More than just say no: what some abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula teach young people about gender.

When I was seven, my father, an ethicist by training and former philosophy professor, was hired by a pharmaceutical company to study the issue of comparable worth. As a result, I learned that women were paid 59 cents for every dollar men made, and frequently heard about the glass ceiling in dinner table conversation. My mother, for her part, forbid Barbie dolls because she didn't like the messages they sent about women.

I am fortunate to have had generations of women pave the way for me and my peers (by the year I graduated from college 43% of all law degrees and 39% of all medical degrees were earned by women), but coming from this environment, I have always seen myself as a fighter for gender equity.

In fifth grade gym class, for example, I protested the fact that boys were given most of the gym to play a basketball game, while girls were given a small corner to practice free-throws. My athletic ability, however, didn't match up to my righteous indignation and I dropped my protest relatively quickly for fear of having to actually play. My sister one-upped my protest when in ninth grade she asked her gym teacher why girls were learning tumbling while the boys were being taught wrestling. Mr. Brooks responded that one day over tea and cookies he would try to explain the rules of wrestling to her. Not surprisingly my sister showed up the next day with a tea bag and a box of Fig Newtons and declared herself ready to learn.

Given this family background and penchant for complaining, there is no doubt that we would not have kept quiet if our school's formal sexuality education courses over the years had suggested traditional gender norms as preferable or passed on gender stereotypes as truth.

GENDER BIASES IN ABSTINENCE-ONLY-UNTIL-MARRIAGE CURRICULA

Perhaps this is why I was so surprised when I first began to review fear-based abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula. In addition to trying to scare and shame young people, many of the curricula used in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs (programs that are both federally/state- and privately-funded) present an inaccurate and highly biased view of gender. Over the years at SIECUS I have reviewed more than two dozen of these curricula and have found that the majority contain gender biases focused on two topics--how men and women differ, particularly in terms of sexual behavior, and gender roles, particularly within relationships.

Differences Between Men and Women. Many of the curricula start by explaining that there are general differences between men and women. Reasonable Reasons to Wait, for example, explains that "girls care more about their hair and clothing" and "write notes and keep their comments somewhat private" where as "boys are more open and discuss their opinions ..." (1) WAIT (Why Am I Tempted) Training explains that women are colder than men because their metabolism is lower, that women's hearts beat more rapidly, and that women have larger livers, stomachs, and appendices, but smaller lungs. (2) It goes on to explain that "... studies clearly show a large male advantage in visual-spatial abilities and higher mathematical reasoning. Every social explanation has been exhausted--this is innate. Only 20% of American girls in elementary school reach the average level of male performance in tests of spatial ability." (3) This statement suggests that girls should not bother attempting to change such innate weaknesses of their gender as mathematical reasoning.

It is unclear why these statements of general differences have such a prominent role in these curricula except to underscore the differences when it comes to sexual behavior. Sex Respect explains that "a man can experience sexual release with a woman even if he doesn't particularly like her. A woman, however, often experiences more sexual fulfillment with a person she trusts and whom she believes is committed to her." (4) FACTS explains that men may "use 'love' to get sex, eg. tell a girl he loves her, so she will do things sexually." In contrast, the curriculum explains that women may "use 'sex' to get 'love,' eg. do something sexually to 'hold on to' the boy." (5)

In promoting this age-old stereotype, the curricula often seem to be suggesting that women never truly desire sexual experiences. Sex Respect explains that "a young man's natural desire for sex is already strong due to testosterone, the powerful male growth hormone. Females are becoming culturally conditioned to fantasize about sex as well." (6)

Ultimately these conversations put the responsibility for controlling sexual behavior on young women. Sex Respect says, "yet because they generally become physically aroused less easily, girls are still in a good position to slow down the young man and help him learn balance in the relationship." (7) Reasonable Reasons to Wait echoes this sentiment by saying that "girls need to be aware they may be able to tell when a kiss is leading to something else. The girl may need to put the brakes on first to help the boy." (8) Heritage Keepers explains it this way: "for a girl it may mean moving a boy's hand." (9)

These ideas run counter to the goals of comprehensive sexuality education which seeks to teach young people that everyone, regardless of gender, has the right and the responsibility to carefully make sexual decisions.

Traditional Gender Roles. In addition to presenting stereotypes about the differences between men and women, these curricula seem to recommend traditionally prescribed gender roles and behavior. Sex Respect tells young women that puberty "is when girls need to start acting as well-mannered ladies, instead of uncontrolled children, since they are physically capable of having a child and need to protect this potential gift by respecting the power to help give life to a child." (10) Many of the curricula also make references to how a young woman dresses. Reasonable Reasons to Wait says "a girl's attire can rouse sexual feelings in boys. It is very important that teenage girls and boys dress appropriately, whether they are on a date or out in public. A boy can get the wrong message from what a girl might wear." (11)

The curricula make a number of additional references to seemingly outdated social norms. Sex Respect suggests that young people ask for their parents' opinions on whether it is appropriate for girls to ask guys out. It goes on to list different responsibilities for young people on a date. The young man is responsible for providing transportation and having enough money while the young woman is responsible for being ready on time, telling her date about her curfew, and helping him get her home on time. (12)

In discussing marriage, Reasonable Reasons to Wait asks young people to consider "Will the wife work after marriage or will the husband be the sole breadwinner?" And, the Art of Loving Well asks young people to "think of the enormous wisdom contained in the fact that in a wedding ceremony the father 'gives away' his daughter." (13)

In a section designed to predict and answer questions that students may have, Sex Respect asks "are boys who abstain really considered 'virgins'?" The answer: "although the term more commonly is used in reference to girls, it applies to boys too." (14) While at some point in our history it may have been true that the word virgin was mostly used to refer to women, today it is commonly accepted that the term refers to any individual who has not engaged in sexual intercourse. By suggesting otherwise, the curriculum is subtly reinforcing a model of gender inequality that requires chastity and purity in women but not men.

