rivka | Everything you ever wanted to know about OWL training: Part 1.

Entry tags:

Everything you ever wanted to know about OWL training: Part 1.

(OWL training, the first 24 hours. In the second half I might just start summing up, because damn, a lot happened in 48 hours of training.)

The plan was that my fellow faciliators and I would meet at the church at 2:30 and drive up to the retreat center together. I worked from home until about 1:30, packed my suitcase, did a little housework, and got to the church at 2:29. And waited. And waited. At 2:45, the church administrator came down and told me that Adrian had called. He and Whitney (Who will be our alternate/substitute teacher) were running late, but they should be there by 3. At 3:30, Adrian finally showed up, followed closely by Whitney. I'm not sure this bodes well for our future enterprises.

So we piled into the car and drove up to the middle of nowhere. I guess that technically West Chester is a suburb of Philly, but we got there through a series of tiny villages, wooded rolling hills, and narrow, twisting country lanes. We got to Temenos just in time for dinner, dumped our bags in our rooms (which were like inexpensive but painstakingly-maintained rural motel rooms - two double beds and an enclosed bathroom, all very simple and non-luxurious), and joined our fellow students at three big tables for supper. There were fourteen students and two trainers, mostly from churches in Maryland and Pennsylvania. One woman was there from a Quaker private school - I thought that was interesting. Even though the course requires male and female co-teachers, 10 out of the 14 students were women. I guess that when churches have multiple facilitators trained, the extras tend to be women.

Friday was taken up with getting-to-know-you exercises, an explanation of the training structure, an overview of the OWL philosophy and program values, a small-group discussion of the feelings we associate with our childhood experiences of learning about sexuality, and an exercise in broadening our definition of sexuality.

According to the OWL philosophy, there are five "circles of sexuality" which together make up our experiences as sexual beings: Sensuality (awareness and enjoyment of the body, sexual response, sense pleasures), Intimacy (emotional closeness), Sexual Identity (sexual orientation, gender identity, gender role), Sexual Health and Reproduction (anatomy, physiology, contraception, STDs, etc.), and Sexualization (using sexuality to control or manipulate). "Normal" sex education typically includes only the Sexual Health and Reproduction component. OWL includes all five. The trainers put up big pieces of newsprint for each circle and had us rotate around the room in small groups, brainstorming everything we could think of that fit into each circle.

Finally, they divided us into four "peer facilitation" groups. Each group was assigned an exercise or lesson from the curriculum, which we were responsible for teaching on Sunday morning. Within our groups, we had to learn the exercise, prepare all the materials, assign teaching roles, practice (if necessary), and actually deliver the lesson to our fellow facilitators. We were told that when we were acting as "students," we should feel free to behave in developmentally appropriate ways.

They gave us some time to start planning. In my group, I was the only one who was even glancingly familiar with the curriculum. The two men in my group immediately started to make "joking" comments about me being overprepared. "You probably have a Ph.D.," one of them snarked. Perhaps unwisely, I said that I did. As I tried to get our group organized and up to speed, they continued to make undermining comments and jokes. I tried to ignore it, but got progressively more pissed off.

Finally, we all came back together and the trainers asked us to fill out a "reflection card" about our response to the training so far. I sat with my pen over my paper for a couple of minutes, trying to figure out what to say about how I was feeling. Then I heard one of the guys in my peer facilitation group say to the other, "Everyone's finished except Rebecca. Hers is going to be this big elaborate essay." I put my pen down and glared at him. "We're just joking," he said. "Please stop," I said without smiling. "You're making me very self-conscious." I picked up my response card, scrawled "Group dynamics can really be no fun," and handed it in.

After the group broke up, one of the guys said to me, "I'm sorry. I think this is coming out of a certain discomfort with being here, and the material." I told him, "It's not much fun to be put in a 'teacher's pet, know-it-all' role." We sort of nodded at each other and moved on, and that was the last trouble I had with either of them. But sheesh.

