Abstract
We contribute to the study of gender in the US federal policymaking process by charting the relationship between the gendered meanings mobilized in the congressional debate over abstinence-only sex education policy and the gendered meanings produced within the implemented curricula. We find that abstinence-only sex education programs were rationalized in gender neutral terms in Congress while celebrating gender difference and producing explicitly gendered meanings in implementation. This contradiction between the gender neutrality of the congressional debates and the highly gendered lessons of the curricula raises important questions for how gender functions across the policy process. The argument of “what works”, abstinence or comprehension, is not enough; we need to pay attention to how it works, especially with regard to the teaching of gender inequality.
Highlights
In addition to providing benefits and burdens, public policies produce meanings, yet in the study of the public policy process, the construction and mobilization of gendered meanings remain understudied [1] [2]
We seek to contribute to the study of gender in the US federal policymaking process by charting the relationship between the gendered meanings mobilized in the congressional debate over abstinence-only sex education policy and the gendered meanings produced within the implemented curricula
We analyze three of the most commonly used abstinence-only curricula implemented in public schools across the United States which were funded by the Community Based Abstinence Education program (CBAE) program: Choosing the Best Soul Mate, published by Choosing the BEST and targeted at grades 11 and 12; Me, My World, My Future, published by Teen-Aid with a target audience of low-income high school students; and WAIT (Why Am I Tempted), published by WAIT Training for junior high and high school students
Summary
In addition to providing benefits and burdens, public policies produce meanings, yet in the study of the public policy process, the construction and mobilization of gendered meanings remain understudied [1] [2]. When the Bush Administration increased federal funding for abstinence-only education to unprecedented levels, for the first time the federal government became highly involved in the funding of sex education, including the Community Based Abstinence Education program (CBAE), and debates began to play out on the floor of Congress We study this moment in time in order to understand how contested meanings about gender functioned in the initial policy adoption and implementation processes. During this time debates over sex education were largely-dichotomized between abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education proponents. We contribute to knowledge of sex education implementation on the local level by studying how federal-level sex education debates play out on the floor of Congress and how these debates compare to the content of the programs implemented through federal funding
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
