By: Bekkah West, Social Work Major & WGEC Intern, Psychology Minor
Growing up, I did not understand the gravity of how symbols of hate could tangibly impact a person; how they justify violence, hostility, stigma, and prejudice. You can attribute that to my ignorance, privilege, the developing brain, social conditioning, the predominantly white, rural, and conservative area I grew up in. Whatever the root may be, what is important is that I do now (and have for some time) grasp how crucial it is to not just spout promises of inclusivity and diversity, but to do your best to prove it in action through various means, like through curating a culturally responsive physical environment or following through on committing to advocating for those who are marginalized—or at the very least, not putting them in harm’s way. I fear we as an institution are failing the LGBTQIA2S+ population we serve and our value of inclusive excellence by allowing private corporations such as Chick-fil-A to establish ground here and profit off our student body who may have to compromise their morals and/or sense of safety for an edible meal. It is not “just about chicken” and it is quite literally that deep; or perhaps only as deep as people feel comfortable exploring themselves, their values, and living them fully.
To give a little background for those who may not know, along with over a dozen employment discrimination filings between 1988 and 2007, Chick-fil-A has a long and extensive history opposing gay marriage, publicly denying the validity of the LGBTQIA2S+ community, and donating millions to various organizations set on endangering this population by denying them their human rights and legal protections. Such organizations include the American Family Association (AFA), the Family Research Council (FRC), Exodus International, the Salvation Army, and the Marriage & Family Foundation. The company attempts to conceal their heterosexist views and intentions through the veil of conservative, Christian principles. CEO, Dan Cathy incited protests in 2012 nationwide for encouraging the “biblical definition of the family unit.” It was not until around seven to eight years later that the bad press and pressure would fold Cathy, at least in part, with him officially announcing his discontinuation of donations to organizations with “political agendas.”
In all reality, Dan Cathy just stopped publicly donating to hateful organizations and instead created a private arm of Chick-fil-A, “WinShape”, where he donates to others such as the National Christian Charitable Foundation, who actively opposes the Equality Act, which could amend the current laws to protect LGBTQIA2S+ individuals from discrimination based on how they identify or what their sexual orientation may be. This was only discovered after financial reports were released, and Chick-fil-A and its affiliates appear to continue to dodge any real answers to questioning on these deceitful means of abating public disapproval. Without this as public of an issue as it once was, people may not know that they are still giving their money to a company that has every intention of investing in the devaluing and oppression of the LGBTQIA2S+ community. This is where you, like I once did in my teens, may be thinking to yourself that your individual contribution could not possibly make a difference in the grand scheme of things. This is also where I was, and you very well could be, perpetrating harm unintentionally, in complacency. Just as we see, at times, in our country’s voting process, or in action and lack of consistent progress toward any other pertinent social issue that does not typically impact the majority and/or one directly.
This shortfall in collective action by our campus community can mean Chick-fil-A’s presence on campus leaves some LGBTQIA2S+ students feeling rejected, unsafe, and/or at the very least, uncomfortable. This company is a national symbol of violent discrimination, conversion therapy, trauma, abandonment, and anti-LGBTQIA2S+ rhetoric. Their existence says to LGBTQIA2S+ community members that you are never fully protected or accepted here, in this world, even with offices set up specifically for your population on the exact same campus. It says, a chicken sandwich holds more weight to this institution than the rights and sentiments of the LGBTQIA2S+ students, staff, faculty, and allies on this campus. How can one feel comfortable expressing their true selves fully, with safety and dignity, on a campus that would proudly set such an establishment up—one that vehemently denies their right to exist and love as they please? To overlook this would go against much of what UMBC’s mission and vision is.
This discussion cannot be had without the acknowledgement that 1) there is no entirely ethical consumption under capitalism and 2) there are people of low-SES who may not have a choice between eating what is available and choosing something more ethical. It is a privilege to be able to consume ethically nowadays. That said, there are ways of minimizing harm that we should all try our best to accomplish. There are many different on- and off- campus options outside of Chick-fil-A, and many potential opportunities to partner with new companies, local and otherwise, of equal or lesser cost to the institution. Redirecting funds to finding other non-discriminatory options and the university upholding its statements on inclusion and social justice is possible, shown through many other college campus experiences across the country, and even here in Maryland, such as at St. Mary’s College. We should hold our partners to the same standards we hold ourselves and our community.
