Monthly Archives: June 2011

Sex in Class

Leave a reply

Last week, Arlene Tessitoire, a mother from Massachusetts, was up in arms over a survey that was given to her two daughters in middle school.  The topic? Sex.

According to Tessistoire and her daughters, the two teenagers were forced to take a survey that questioned birth control and condom use, oral sex and number of sexual partners.  This Youth Risk Behavior Study required a consent form in order for the student to participate in the survey.  But not the kind of permission slip we are used to hearing about…

The principal of the school told the New York Daily News that the school “operates on ‘passive consent’ where students take notes hom for parents to sign.  If the school does not hear back, then consent is considered given”.  The principal admitted to distributing the survey and stated that it was indeed graphic but said they were required to administer the survey to fulfill a grant requirement.  He also stated that he takes no responsibility for the contents.

Arlene Tessitoire has filed a formal complaint with the Department of Education.  Her attorney is citing the Supreme Court Decision which upholds federal law that 1) parents have to GIVE written consent for any question to be asked of a student and that 2) parents have the right to determine moral and spiritual upbringing of their children.

This brings me to my many questions:

  • If the principal isn’t going to take responsibility for the inappropriate administration of the survey, who is?
  • Where do we draw the line of what is acceptable to ask a child without consent and what is not and why aren’t more parents disturbed by this?
  • Why are we in a time of ‘passive consent’ where schools are deciding that a lack of response means consent?

Have you noticed that there is no ‘passive consent’ when it comes to field trips or class experiments? If a child forgets to give his/her parent a permission slip to go to an amusement park, the consent is not assumed and the child is left behind for the day. Why are the circumstances any different with lessons?

The reality of it is that it has nothing to do with whether or not kids/teens are experimenting sexually and has everything to do with parental consent and the consistent denial of parental involvement in regards to what’s being taught in schools.

Undocumented & in the Limelight

2 Replies

Earlier this week, Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist (and former senior contributor to the Huffington Post, among other publications) revealed that he is undocumented.  He stated that when he was 12 years old, his mother sent him from the Philippines with the intention of joining him, but she never did.  Vargas told ABC News that he never knew he was undocumented until someone at a local DMV told him his green card was fake.  Vargas is now arguing that he graduated high school and college, created a career as a journalist, interviewed some of the country’s most influential people and lived the American Dream…so why should him being an illegal alien matter?

Well Jose, let me tell you. It is no more complicated that you stated: it’s illegal.  In his statement to ABC, Jose said that he did things he knew were “wrong and unlawful” and used a “21st century underground railroad of supporters, people who took an interested in my future and took risks for me”.  Vargas said he is ‘coming out now’ to fight for immigrant rights and passage of the DREAM Act. He concluded his interview with, ‘Call me what you want, but I am an American.’

Actually, Jose, you’re not.  You weren’t born on American soil, you didn’t come here legally and once you discovered you did not have a legal status, you still did not make an effort to go through the proper channels to obtain citizenship. 3 Strikes, and you’re out, buddy! Deportation is the only option.

I would like to know why he thinks he should be allowed to stay?

And not only should Jose be held criminally responsible, but so should the people who aided him, allowed him to use their address, obtain a false social security card, kept his secret.  What’s more, how did he pay for college? and to live when he was younger? Has he paid taxes all these years? If so, how? Sure, he was a minor when he arrived, and sure, he probably had it pretty tough. But he isn’t a minor anymore and he doesn’t have it tough now, so he knowingly broke the law, and now he needs to pay the price.  Just because you didn’t become victim to the system doesn’t transform your status from illegal to legal.  And what is even more frustrating is that he is using his public status to gain support to rally around him to make this a high-profile case and use the publicity to his advantage.

Who Isn’t Looking Past Color

2 Replies

Recently, there have been some companies who have taken serious heat in regards to their media advertisements. To me, it’s getting old. But I’d love to know what you think…

Last month, Naomi Campbell complained that a recent Cadbury advertisement was racist. She says they compared her (and her skin color) to chocolate. The ad said “Move Over Naomi, there’s a new Diva in town!”. [You can see the ad below]. Campbell said, “It’s just upsetting to be described as chocolate not just for me, but for all black women and black people”. Initially, Cadbury defended the ad, claiming they were referencing her ‘infamous diva attitude’ (which, let’s be honest, is quite well-known) and not her race. Ultimately, Cadbury removed the ad. Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) though, agreed with Cadbury, eventually stating that the ad ‘posed no real threat’ and was not racist.

Another company under fire is Dove. Critics and advocates for equal rights claim that it is offensive to have a black woman under the ‘before’ title and a white woman under the ‘after’ title. See the ad below.

SERIOUSLY?!? Do these critics REALLY think that a company like Dove would imply that you can scrub yourself white????? Please. People have also criticized that the black woman is heavier than the white woman, who is (still) the after. Yep. Dove wants you to scrub yourself white AND skinny.

This is comical. Dove is historically known for using women of all shapes, sizes, colors and ages. In fact- it wasn’t too long ago that they took the heat for using women who people deemed ‘not fit for modeling and advertisments’. (It’s true! People refer to them as the ‘fat brand’ and there are tons of articles out there criticizing the women and calling them disgusting.) To say that just because these women are standing next to each other some how means they are being compared to one another is simply absurd. Even worse? The attention this ad is getting. Google searches return websites with headlines like ‘Dove Turns Fat Black Woman into Thin White Woman’. GET REAL.

