Parents and Sex Talks

According to multiple studies, it would seem that parents aren't talking with their children about sex early or extensively enough. Most parents have trouble broaching the subject at all, and can develop defense mechanisms to avoid discussing the subject at all. For example, willful naivete tends to delay the sex talk to a time far beyond when it is optimal, which is prior to an adolescent's first sexual contact.

There are also social functions that can interfere with covering the subject effectively or discussing it at all. Sex is treated as such a taboo topic in most of society that it is considered inappropriate to discuss with younger people at all, in some cases. There is also a prevailing belief that young people either don't wish to speak about sex at all, or would engage in the behavior irrespective of whether or not parents spoke with them on the subject. Both reason and statistics suggest that such assumptions are false. It assumes that adolescents are not insecure and growth-oriented while substituting assumptions that they are with the assumption that they are unreasonable and irrational. While there is perhaps a case to be made for those last two characterizations, for the most part adolescents are interested in learning about subjects that affect them, and though they do wish to be independent in their decisions, that does not mean that they will not consider input from their parents. Therefore, if a parent wishes to do what is best for their child, the best course of action is to strive to overcome the initial awkwardness of discussing the topic, and do their part to educate their children before they're forced to learn in a less than desirable way.

One major problem with this issue socially is that some families can become so blinded by their ideology that they make no contingency for reducing negative consequences if they do not achieve the desired outcome. Abstinence only education in particular is guilty of this. Such education is anything but practical, as it focuses so much on preventing intercourse entirely that it fails to make a contingency in the event intercourse occurs. Without any education regarding the safest way to have intercourse, such education makes a dangerous gamble that does not even try to minimize damage in the event that it doesn't prevent intercourse. This type of education is completely irresponsible, and fails to recognize that having a backup plan if premarital intercourse occurs is not the same as morally legitimizing the intercourse itself.

Mohammad Sohail

Recently in the news, there was a report of how a store owner in Long Island changed the life of a would-be robber. As he was closing his store, Mohammad Sohail, a Muslim from Pakistan, found himself face to face with a man holding a baseball bat, demanding money. Sohail immediately drew a rifle and pointed it at the robber's face. Though the rifle was not loaded, the robber was unaware of this fact, and immediately dropped his bat and broke down, sobbing. He explained his plight to Sohail, that his family was starving and he had no job. After Sohail made the man swear an oath to never rob anyone again, the man then decided he wished to convert to Islam, and was given a Muslim name by Sohail. After giving the man $40 and a loaf of bread, he departed before Sohail was able to give him a gallon of milk for his family.

I recently lent my car out to a brother in my fraternity so he could be a sober driver, and while he was doing so, he and four other fraternity brothers were robbed at gunpoint. After taking the wallets, cell phones, and other valuables of my brothers, the robbers fired a single shot at my front driver's side tire, hitting the rim and narrowly missing the tire itself before they quickly fled. Naturally, when I found out about the incident the next day I was furious that not only had my brothers been robbed and put in such danger, but the perpetrators also made an attempt to do serious damage to my property. However, after reading this story, I'm reminded that such people do such things out of desperation and fear. Upon closer reflection, I can't feel angry at them as much as I feel pity for them. Pity that they have become so desperate to survive that they would rob another at gunpoint, rather than struggle to make an honest living. Nobody should have to live in such destitution that the only recourse that they feel that they have is to engage in acts that they know are wrong, and that ultimately damage themselves more than it does others.

This story also serves as a lesson in how an everyday Muslim immigrant behaves in America. These are not the bloodthirsty zealots that so often characterize our perception of the Muslim world. These are people of a wide range of personalities that are just as diverse as the members of any other religion. There are those who are militant, certainly, but there are also those who are meek, pacifist, indifferent, or simply trying to provide for their families. This presents a reminder that people of the Muslim faith are just as capable of compassion as anyone else, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. I have great admiration for Sohail's compassion, and am glad that he has set such a good example of how we should treat fellow humans, even those who would wish to harm or exploit us.

Iran and Human Rights

Today is the Iranian holiday of Students Day, a day to commemorate three students killed by the Shah 56 years ago. It has always held special significance to both the Iranian people and regime, who have traditionally used the day to extol the virtues of the revolution that took place to depose the Shah. However, this year the only people measuring up to the principles of that revolution are the students themselves. Iranian security forces clashed with protesters earlier today as the still strong opposition to the outcome of last June's election protested the government and its policies. The imagery of this occasion cannot be overlooked. An increasingly repressive regime is attempting to silence dissenting views through violent means, while the opposition's influence continues to grow, it's members finding strength in the phrase "God is great." In essence, the theocracy of Iran has become that which its leaders sought to end.