There are many ways we can come together as a community to resolve this issue, and I encourage fellow students at UMBC to think about and engage in these ways, if possible. Organizing a campus forum, where students, staff, faculty, dining services, and other administrators can make their voices heard would be valuable. Petitions could be started to collect signatures for the partnership to be discontinued. The Student Government Association could potentially get involved, structuring this in a way that is sound and getting people together in a concentrated effort. Educating each other on the dishonest and harmful background of Chick-fil-A is crucial, as well, even if it can be uncomfortable—your cisgender and heterosexual peers will never know what it is like to have to worry about being and/or feeling victimized in this way.
I am making a call for action not just as an advocate to the LGBTQIA2S+ community or because it is the right thing to do, but as an identifying member myself. We should follow in former Washington D.C. mayor Vincent C. Gray’s footsteps, letting Chick-fil-A know it is not welcome in our city, dubbing it “hate chicken.” Do not get me wrong, I do not think poorly of the students and staff who work hard every day to serve students food at Chick-fil-A here on campus, as they may just need the income, location, and a schedule that works for them. There are larger powers at play here who are more responsible for creating an inclusive and socially just environment for said people to work within. What I believe was part of my responsibility was to bring attention to this issue, firstly, and now to observe how my community will move with me from here. Similar attitudes have been shared with me on campus in the last year and a half I have been here, and I am grateful to have a platform to bring light to such concerns.
]]>The Dresher Center for the Humanities will once again host a writing group during the 2025 Winter Session. This would be a writing accountability group format where we come together and write.
The format is flexible, but the group would ideally work twice a week for 90 minutes in a hybrid format. The Dresher Center conference room (PAHB 216) could be available for those interested in writing together on campus. Additionally, lunch will be offered after one of the writing sessions.
This writing groups open to faculty, graduate students, and staff working on humanities-related projects.
-By Amy Taylor, Social Work/Music Major
Humans are wired for belonging. We crave connection, shared purpose, and safety within groups. But not every group that promises community delivers it. Some take that longing and twist it into control. It often happens slowly, without people inside the group noticing. Nobody is immune to these organizations because they prey on people who are going through any sort of life change or who feel alone. As a college student, being away from family and friends for the first time can make one vulnerable to groups that offer “instant community.” College is a time when many students are rebuilding their sense of belonging from scratch, which makes it both exciting and vulnerable terrain.
Born Into Control
I learned about community and control during my earliest years, primarily through what community was not. I was born into a family of eight kids, the third-born and oldest girl. For the first 20 years of my life, my parents raised my siblings and me in a high-control organization (HCO). I knew nothing about a healthy community because the HCO dictated where we went to church, what type of education we received or did not, what we wore, what we did with our time and money, and who we would associate with.
Identity and Expression
High-control organizations prescribe identities to their members, leaving little room for self-expression or discovery. As a child, I was forced to wear clothes I hated, such as long skirts (never pants) that swept the floor in length. My parents made sure that I was painfully modest, wearing baggy shirts that covered any indication that I was a woman, including my collarbone. At the large HCO conferences my family frequented, we had to wear white tops and long navy skirts. The message to me as a woman was clear: ‘cover up, sit down, shut up.’ I am thrilled to say that I overthrew their control, and today I enjoy putting outfits together that express who I am. I dress in vibrant colors and patterns, and even sport blue hair. These little things express my freedom as an individual; they bring me joy and, in a way, make up for lost time. I learned, through contrast, that true community embraces individual expression and differences. In a good community, you can be yourself, because conformity isn’t a value or a virtue.
Leadership and Power
In a healthy community, leadership styles are transparent, service-oriented, and accountable. High control organizations are authoritarian, hierarchical, and unquestionable. The leader of our HCO was not a musician, but he would put families on a pedestal if they were. They were treated with more respect and admiration than other members of the organization. Until they slipped up, of course, if one member of the family committed some faux pas, they were publicly shamed, shunned, and/or banished from the graces of the HCO. To this day, I don’t enjoy being placed on a pedestal for any reason, especially music. While I believe that music is a gift to be shared, I refuse to believe that I am ‘special’ because I’m a musician.
