demands-teenagers-sex-files-20091103-hvaf.html
No doubt it’s to cover up for the fact that they haven’t found anything yet (nor have they put serious resources into sexual health or community accountability for sexual abuse).
And the upshot is that it tightens the state’s paternalistic abusive control over what’s determined to be rape and what isn’t. If prosecuting rape doesn’t serve the national interest, it won’t happen. But if you can steal peoples’ land by doing it, let’s go.
That makes me absolutely speechless with rage.
[…] Update: Jo Tamar has got an excellent post about this too – How immoral to acknowledge to kids that yes, sex happens […]
Some of the things which seem like a good idea to me:
* a ”how-to guide” for children to gain access to contraception and abortion clinics
* compulsory for all students aged 15 and 16 to learn about sex (though that’s a bit late for many)
* children as young as five could learn about same-sex relationships, how to manage their emotions and the physical changes
… oh, those are meant to be things I’m afraid of….
Yeah, I’m with you on all of those.
It just highlights the complete incongruence between “our” position and “theirs”, doesn’t it? Which makes the idea of “compromise” a bit … impossible.
“The 2009 National Survey of Students’ Sexual Health found more than a third of 3000 high school students had experienced unwanted sex, particularly females.”
Every time I read this statistic or anything similar too I just cry inside because I know that the expierences I had as a teenager are just so overwhelmingly common and yet no-one is doing anything about it?
Why can’t they just say that a third of XYZ HAD BEEN RAPED.
berryblade, I am so sorry (if that means anything coming from a total stranger).
As for “Why can’t they just say that a third of XYZ HAD BEEN RAPED” – because that would be controversial and the meeja LIKES controversy, but only the beat-up type, the “rows” and the “furores”.
They don’t like having to confront real life actual problems. Because then they might have to do something about it, like some real reporting, or something, rather than just go chasing quotes from “controversial figures”.
(Yes, I’m being cynical. Anyone in the MSM who wants to prove me wrong, show me your real reporting on the absolutely fucking horrific fact that more than one third of students surveyed have been raped. I thought journalists were supposed to want to uncover raw, tough truth.)
By the way, apologies for the lack of trigger warning. You haven’t indicated that you would have wanted one, but your comment reminded me that some people might. I’ve added one now.
@Jo Tamar
Ah, apart from PTSD/Borderline issues now and then day to day coping doesn’t revolve around panic attacks these days, so I am all good without a trigger warning but thank you for your support and for putting one up there for all the others who might not be feeling as brave.
It really irks me as a journalism student too for that very reason. Not only that but then you know, men might actually have to start taking responsibility for their OWN actions and then, well, how could they blame it on us whorey-stupid-good-for-nothin’-ladehz ( / sarcasm ). Seriously though, the inability for men to take responsibility for rape just fucking pisses me off more than anything.
P.S adding you to my blog roll, hope you don’t mind.
“Seriously though, the inability for men to take responsibility for rape just fucking pisses me off more than anything.”
You and me both!
Re blogroll: I’m honoured, thanks :)
“Federal Education Minister Julia Gillard promised yesterday there would be extensive consultation with all stakeholders, including religious schools, before the curriculum came into effect.”
Hoh what sorry state of affairs that is…There are so many reasons to dislike Gillard, now I can add this one to the list.
Without the full context of the quote, I’m not quite so damning as you (eg it may have been something like: “Q: Will you consult religious schools about the curriculum? A: “Yes, we will consult religious schools, just as there will be extensive consultation with all stakeholders.”).
And I don’t see Gillard as being worse than any other pollie.
But I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that it is atrocious that the quote suggests that religious schools are somehow a particularly special stakeholder with respect to the curriculum on sex ed.