This tragedy of good intentions giving way to authoritarianism cannot be fairly examined without looking at the role of women and gender in society. For all of its attempts to secure a democracy, women in Iran occupy the same social role that they have in all Islamic Caliphates--forced to wear the hijab, disallowed from speaking in public, and treated as property. With such a system of control over one demographic, repression inevitably spreads to others. A devaluation of any group of people risks the eventual devaluation of all people. Even if the theocracy is eventually overthrown, and a more democratic regime is installed, this sort of oppression will be predestined to occur again without a redefinition of the role of gender in society. Humanism is the philosophy that is required for any democracy to survive, and without a radical restructuring of the role of gender in society, repression by the state will always be just around the corner.

The Dying Underclass

In Part 9 of our readings, the section starts out with a passage written by a native woman to an unspecified patronizing individual. This passage attempts to use plain language to dispel the stereotypes often associated with being of native ancestry. She tries to make it clear that she will not give lofty spiritual advice, nor will she show any of the customs that are often expected of natives. She wants only to be left alone and unmolested by the outsider, and refuses to share anything but her contempt for how she is being treated.

This stands in stark contrast from what our culture traditionally assumes about natives--about their naivete towards outsiders and willingness to share ancient wisdom and lore with anyone who asks. Instead of the friendly savage that is so often portrayed in media we see a cynical, indifferent woman whose people have been oppressed since they day they were first encountered by Europeans, who have written and signed countless treaties only to see every one of them broken, and who have seen their domain which once spanned North America reduced to a few hundred square miles. Even in my own home, I can remember our personification of "Indians" as whooping savages with feathers in their headgear who were masters of the bow and lived in tepees Never mind that, for even the tribes that once lived a comparable lifestyle, much of this culture has by now been lost, and the true station of the native today tends to be on a reservation,[slum] a dependent of the state, with a long history of poverty, illiteracy, and substance abuse. Her cynicism and apathy can only be expected in light of these facts, and the pretense of the outsider is evident from the perspective of a native. For someone who even today, after 500 years of oppression, is implicitly viewed as less than human, her response is perhaps too gracious.

Recently President Obama addressed all native tribes about making them more involved in the political process and decision making. Though this is certainly high minded, it is perhaps too little too late. The time for such actions was clearly 200, 100, or even just 50 years ago. If there is one group in America that remains almost as hopeless today as it has ever been, it is the Native Americans. Whenever there was a need for "progress" and the natives stood in the way, American interests inevitably trumped any sense of humanity or duty towards previously made agreements. Be it displacing thousands for gold, killing buffalo for railroads, or, today, destroying sacred sites for oil, without exception the land, livelihood and history of Native Americans has been viewed as nothing more than one more obstacle to the needs of the average American. Casinos and reservations are not even a pittance for the loss of homeland, sacred sites, and cultural heritage. Be it the driving of natives from the southeast by Andrew Jackson, or, more recently, Al Gore's liscensing of the destruction of ancient sites sacred to the Kitanemuk tribe, American policy has always treated Native Americans as "in the way." Perhaps if he follows through where so many other American leaders have failed by affording Native Americans the dignity they deserve, he will have staked out at least a little change we can all believe in.

Students as agents of change

In our latest set of readings, the article that caught my attention was titled "My Age Has no Impact on How Much I Care." This article brought up the lack of respect and attention afforded to young activists and the effect that they can have on change. There are times that I feel that the causes that my generation supports, or even my generation itself, is treated as secondary, insignificant, or inherently illogical. As a former member of the Student Government Association, I felt that while many people showed respect to the opinions of its members, many others simply brushed us aside to confer with 'the adults' or 'the professionals' regarding this subject, even when such people often misrepresented us or failed to at all.

I feel that it's fallacious and a grevious misuse of civic resources to treat youths as non-participants in public debate. By age 9, I had already written a Letter to the Editor, something that many people do not do for their entire lives. When I was 17 I completed an Eagle Scout project that built a Rain Garden--an apparatus that naturally mitigates the effects of stormwater runoff, and the first of its kind in the Lexington area and a model used by the local urban-county government as an example in seminars on the subject. By the time I was out of high school, I had written my congressman, senators, and the president about the genocide in Darfur--again, something that many people simply don't do. By the end of my freshman year of college, I had appeared in televised news for a speech I delivered in Frankfort about the impact of scarce state funding of universities; in addition to that, I spoke to every state legislator of whose district I was a part(in addition to several others) about this issue in person--how many citizens even know the names of their state representatives?