Information and Education
Access to information is, undeniably, a fundamental human right. In a healthy community, that right is expressed through open communication and transparency as well as access to all information. This was not my experience growing up in a high-control organization. All children were restricted to be “homeschooled” for all 12 grades and even beyond. I put the word homeschooled in quotation marks to avoid confusion. I did not receive a proper education.
My days were spent absorbing propaganda released by the high-control organization. This propaganda was designed to distort our thinking by twisting history, science, or any other “school” subject into wild and wrong teachings for us to assimilate into our lives. When I wasn’t busy poring over propaganda, I was taught to read, write, and perform simple arithmetic. That’s all. When it came time for me to learn algebra, I didn’t understand what the book was telling me, and I went to my mother and asked to be placed in tutoring. Her response aligned with the HCO’s teaching; she ripped the book out of my hands and said, “One day you are going to be a wife and a mother; you don’t need to learn algebra.” At the age of thirty, I enrolled in community college, received some tutoring, and crushed four semesters of algebra, a fact that still makes me proud today.
My mother’s censorship reached into what we read as well as what we watched. Each book that entered our house had to be approved by both my parents and the high-control organization. Once, I was given a Molly American Girl Doll book. My parents declared it evil and threw it out the day I got it. Most books I wanted to read got thrown out. We were, instead, encouraged to read about Christian martyrs, all of them coated with the subtextual suggestion that I would perhaps one day face the same fate. While I hope most parents would protect their young children from witnessing violence in movies, my parents were obsessed with it. I was banned from watching Disney movies (I saw my first one at the age of 21), but I was encouraged to watch Christians being burned at the stake (because that might be me one day). My earliest memory of films is watching a movie about Dutch nazi resistor Corrie ten Boom and her time in a concentration camp – incredibly violent, and totally inappropriate for a six-year-old. Instead of having access to age-appropriate material for learning and growing, I was being inundated with frightening messages about what my future would hold. Fear is the glue that holds high-control organizations together.
In a high-control organization, information is controlled, restricted, or distorted in some way. It might not look exactly like my story. Still, censorship and the fear of information are a dark road meant to keep people ingesting pre-selected information while discouraging critical thinking.
Freedom of Thought
Freedom of thought is essential to healthy communities; these communities encourage questioning, critical thinking, and dialogue. In a high-control organization, doubt, dissent, or independent thinking is discouraged and even punished. Thinking for myself was considered dangerous because groupthink was the only acceptable way to exist in the high-control organization. As a Christian, I was heavily shamed for asking questions and threatened with ostracism from my church and the HCO.
Leaving the Trap
That being said, my diaries were my place of refuge. I wrote endless questions in there, and I compared what I was experiencing in my family to other families or individuals I encountered. I felt safe writing in these diaries because no one ever read them. I was able to think critically about all my experiences, and even at the tender age of ten, I was aware that something in my little world wasn’t quite right.
Often, people ask me, “How did you get out?” The answer starts with those diaries and a kids’ radio program that depicted children who liked being near their parents (shocker) because their parents were kind to them. I was afraid of my parents. To me, these programs were a stark contrast to the way I was being raised, and I started journaling, ‘Do I deserve to be treated better?’ Eventually, I came to the conclusion that my parents were never going to care for, protect, or provide for me the way I needed. When two of my brothers planned to move out, I moved out with them.
Building True Community
The ramifications of leaving both the family and the high-control organization were daunting. I was threatened with excommunication, and while that was painful, it no longer felt like annihilation because I was ready to start creating a community of my own. Eventually, I learned through trial and error that the best communities are the ones you forge on your own, not pre-packaged ones that offer instant friendships, pre-made activities, and, eventually, a boatload of hidden rules and restrictions. Today my community is thriving. I have friends and family who are close to me; we stay in regular contact, and together we support each other through all of life’s ups and downs. I am open and friendly with many people, but I have a close circle of friends who are my ride-or-die. I’m thrilled that that circle of friends does not have a leader lording themselves over us. It feels good to be free.