I played cards with Adrian and Whitney until midnight and went to sleep.

After breakfast we jumped right in with an exercise in identifying and expressing our value differences. The trainers labeled different points in the hallway as "Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree." They read out a value statement and asked us to move to the appropriate part of the hall. Then they asked various people to explain their position, starting with the minority end of the spectrum. I was impressed that they managed to find four issues for which there was a broad spectrum of opinion among UUs - at one point, the discussion actually got a bit heated.

We spent quite a bit of time Saturday morning talking about where teenagers are physically, cognitively, socially, and emotionally. Technically this was a dual training for OWL grades 7-9 and 10-12 (although all of us were planning to teach 7-9), so we talked about each age group. This was one of the most valuable parts of the training for me - not because I learned a lot of things I didn't already know, but because the collaborative discussion helped me build a good mental picture of the context for our class and our teaching. The trainers threw in a lot of useful anecdotes and advice about teaching sex education to this age group. The single most useful piece of advice: "You always have to address the agenda in the room, not just the agenda in the curriculum." In other words, you can't think of the course as a linear and orderly progression through the curriculum, because you need to address the issues the kids are concerned with right then.

We had some more time to work in our peer facilitation groups, and then lunch. We were given a reading assignment to complete during the lunch hour: a ten-page overview of sexual identity issues, including biological sex (including intersex), sexual orientation, and gender identity. Most of the material was well put-together, but there was one point that caught up both me and my co-teacher, Adrian: the statement that "drag" stands for "Dressed as a Girl," and that the equivalent female term is "drab, for "Dressed as a Boy."

"I never heard that," Adrian said. "That can't be the real derivation," I said. "It must be a back formation." "I have never heard anyone say 'Drab King," he said. "Hey: I was in a Drag King competition, and we spelled it with a G," I said. That seemed to settle it, but it had me wondering about the rest of the material. (Google agrees with us: 67 results for "drab king," and 280,000 for "drag king.")

We spent the hour after lunch discussing sexual orientation and gender identity issues. The trainers opened the floor for a brief general discussion of the reading assignment, and then distributed cards and asked people to write questions on them. Then they went through the pack of questions and answered them or put them up for discussion. That's a good technique to remember: in addition to allowing the safety of anonymity, it's also an efficient way of identifying the parts of a subject that people don't understand or are most interested in.

There was some discussion of fluidity vs. rigidity of sexual orientation. A few people were alarmed at the idea of fluid sexuality, because they had adopted what they thought was the "correct" position that sexual orientation is fixed at birth and cannot be changed. We spent some time on that. Several people had trouble wrapping their minds around gender identity issues, and particularly with the reading's suggestions for inclusiveness, and so we spent some time on that. Then the trainers read Adrian's question (okay, so much for anonymity) about whether and/or how facilitators' sexual orientation should by identified in class. This set off a mini firestorm. Everyone agreed that facilitators' sexual experiences ought to be completely off-limits in class discussion, but there was debate about whether orientation "counted" as inappropriate self-disclosure. I suggested that perhaps the married facilitators should avoid wearing wedding rings to class, and some people were horrified that I thought it was the same thing.

Our male trainer kept insisting that it was extremely unlikely that our students would have personal questions for us: "I've taught OWL since it began, and no one has ever asked me a personal question." (As Adrian pointed out later, this guy was 60 years old when he started teaching OWL. It completely fails to surprise me that kids didn't ask him about his sex life, because I bet they assumed he didn't have one. That doesn't mean they're going to be equally incurious about the private life of a facilitator who is in his 20s.)

The whole conversation got pretty frustrating. I think I assumed that all UUs - or at least most, or at least, most of those who would sign up to teach sex ed - were at the same general level of enlightenment on sexual minority issues. Nope. At one point in the discussion, Adrian said in frustration, "Look, my church probably has more gay people in it than all your churches put together..." Nods all around the room. "Our inner city churches are really in a unique position," one of the trainers said euphemistically.