The curricula's overall treatment of gender differences presents stereotypes and myths as universal truths. This presentation may confuse students who do not conform to these gender stereotypes, and be detrimental to all young people by limiting their options, influencing their behavior, and coloring their expectations for future relationships. In addition, the curricula miss numerous important opportunities to cultivate critical thinking skills in students. Students are not challenged to question the nature, validity, or origin of gender stereotypes, or to examine how such stereotypes can affect communication within friendships or sexual relationships.

WHAT ARE WE REALLY TEACHING OUR YOUNG PEOPLE?

As I read fear-based abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula, I always end up trying to imagine the fifteen-year-old version of myself sitting through a class in which I was told that by nature I had weaker math skills than my male peers or that any sexual desire I felt was artificially imposed on me by society. Would I have reveled in my self-proclaimed role as gender-equity police and challenged the teacher to prove these claims? Would I have sat there quietly telling myself that it was unfair and untrue? Or would I have taken it as fact, believing it to be the word of men and women who had lived longer and knew more?

Thankfully, I will never be fifteen again and will never know how these gender biases would have impacted me, but I am all-too aware that many of today's fifteen-year-olds are sitting through classes like these and that we have a responsibility to determine how they are being affected.

This was the impetus for this edition of the SIECUS Report. We wanted to look closely at the messages (both implicit and explicit) that young people are learning about gender and explore ways that schools and health promotion programs could begin to do a better job. I am very excited about the articles we have included as each looks at a different angle of this complicated topic.

IN THIS ISSUE

Susan Hamson looks at how popular self-help books like Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus simultaneously validated the assumption that men and women would behave differently and provided an excuse for bad behavior and a lack of communication between genders. To inspire her article, Hamson wandered around WalMart to see how early and often society tells young people that "gee, men and women sure are different."

We have also included an excerpt from the book Fast Girls: Teenage Tribes and the Myth of the Slut by Emily White. White interviewed hundreds of women across the country who were all labeled "the high school slut." Weaving their stories with current observations from a suburban Seattle high school, White theorizes about what we might be teaching young people that makes them both fear and revere and, more importantly, create this almost mythical character.

In an effort to help readers find ways to improve teachings about gender, we have included articles from the Population Council, Margaret Sanger Center International, and the Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy at the University of California, San Francisco.

The Population Council's article describes a new project they are undertaking to address the question of how sexuality education might look if a gender perspective were incorporated more fully into the design of the curricula. The project includes creating a content analysis tool, reviewing existing curricula, examining evaluation approaches, and hosting a series of learning circles.

Marissa Billowitz and Surabhi Kukke of the Margaret Sanger Center International explain in their article how sexual and reproductive health outcomes are impacted by gender. They then examine how health promotion programs can be gender negative, gender neutral, gender sensitive, or gender equity promoting. Ultimately, they provide suggestions for reaching the high standard of gender equity promotion and examples of programs around the world that have done so.

In addition, Hector Sanchez-Flores of the Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy provides us with an important, and often overlooked, perspective on this topic by examining the mixed messages young men receive about masculinity as well sharing successful strategies for helping them navigate their gender roles.

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, everybody learns about gender--and incorporates what they have learned--in different ways. For example, while I remain convinced that my mother's anti-Barbie sentiments were justified and hope to also run a Barbie-free household, my sister bought her daughter's first Barbie while my niece was still in utero.

It is vitally important, however, that young people and adults alike are able to view the world through a gender-equity lens--to examine those ideas and practices in their communities related to gender that might impact the feelings, behaviors, opportunities, and wellness of those around them. This ability to critically analyze implicit and explicit gender messages is a crucial first step toward gender equity in both education and society.

References:

1. M. Gallagher Duran, Reasonable Reasons to Wait: The Keys To Character (Chantilly, VA: A Choice in Education, 2002-2003), Teacher's Manual, p. 6.

2. WAIT (Why Am I Tempted) Training, (Longmont, CO: Friends First, 1996), Workshop Manual, pp. 39-40.

3. Ibid, p. 39.

4. C. Mast, Sex Respect, The Option of True Sexual Freedom, (Bradley, IL: Respect, Inc., 2001), Student Workbook p. 11.

5. R. Fuller, J. McLaughlin, and A. Asato, Family Accountability Communicating Teen Sexuality (FACTS): FACTS and Reasons: Senior High Curriculum (Portland, OR: Northwest Family Services, 2000), Student Handbook, p. 12.

6. Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 11.

7. Ibid, p. 12.

8. Reasonable Reasons to Wait, Student Workbook, p. 96.

9. A. Badgley and C. Musselman, Heritage Keepers: Raising the Standard, (Charleston, SC: Heritage Community Services, 1999), Student Manual, p. 107.

10. Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 10.

11. Reasonable Reasons to Wait, Student Workbook, p. 96.

12. Sex Respect, Teacher Manual, p. 131.

13. Art of Loving Well: A Character Education Curriculum for Today's Teenager, (Boston, MA: The Loving Well Project, Boston University School of Education, 1993), Teacher's Guide, p. 31.

14. Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 80.

Martha E. Kempner, M.A.