It is very easy for a student to be brushed aside in a society that equates age as the only indicator of credibility on a subject. Some never even consider the fact that a student might understand where the money their school doesn't get goes, that a student is just as capable of influencing their fellow citizens, or that their youth makes students hold the largest stake in what is done in society. A line from an old Native American Song eloquently illustrates this point, "We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." In light of that, alone, shouldn't our opinions on issues that have long lasting effects mean something?

The Evolution of Sexuality

In our latest set of readings, the topic covered was sexuality. In them, I found the article "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" perhaps the most thought-provoking. The article underscores one of the critical fallacies of the social sciences: that certain behavior is "normal," that other behavior is "abnormal," and that anyone guilty of the latter must be reconditioned to the former. Irrespective of biology, irrespective of personal feelings towards one's "condition," irrespective even of the overall impact on one's quality of life, all too often the mission of the social scientist is to attempt to establish or engineer a standard of normalcy when it is either fallacious or non-existent. Even in the face of logically irrefutable evidence, some of the most logical minds in a discipline are still inclined to reject anything that is contrary to what they've been conditioned to believe. This is perhaps rooted in the logical fallacy known as the self-serving bias, the unspoken statement made by many professionals is, "it's not that my idea is wrong, it's just I can't find any of the right evidence."

These beliefs are so engrained in our society that it's perhaps to be expected that even people who make their living off of objectivity and scientific thinking are impeded by it. Indeed, social science in our society doesn't merely reflect certain fallacious assumptions about sex and life in general, it actually helps perpetuate it! That a man such as Freud, whose approach to psychology revolutionized the way people look at the human mind, found much of his research on sexuality reduced to pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo is indicative of this.

It is unfortunate that the social scientific community is so blatantly ostracizing clear evidence of its own historical and contemporary inconsistencies with biology, but there is also a good deal of hope in this regard. That we are examining this part of our social fabric at all, which is nearly 3 millenia old, shows an important first step in addressing our own unscientific assumptions about reality and what we are as a species.

Institutionalized Barbarism

In our most recent set of assigned reading articles, one in particular struck me at what has been a raw nerve for some time now: Abu Ghraib and the use of torture by America in the War on Terror. I began seriously studying this issue earlier this year, and was horrified by what I discovered. In addition, I read "How to Break a Terrorist" written by Matthew Alexander, a senior interrogator who performed interrogations in the fallout following the Abu Ghraib scandal, when there was still intense debate within the military. This book opened my eyes to the nature of interrogations, and to the implications of different approaches. The 'old school' of interrogation involves control and domination of the detainee, whereas the methods being tested by Alexander and his colleagues are based on rapport and trust. The efficacy of the latter method over the former is made obvious in this book, as it alone brings about the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, then-leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and an earth-shattering blow to sectarian violence in the region.

The recognition of these facts alone makes their end results all too predictable. In Alexander's methods, we see a tendency to respect the culture and human dignity of one's captives in order to receive a reliable flow of useful information. In spite of what this approach's critics say, it is by no means a 'soft' approach to interrogation; it forces detainees to fully consider the implications their noncooperation will have for both themselves and their families. This approach should be demanded, if not expected, of any society that would call itself rational, humanistic, and just.

In the Abu Ghraib methods, however, we see a swift departure from anything rational or just. Emphasizing dominance and control as the cornerstones of interrogation puts the process on the same level as rape. Dehumanization, exerting dominance and force, selfish exploitation of another; can we really examine dominance and control in interrogation without drawing harrowing parallels to rape? Under those methods, devout muslims experienced belittlement of their religion, attempted conversions, forced violations of their religious doctrine, and countless other offenses. The fact that this is all done under force and threats of violence makes such interrogation and a rape attack different only in the venue of the assault.

Upon closer examination of this course and such treatment of detainees, it's clear that in our society it is not merely gender that is a factor in oppression. The circumstances that lead to dehumanization need not be merely sexual in nature; in our society, it seems we are all too willing to dehumanize people to attain what we desire, the only distinction that gender and religion have is that people like to use them as their excuse to take part in doing so.