That conversation took most of an hour. Then they cut us loose for a half-hour break, which I spent on the deck, basking in the sunlight and silence and reading the latest Wrede/Stevermeyer book.

To be continued...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Have I told you how much I envy your opportunity to both take the training and to teach the program?

The index cards are always one of my favorite techniques. The advantage that you didn't mention that I found sometimes was that when you're caught off guard by a question, it gives you a moment to contemplate it, to catch your breath and carefully measure your reaction.

(And now I'll go back to my parenting discussion on calling genitals by their correct names, and that even if your child makes up a song about it and sings it at school it's normal and a childcare provider has probably heard it before and knows how to deal with it.)

I'm really really appreciating your detailed comments on this - because I'm learning things about talking about other emotionally intimate topics (religion! woo!) in a class setting as a process. New ways, I mean, or new takes on issues.

If you needed encouragement for a similar level of detail for the remaining time, that is...

(My sex ed? Painfully brief in school settings, Mom having an uncomfortable discussion with me very early on, and a copy of "Our Bodies, Our Selves" left where I would find it. That last bit was by far the most useful one.)

My startlingly good sexual/health education teacher in middle school took the index card technique one step further. We were all required to write something on our cards. Even if it was just "I don't have any questions." He was very clear that this was to avoid anyone feeling singled out because they were writing.

Thanks for telling us about your adventure. It looks fascinating.

I admire your handling of the icky group dynamics.

There was some discussion of fluidity vs. rigidity of sexual orientation. A few people were alarmed at the idea of fluid sexuality, because they had adopted what they thought was the "correct" position that sexual orientation is fixed at birth and cannot be changed.

Sure. For most of the time I've been politically aware, that has been the most common reason activists give for gay rights--it's wrong to discriminate against people for something they can't change. I find the argument disturbing, because of what it implies about religious discrimination, but it's too big a part of the political background to ignore.

The whole conversation got pretty frustrating. I think I assumed that all UUs - or at least most, or at least, most of those who would sign up to teach sex ed - were at the same general level of enlightenment on sexual minority issues. Nope. At one point in the discussion, Adrian said in frustration, "Look, my church probably has more gay people in it than all your churches put together..." Nods all around the room. "Our inner city churches are really in a unique position," one of the trainers said euphemistically.

I'm sorry. I don't understand that euphemism. Can you unpack it a bit, when you have time?

I took it to mean, "All UU churches talk about valuing diversity, but inner city churches actually have diversity. So you're in a different position than these other folks."

For most of the time I've been politically aware, that has been the most common reason activists give for gay rights--it's wrong to discriminate against people for something they can't change. I find the argument disturbing, because of what it implies about religious discrimination, but it's too big a part of the political background to ignore.

Yes. One of the things we touched on in the discussion was the difference between "fluid" and "controllable." Just because something changes, that doesn't mean that the change was under voluntary control.

But I, too, am uncomfortable with the whole argument. I think activists often oversell the degree to which the causes of sexual orientation are even known, because they want so much to make the argument that people can't change. What I think they are overlooking is that the argument carries an unspoken corollary that, if a way to change were to be found, GLBT people would be obligated to take it.

As well as a really interesting unspoken--and I suspect seldom-noticed--corollary that religious discrimination should be acceptable, because people can and do choose to change their religion.

I've always thought about it in reverse: given that we all agree religious discrimination isn't acceptable, and people as you say, can and do choose to change their religion, discrimination in terms of gender/sexuality/race/culture is equally obviously unacceptable.

That is how I normally think about it, and the argument I tend to make. But anyone who argues that sexual orientation is a choice, so it shouldn't be a protected category opens themselves up to "so I should be allowed to discriminate against Baptists?"

I think we're in violent agreement.

