sometimes researching for my thesis is emotionally exhausting
actual quote from testimony from a doctor in support of abstinence-only textbooks in Texas in 2004:
"My colleagues would think I am foolish if I were to advise those who smoked to use a shield at the end of their cigarettes to limit their exposure to smoke. And my colleague would certainly think I was foolish if I counseled diabetics that ate too many carbohydrates in their diet to purge themselves after meals. What we all know in these circumstances is that sound reason tells us to encourage better behavior, such as not smoking and changing dietary habits. In the landscape of teenage sexual health, the only reasonable approach is abstinence-only. Offering condoms, contraceptives and other barrier methods in no way addresses the root of the problem, namely, teenage sexual activity and promiscuity."
i try to keep my objective hat on when i listen to this testimony; part of the goal of my thesis research is to examine, explain, and get to the deeper heart of discourses that i disagree with but dominate the educational scene, especially in texas. i honestly believe that people support abstinence education for what they believe are good, altruistic reasons, and that those same people genuinely think - and not entirely always without understandable reason - that "comprehensive" programs harm children. i genuinely want to understand fully why, and I think sometimes i make small breakthroughs in my own mind that expand my own opinions.
but that a doctor - a practicing *doctor* - would claim that advising a sexually active teen to use contraception is medically comparable to advising a diabetic to purge carbohydrates makes me sad and angry. it's hard for me to listen to willful misrepresentation of accepted medical facts (because, health-wise, a diabetic puking up doughnuts is not the same thing as a teenager using a condom and birth control); it's difficult for me to listen to the members of the Board of Education verbally applaud this doctor while i can hear notes of mistrust and even hostility in their voices in questions directed at doctors who support the other side.
i know i'm for the most part preaching to the choir, but this isn't about patting myself on the back because i have All The Answers. it's just hard to try to understand people who say things certainly out of the best of intentions that at first glance seem to me baffling and outrageous. but i guess that's all part of the challenge of my topic.
"My colleagues would think I am foolish if I were to advise those who smoked to use a shield at the end of their cigarettes to limit their exposure to smoke. And my colleague would certainly think I was foolish if I counseled diabetics that ate too many carbohydrates in their diet to purge themselves after meals. What we all know in these circumstances is that sound reason tells us to encourage better behavior, such as not smoking and changing dietary habits. In the landscape of teenage sexual health, the only reasonable approach is abstinence-only. Offering condoms, contraceptives and other barrier methods in no way addresses the root of the problem, namely, teenage sexual activity and promiscuity."
i try to keep my objective hat on when i listen to this testimony; part of the goal of my thesis research is to examine, explain, and get to the deeper heart of discourses that i disagree with but dominate the educational scene, especially in texas. i honestly believe that people support abstinence education for what they believe are good, altruistic reasons, and that those same people genuinely think - and not entirely always without understandable reason - that "comprehensive" programs harm children. i genuinely want to understand fully why, and I think sometimes i make small breakthroughs in my own mind that expand my own opinions.
but that a doctor - a practicing *doctor* - would claim that advising a sexually active teen to use contraception is medically comparable to advising a diabetic to purge carbohydrates makes me sad and angry. it's hard for me to listen to willful misrepresentation of accepted medical facts (because, health-wise, a diabetic puking up doughnuts is not the same thing as a teenager using a condom and birth control); it's difficult for me to listen to the members of the Board of Education verbally applaud this doctor while i can hear notes of mistrust and even hostility in their voices in questions directed at doctors who support the other side.
i know i'm for the most part preaching to the choir, but this isn't about patting myself on the back because i have All The Answers. it's just hard to try to understand people who say things certainly out of the best of intentions that at first glance seem to me baffling and outrageous. but i guess that's all part of the challenge of my topic.