Initial Summary:
"Children having Children": Race, Innocence, and Sexuality Education.
Young girls who are viewed as "innocents who need guidance and could not be held responsible for their missteps," are put under the rhetoric of "children having children." Jessica Fields explores how the oratory of "children having children," or "babies making babies," has exploited the idea of low-income and African American women are sexually imprudent. This specified notion of "children having children," also fails to include concern for young male sexual activity. Fields writes that African American boys become criminals, inmates, or members of an "endangered species." Young African American females are especially effected by this rhetoric. Dorothy Roberts, author of "Killing the Black Body," said "The powerful western image of childhood innocence does not seem to benefit Black children. Black children are born guilty." The idea of sexual irredeemable innocence in the youth has a local-racialized history in the United States. Purity and innocence is routinely linked to whiteness, African Americans are "generally excluded from the privileging and protective invocation of innocence." Consequently for all young girls living in North Carolina, strict laws support the argument of "children having children." North Carolina does not allow insurance carriers to cover the cost of contraceptives and the abortion laws are more restrictive. They deny funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger. The rhetoric of "children having children," is racialized and gendered, this is seen through abstinence-plus advocates, who promote abstinence only programs to be embedded into the education system. This rhetoric also highlights the sexual injustices of girls and women, and especially young African American women. In conclusion, Fields challenges this rhetoric by stating, "My efforts to problematize the rhetoric of "children having children" also have roots in symbolic interactionism, I approach the social problems of teen pregnancies and sexual activity as 'concerns, rather than conditions'."
I find the way that this particular county in North Carolina focuses on criminalizing African American boys and sexualizing African American girls in their legislation very interesting, and disturbing. The effect this has on their policy-making, especially regarding abstinence-only sex education is slight hyperbolic considering that the interest of both sides is to preserve the innocence of the children. They worry so much about protecting the innocence of the white children and they sexualize the African American children simultaneously. How can you make a policy that protects the innocence of the children if you prescribe a large group of them to hyper-sexuality and criminalization. This doesn't seem effective.
I agree. I also dont understand the need to racialize the two sides of the sexual education argument. Its most importantly about the sexual education needed in schools doesnt matter if you are black or white. Trying to formulate a sexual education system base on two seperate racial sides seems to be taking away from the idea to just educate and help solve sexual problems our youth faces no matter black, white, poor, or rich.
Yes, I agree with your comments, but not only is this rhetoric racialized, gendered, but it is also sexualized. The article high lights that young female black bodies are highly sexualized. So, this raised the question for me, where does this fit into the rhetoric "children having children" and abstinence only programs. The way school officials were quoted in the article, it gave off a very "let's save the innocence of God's children, and the 'unmanageable' young African American girls slip through the cracks. Also, after watching that documentary in class, what do you guys think about government/federal funding for abstinence only programs? What if there was funding for a different kind of programing, would a significant amount of schools convert to that program instead? And lastly, where do we draw the line between church and school?!
I agree with what everybody is saying, it is true that the school board did not focus on those with the problem. And also on what trento029 said about the government/Federal funding for abstinence only programs. If there were different kind of government funding programs,the school will convert to that program instead. Schools can only use what is given to them, if the government give them money for different kinds of programs they cannot use the money for something else for they will get in trouble.