The immutability rationale is also part of race & gender anti-discrimination law, where it is also problematic. I reviewed a book that talks about this, _Covering_ by Kenji Yoshino, this summer: http://kate-nepveu.livejournal.com/244599.html

I love the whole 5 circles thing, though I've never had any in-depth training on it - just a glancing look.

I have seen the term Drab King before (seen it written down, never heard it spoken aloud), but I think it was in a similar context, listed in a curriculum or something.

I love the whole 5 circles thing, though I've never had any in-depth training on it - just a glancing look.

I absolutely love it. And it really does change the whole context for what "comprehensive sex education" really means. Where do kids learn about sensuality and intimacy? From the media, I guess, if at all. And where do they learn about sexualization? Probably from being subjected to it.

Um. Ditch-delivered by a drabe. Yer.

That said, I was *enraged* reading the way those men were talking to you. Perhaps I have PMS.

Isn't there a photo of you barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, hanging up your PhD? or is that image only in my head?

I think I always meant to take that picture, but never did.

That said, I was *enraged* reading the way those men were talking to you.

Later I found out more about the context. One of them had just agreed to come a few days before the training, after what sounds like some significant pressure from his wife and from other people at his church who were desperate for a male co-teacher. When the training started on Friday, he wasn't 100% ready to commit to teaching the course. The other one, apparently he and his wife are pretty much the only adults under 35 who are members at their church, and so their congregation decided that they were a natural fit to teach sex ed despite the fact that they're both kind of conservative and uncomfortable with the material.

So on Friday night, both of them were feeling pretty uncomfortable and unprepared, and probably embarrassed. I can totally see how they wouldn't realize that it would bother me to be teased for being the opposite.

Both of them got over the discomfort and embarrassment as the training continued, and the guy who was on the fence about teaching decided he was ready to commit to it. I actually think he'll be a great teacher.

Well, that's a relief - it would have been horrible to go through such an intimate training weekend with people who, um, were really like that. If you see what I mean.

*Mandatory* vaccination?

When it comes to vaccination, "mandatory" has a specific and not entirely obvious meaning in the United States. Every state has procedures by which parents can choose to opt out of the mandatory vaccination schedule, usually by specifying that they have religious or philosophical objections to the practice.

So "mandatory" doesn't mean that everyone is forced to get the vaccine. It means, instead, that everyone who is indifferent or shiftless or haphazard or uneducated or simply not prioritizing preventive medicine is required to get the vaccine. And more importantly, insurance companies and governments are required to pay for mandatory vaccines - but not optional ones.

Here's my old Respectful of Otters post (http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html#115014348839784276#115014348839784276) about mandatory HPV vaccine.

I'm curious what the four issues that elicited disagreement were?

And what went under the "Sexualization" circle?

(I'm facing teaching "Human Sexuality" to the MA counseling students in a TEN HOUR CLASS in mid-December. I have NO idea how I'm meant to go about this, but it's what the California license requires...)

I'm curious what the four issues that elicited disagreement were?

1. It should be mandatory for nine-year-old girls to receive the HPV vaccine.
2. Middle schools should be prepared to distribute birth control to students.
3. It is wrong for a 21-year-old to have a sexual relationship with someone under the age of 18.
4. I forget how exactly it was phrased, but it was something about sex in casual relationships being wrong or inappropriate.

And what went under the "Sexualization" circle?

In the official curriculum: "Sexualization is using sex or sexuality to influence, manipulate, or control other people. These various forms of exploitation range from harmless manipulation to extreme violence." They give as examples flirting when the intent is to manipulate or control, seduction/sexual pressure, refusing sex as a negotiating tool, sexual harrassment, sexual abuse, and rape. When we brainstormed words to fill the circle, people also brought up things like using sex in advertising, sexy clothes (they make thong underwear for seven-year-olds now), pornography, objectification, etc.

I don't like that all the Sexualization stuff is negative, while the other circles have good and bad aspects. Was that mismatch addressed at all?