What I’ve noticed about belonging and inclusion is that while high-control organizations accept people conditionally based on conformity and a twisted sense of loyalty, healthy communities base them on empathy, diversity, inclusion, and respect. Today, I get to choose the people in my circle. We laugh, cry, and grow together. There is no hierarchy, no hidden rules, no fear. Just connection. That’s what community should be.
Coming and Going
So if high-control organizations are so awful, why do people join? Answer? They don’t. No one wakes up one day and says, “I wanna join a cult” or “I want someone else to prescribe my identity” or “I want some leader to dictate everything I do.” People don’t willingly or naturally give up their freedoms. There are well-defined psychological, physical, emotional, and social manipulations that lure people into these organizations. In the beginning, it’s all very exciting because we think we’ve found our tribe. Only time reveals the trap: HCOs want to use you and discard you. When it comes to exits and boundaries, an HCO will leave you feeling discouraged, shamed, or punished. Sometimes, the threat of losing everyone in the group is a powerful manipulation to make you stay. However, healthy groups allow people to leave freely without stigma or threats.
What About You?
College is often a time of transition, self-discovery, and searching for belonging. You might meet groups that promise friendship, meaning, grandiose purpose, and “instant community,” but it’s important to pause and think critically. Healthy communities celebrate your individuality, encourage your questions, and let you come and go freely. High-control organizations, on the other hand, disguise control as care and conformity as commitment. Before giving away your trust, ask yourself: Can I be fully myself here? Can I speak up, disagree, or walk away without fear or shame? If the answer is no, then it’s not a tribe, it’s a trap. You deserve relationships and spaces where your freedom, curiosity, and identity are safe. True community doesn’t require you to shrink, it helps you grow. In the end, the difference between a tribe and a trap is freedom – the freedom to think, to question, to express, and to leave. True community doesn’t demand your loyalty; it earns your trust and your love.
If you are caught up in a high-control organization, remember there is hope, help, and resources on the other side. There are many people (including me) waiting to support and encourage you on your journey to find a healthy community. Leaving is hard; it’s easy to feel really alone, especially if your family or close friends stay in the HCO. But I’d encourage you to remember that your journey is just starting. The world is full of many people waiting to connect with you. Get some support, tell your story, and stay free.
Resources
International Cultic Studies Association https://www.icsahome.com/
Freedom of Mind Resource Center (founded by Steven Hassan, cult expert and former member of the Moonies)
The Open Minds Foundation
Focuses on education and awareness about undue influence, manipulation, and coercive control.
]]>***reposted from UMBC AI***
As part of the 2nd Annual HDR Machine Learning Challenge, UMBC's iHARP project, along with other NSF HDR Institutes, is hosting a kick-off virtual hackathon on December 18th (2 - 5 PM EST) that will take palce in Gathertown.
They invite students, researchers, and practitioners of ALL levels to join in. See flyer here. Interested students and faculty can register here to receive participant details. Teams/Groups are welcome!
UMBC's IHARP team looks forward to seeing you in Gathertown for the virtual hackathon on December 18.
The larger overall ML challenge will be open until January/February 2026, followed by an Award ceremony on April 8-9, 2026, at the FARR Workshop in Washington, D.C. Get more information here. Challenge Sponsors include NSF, NVIDIA, AWS, LAMBDA, and AMD. ]]>By: Margot Anthony, WGEC Student Staff Member and Social Work Student
Main theme: Letting yourself be vulnerable again in a relationship after gender-based harm.
Trauma from gender-based harm and healing from that trauma is a topic that is discussed a lot at the Women’s, Gender, and Equity Center (WGEC); we even have a weekly discussion group about it called “We Believe You.” It is through this group that I have been thinking about the healing process, and how in all of the books that I have read about healing from gender-based harm it is never discussed how to navigate beginning a new relationship and letting yourself be vulnerable again.
Since I had experienced my trauma, when I was 17 and 19, I had never been in a relationship after that. I am 23 years old now. The thought of letting myself become that vulnerable again was terrifying, and right now it still is. I had a decision to make, I could live in a world of fear and what if’s or I could take small steps into letting myself fully live my life again, on my own terms.