These companies to which we are referring are multi-million dollar companies with expansive product lines. Who are these people kidding? Do they honestly think that these corporations, in 2011, would risk publishing an outwardly racist advertisement?

Why are people looking so hard? By looking at this ad in a quick manner (which is what most do when browsing a magazine) I certainly would not take away that notion. People need to RELAX! Not everyone and everything is racist.

Baby No Gender & Why It’s Blue or Pink and not Gray.

1 Reply

It’s no longer new news.  By now, I’m sure most of you have heard about Baby Storm, the Canadian child born to parents David Stocker and Kathy Witterick who have chosen to keep the gender of Baby Storm a secret to all except their doctors and immediate family. They decided they would allow Storm to choose it’s own gender instead of giving in to the stereotypes of pink and blue, girl and boy.

I was surprised to see that when I googled “baby no gender” more results were generated than just those pertaining to Baby Storm.  Apparently, a Swedish family practiced the same notion in 2009 on Baby Pop.  Baby Pop had it’s gender concealed based on the idea that “was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction” (1).

This experiment completely contradicts the argument that homosexuality is “not a choice”.  While gender and sexual orientation are two very different things, people have made the argument that they feel they should have been born a male when they are actually a female, and vis versa.  These experiments make an utter mockery of the idea that people are born with inherent desires and inclinations.

Furthermore, this isn’t a choice.  The parents of Baby Storm stated that “parents make too many choice for their children” and it’s “obnoxious”.  Pardon me, but choosing a gender is not a choice.  God (or the universe, if you’re going to argue that route) gave us specific equipment to differentiate us from the opposite sex.  There is no changing that, it’s not up for debate, and it certainly isn’t something that can be chosen or determined later on in life. (Ya get what’cha get, and ya don’t pitch a fit!).

I also have to wonder at what point these parents thought it would be a good idea to experiment on their own child? And what happens when this child goes to day care or school? Are they going to ban preschool workers from changing diapers or helping with bathroom duties so as not to reveal the gender of Baby Storm? And who’s to say that a child won’t wonder what gender these children are “check” for themselves?  And at what point will they allow Baby Storm to outwardly be who he or she is going to be? I also have to wonder at what age will they demand this baby make a choice? Surely they cannot go through grade school without some sort of determination.

The bottom line: These parents are using this experiment to make a mockery out of both science and beliefs and its’ at the expense of exploiting their own child.

Sources:
1)Article on Baby Pop of Sweden http://www.thelocal.se/20232/20090623/
2) Article on Baby Storm of Canada http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-storm-raised-genderless-gender-dangerous-experiment-child/story?id=13693760

Town Hall Meetings & Why You Shouldn’t Go to Them

3 Replies

What do you think of when you hear the phrase “Town Hall Meeting”?? Democracy? Voicing your opinion? One-on-one time with your representative? Nope. Not me. I think…”Re-election”.

It may just be me, but I think that town hall meetings (here on forward referred to as THM) are becoming more and more popular, or maybe we’re just hearing about them more in a vile attempt on our representatives parts to reach us, the constituent, “the people”. It seems like everyone from Barack Obama to Rep. Gabby Giffords to our glorified city councilmen & women (a.k.a. State Senators) are hosting them.

Have you every been to one? Luckily, I have, so I can share my experience with you. As someone with an interest in North Fulton County, I attended a town hall meeting hosted by Senator John Albers. It was formally arranged with a venue, newsletter invitation and a decorous start time. I was greeted by about 5 other constituents and about 15 volunteers from the Albers campaign team (this I know because I was one of them). People were scattered around seats like a 3pm viewing of the new Fast & Furious movie. The Senator was then “introduced” (wait, I thought this was supposed to be some community get-together, not an event to honor a celebrity?) . He began talking to at the crowd few constituents that braved the event and there was a question and answer session to follow (brief, because whats to talk about?) Then we left.

Not much was accomplished, not much was established…just a little gloating on the part of a local politician. The same one that is “one of us” and “wants to hear from us”. I can say with confidence that 5 people don’t represent the greater population of Roswell. But BOY OH BOY would you think they did. Of course this event (yes, we went from THM to event) was highly publicized–with photos–and let me tell you, from the angle the photo was taken, you would have thought that house was PACKED!

That leads me to the why. Why do politicians host town hall meetings? They aren’t to sway an elected officials’ opinion on a topic. They may be for constituents to present ideas for officials to work on legislation for…but I’m not convinced. They may be an opportunity for constituents to complain about legislation that was passed during session (like, maybe about a bike law that was passed in such a vague fashion it makes you want to cringe because you know that a 5 year old could pick out the issues with the contents (or lack there of) of the bill) but the legislation is already passed, so there isn’t really much action that can be taken. That really only leaves one thing: re-election.

Town hall meetings aren’t about the people, they are about the politician. They are about looking like they are constantly out in the public, talking, mingling, etc. They are an image thing. It’s all about staying in the public eye. Thankfully, voters are wising up. Stepping up to the plate and doing their research and realizing that image isn’t everything and it’s more about what legislators can actually do for the community and its’ people.