That’s what I decided to do. I began slowly. I was hanging out with some of my friends and we had the great idea to make an account for me on a dating app. Let’s just say there were some highs and many lows. It took me almost three years to even be comfortable with the idea of seeing if I wanted to go out on dates with people. It took me almost four years to actually go on a date with someone. It took 13 first dates going wrong in some way to find someone that seemed like they understood and respected boundaries.
After some self-care and some journaling I decided that it was time to try again, and that I would give this person a chance; and so far I am really glad that I did. The fear is still there, and will continue to be there for a long time, but he seems to understand that. He encourages me to assert my own boundaries and does not take silence as a yes. Will this last forever? I don’t know and right now that is okay for me. Through this I am learning that there are people who do understand that setting boundaries isn’t presenting a challenge or saying ask me again. There are people that will understand some of your boundaries and limits without you having to say anything and without you having to explain anything to them.
This was a difficult step for me to take because I was putting myself into a situation where I did not know what the outcome would be. I still don’t know what the outcome will be, and I’m beginning to realize that that is okay.
Healing and starting to trust people and be vulnerable again is not a linear process, there are ups and downs. I wish that I could say that there were concrete steps that I took to get to this point. I wish I could say that I’m not scared anymore, but that would be a complete lie. I’m still scared. That is something I don’t think will change. What I am learning is that fear does not have to control everything.
Making sure fear does not control your life and keep you from experiencing new things is easier said than done. Some steps that I take include:
Your journey is yours and yours alone. There is no specific timeline. Dating is hard and scary. One thing that I have learned is that while first dates are scary, the dates after can be even more nerve wracking. The important thing to remember is to make decisions that are good for you, and be willing to communicate your needs with people. The biggest thing that I have learned and that I will leave you all with is the fact that you do not have to be perfect to be in a relationship you just have to be trying.
]]>By: Ashwathi Menon, Bioinformatics & Public Health Major
When I first entered the world of neuroscience lab work, science seemed to be all about being objective: clean lines, sharp corners, and no emotion involved whatsoever. It all seemed to point to the notion that too much emotion clouds one’s vision; you didn’t want emotion near your microscope. But as I stood at my lab bench operating my RT-PCRs on rat hypothalamus samples, it hit me just how much emotion was already infused into everything we did. It takes patience to accurately pipette one perfect microliter of liquid. It takes collaboration to run repeated tests. It takes the knowledge and obligation to know your own scientific pursuits may one day impact an individual’s life; the entire point being care is not the opposite of science but its pulse instead.
This is not something one can read in books or lectures. It is something my grandmother taught me: my Achamma. She suffered from a stroke just over a year ago, and since then, I have been assisting my family with her care. Watching her relearn to move her arm or to pronounce a few words sparked my own interest in the same paths inside her mind because these paths looked just like what we discussed and viewed in class, but instead of graphs or PowerPoint presentations, they were hers.
In science, we’re expected to measure everything: voltage, pH levels, and reaction time. But there is no measuring the act of holding someone’s hand while they forget your name, or the strength required to continue to come back to them anyway. This is the kind of labor women have always done. Unacknowledged labor, uncounted labor, but vital labor nonetheless. It is this kind of labor, the kind of labor devalued by society as care, that fuels scientific progress itself. This is one thing feminism helped me recognize.
As someone who works in scientific research, I have been struck by how often science attempts to polarize emotion and intellect. You’re legitimate if you’re logical, but weak if you’re empathetic. But beyond just hurting women in science, this kind of false dichotomy also hurts science itself. The questions we ask in scientific research come from who we are. When more women, and especially women of color, enter science, we bring questions that have never before been asked.
One thing feminist theory often addresses is “ethics of care,” because care is not something to be scorned but rather something to do with moral and intellectual power. This is what I think of every time I go to lab work. This is what I do every time I label a vial of cells or give a presentation or stand up to talk about my findings: practice care for my field and help to transform it from something that once made me feel small to something that contains care.
When I first embarked on my research internship at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, I noticed that I was among the youngest individuals in the lab setting. And yes, I recall wondering whether my voice would really carry any weight or whether anyone would take me seriously at all. But every time I decided to speak out or share my thoughts on whether to use this or that approach, I realized that confidence didn’t lie in being loud but in being anchored to my values instead. And this is something feminism showed me before science did.
It is to walk a high wire between precision and patience, between brains and intuition, and between being strong and being soft. But it seems to me now that these things are no longer on one side or the other of any kind of divide. The most excellent scientific minds happen to approach things whole-brained or whole-hearted, asking “who” questions. Who is helped? Who is hurt? Who is not being allowed to participate in this conversation?
At times, I wonder what my Achamma would have thought if she were to witness me now in my lab setting, my gloved hands steady and strong around my work involving data and fluorescence. But she would smile and remark matter-of-factly, “You’re still taking care of people.” And she would be right because science is nothing but another expression of “caring for others” or our “world” around us.
Perhaps care itself is not what serves as a distraction from science but is rather what makes science human. Perhaps future generations of women pursuing science can forget having to choose between being kind and being smart because we have always been both.
]]>By Claudia Gerry, Social Work Major, Critical Sexuality Studies Minor
It was sixth grade, I was in health class, we were in the family life unit. All my classmates could not stop laughing. My teacher had enough of the shenanigans, she made us all stand up and scream, “PENIS” then, “VAGINA” then, “BOOBIES”. I did not understand why it was so funny. Growing up, my mom, a family practice doctor, would read me her medical textbooks to sleep. I was learning biological male anatomy to sleep. I learned how babies were made when I was 5, I simply asked my mom, and she told me, without innuendos, without slang terms, but with her medical textbook. I was always taught medically accurate sex education at home. This luxury is not given to everyone. In my middle school, there was no LGBTQIA+ representation built into our curriculum. Once again, I learned about it at home. I was raised to believe that sex is just a natural part of life, but I must also know how to have safe sex. Not everyone’s parents are as open as mine were, sex education is needed for the safety of everyone.
The Netherlands and America differ greatly in how they address teenage sexuality, which is very obvious when looking at statistics. American teens, in the industrialized world, have some of the highest rates of STDs. American teen girls are twice more likely to carry a pregnancy to term than they are to receive an abortion. This is most likely due to the stigma surrounding abortion in the US and the lack of factual education about it. Compared to American girls, Dutch girls are less likely to get pregnant and also more likely to have an abortion if pregnant. American teen girls are 4 times as likely to get pregnant, and twice as likely to have an abortion compared to their Dutch counterparts, even though their age of sexual initiation is similar. This is likely due to a lack of education on contraception methods in American schools and homes. Americans heavily stigmatize sexuality, especially for adolescents; they are less likely to educate their children about safe sex practices in the home. This is why sex education in schools is so important. Dutch youth birth rates are 8 times lower than American youth. Dutch abortion rates are two times lower than the American abortion rates. While the age of sexual initiation for Dutch teens got younger, their birth rate also steeply dropped between the 1970s-1996, it is one of the lowest in the world. Dutch Teens have much lower rates of pregnancy, birth, abortion, and HIV among youth than American teens.
The book “Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex” by Amy T. Schalet is about the comparison of attitudes of adolescent sexuality in the United States and the Netherlands. I read this book for my CSST 332 Sex and Society class. Schalet is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Schalet’s findings are based on interviews and knowledge about each country’s government and laws. She interviews 130 Dutch and American parents and adolescents (mostly 10th graders) between early 1990 and 2000 who are all similar in education level, religion, class and race, and asks them a series of questions. The main question asked is, as a parent, “would you allow your adolescent child to have a sleepover with the opposite [gender**]?”, or as an adolescent, “would your parent allow you to have a sleepover with the opposite [gender**].?” We find that the answers vary depending on the country, but why? The book explores and explains teenage sexuality in the United States and the Netherlands, mostly in relation to family.
In the Netherlands, teenage sexuality is seen as normal. Dutch culture normalizes sexuality through three cultural frames: normal sexuality, relationship based sexuality, and self regulated sexuality. Normal sexuality refers to the fact that sexuality can be talked about in an open, unproblematic, and matter of fact manner. Relationship based sexuality refers to the idea that sexual desire and sexual acts grow out of a teen’s feelings for and relationship with another person. Finally, Self-regulated sexuality refers to the belief that readiness for sex is a moment when emotional and physical desires are united, and sensible preventative measures are taken. Sex is talked about in the home like any other topic. There is also an emphasis on safe sex coming from social institutions as well, so Dutch teens are getting the same message from multiple sources. Independent individualism is the dominant cultural norm in the Netherlands. Schalet uses the examples of alcohol, adulthood, and authority when explaining types of individualism. In the Netherlands, alcohol is socially embedded, which leads to teens developing internal control. To be an adult, they need to be able to financially and emotionally self regulate, and authority means to reach mutual agreements. Dutch parents use a form of control over their children called control through connection. Dutch parents tend to use mutual agreements instead of American overt displays of power, making many Dutch adolescents agree to the restrictions placed on them. But, sometimes Dutch teens still feel like their parents are being too restrictive, so they will do things in stiekem (secret). The Dutch societal system has much more room for error compared to America, they have second chances to finish high school, easy access to abortion and emergency contraception, less risk of drunk driving due to the fact that they bike everywhere, and there are fewer legal sanctions surrounding alcohol and drugs. This extra room for error allows Dutch parents to not have to worry as much as their American peers if their children veer off the normalized course of life.
In the United States, teenage sexuality is dramatized. There are 3 frames that support the dramatization of teenage sexuality in the United States, Hormone-based sexuality, the battle between the sexes, and parent-regulated adolescent sexuality. Hormone-based sexuality, also referred to as raging hormones, refers to the idea that hormones are an overpowering force that teens cannot control, leaving parents to think there is a disjunction between the onset of hormones and the cognitive/emotional development needed to control them. The battle between the sexes refers to the fact that sex at adolescence is conceptualized as a battle with winners and losers, and costs and benefits. Lastly, parent-regulated adolescent sexuality refers to the fact that parents think it is their job to monitor and control their teen’s raging hormones because they cannot control themselves, they regulate whatever is in their control, for example, the not under my roof sentiment. American parents avoid the topic of sexuality in the home, leaving it to the school to teach, but the sex education legislation fails its students. Every state has different standards for sex education, some states do not even require the information being taught to be medically accurate. Some parents want to avoid the topic of sexuality in their children’s lives so much that they opt out of the school sex education provided. Adversarial individualism is the dominant cultural norm in the United States. In this form of individualism, teens need external control in relation to alcohol, to be an adult they need to be financially and emotionally self-sufficient, and authority means to win the important battles and let go of the small things. American parents use a form of control over their children called connection through control. American adolescents try to maintain a good kid image for their parents, yet they break the stricter rules to create separation between themselves and their families.
Overall, through reading this book, I learned that the American view of teenage sexuality is not the norm for the rest of the world, specifically the Netherlands. I think the main ideas of the book are things all parents should know. We see that Dutch unintended pregnancy and STI rates are lower than their US counterparts, and that the Dutch tend to get married and stay married instead of getting multiple divorces like many Americans. I believe that parents should try their best to use the parenting style the Dutch use. Not only for a closer family dynamic, but for the safety and success of their children.
I always knew that I was raised differently than my peers, but just because I was educated in this way doesn’t mean that the culture I live in had no effect on me. I was raised to ask questions and be open about sexuality, but around the age of 12, I began to keep things secret from my family and close myself off. Even though I was raised similarly to Dutch youth, I still act similarly to my American peers. This shows how important culture is. My parents raised me to be open, but I closed myself off because that was what everyone else my age was doing and was what I would see on TV. I experienced sexual trauma when I was a tween and went through it alone because that’s what my culture made me think was normal. My sex education in school did not emphasize enthusiastic consent and did not give us resources for help. Sex education is now one of my passions. I think every person should know their bodies and understand consent completely. I believe that if we as a society can open up about the human experience of sexuality, people would feel safer talking about their stories, have better sexual experiences, and overall be happier.
**This book was really eye-opening, but my main critique is the use of gendered language and the disregard of nonbinary/gender-nonconforming individuals. I tried my best to use the most inclusive language possible, but that cannot make up for the lack of data given, most likely due to this work being published in 2011 and there not being much research done on that community.
Citation
Schalet, A. T. (2011). Not under my roof : parents, teens, and the culture of sex. University Of Chicago Press.
]]>