You are awesome for standing up to those people giving you shit about being too nerdy. That may be the first time anyone's responded by demanding their respect.

(Also: "drag" is not in the OE Etymology book I have. I've heard the "drab" business but don't really buy it. Wikipedia calls it "a folk etymology whose acronym basis reveals the late 20th-century bias.")

I don't like that all the Sexualization stuff is negative, while the other circles have good and bad aspects. Was that mismatch addressed at all?

I'd be interested in hearing more about why it bothers you. Is it because you think there are positive aspects to sexualization, or because you don't like the idea of one of the components of sexuality being entirely negative (or at least, having negative components throughout)? Or something else?

I think that coercive/manipulative/exploitative aspects of sex are just a reality in our culture, and probably in all cultures. Even if we avoid overt sexual violence, there are such powerful messages throughout society to treat sex as a commodity, a competition, an achievement, a bargaining chip. I think they inevitably shape our sexuality to some extent.

I'm another who is bothered by the negativeness of the fifth circle. I think I'd express it more generally as the role of sex and sexuality in (any given) society/culture. The ease with which you can think of negative and not positive examples says more about the place of sex in US culture, perhaps?

In one way, I regard the OWL course itself as a positive example in the fifth circle - you're helping to create a generation that will perhaps think differently about sexuality and where it fits overall in society. The course is making a statement about where sex can/should fit in people's lives.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with your last paragraph at all.

I'm another who is bothered by the negativeness of the fifth circle. I think I'd express it more generally as the role of sex and sexuality in (any given) society/culture.

I think that definition totally changes the concept, though. It would mean an entirely different fifth circle. Where would rape, sexual abuse, and sexual harrassment fit in your model? Can we really have a holistic model of sexuality which doesn't address experiences of abuse or control?

(And no, even though I am an American, I wouldn't have any trouble thinking of positive elements that fit your definition. Just positive elements that fit the curriculum's definition.)

I've been trying to think about whether I think "the role of sex and sexuality in a given culture" ought to be a sixth circle, or whether it makes more sense to think about there being specific cultural meanings and implications for elements in each of the five circles. (For example, "pregnancy" is part of the Sexual Health & Reproduction circle, and different cultures may assign very different meanings and implications to pregnancy.) I haven't made up my mind about which one makes more sense.

I get a sense of some crossed wires here. I agree it's really important to address sexual abuse, harassment, etc. I just don't understand why you'd have a model of "five circles of sexuality" in which the fifth circle seems to be "all the bad stuff that didn't fit in any of the other (mixed positive/negative) circles".

When you define "sexualization" as "using sexuality to control or manipulate," there's a fair amount of negativity that comes attached to manipulation. Could you set up a thought experiment comparing the concept with "using words to control or manipulate," and determining how much and why sex makes it MORE negative?

Could you set up a thought experiment comparing the concept with "using words to control or manipulate," and determining how much and why sex makes it MORE negative?

I'd pretty much say the same thing about manipulation/control through words that the curriculum does (http://rivka.livejournal.com/383744.html?thread=5981696#t5981696) about manipulation/control through sex: that it can range from harmless stuff to serious injury.

I think there are reasonably innocent or harmless examples of using sex to manipulate or control. If I put on a super-revealing outfit (like the shirt

janetmiles has referred to as my "Rivka is a mammal!!" shirt) and walk through a con, enjoying the fact that I can cause men to lose track of what they were saying, there's some manipulation involved there. But it's not really harmful or negative.

Or, for example, if on one occasion I pretend to be more enthusiastic about sex than I actually am, because my partner has been in a bad mood and I know it will cheer her up and relax her... that's manipulation. But it's probably not actually wrong, unless it becomes an ongoing thing.

So it's not necessarily a matter of "OMG!!! WORST THING EVER!!" if something qualifies as "using sexuality to manipulate or control." But I think it is important to be aware of what you're doing.

(sorry for chiming in so late; I'm just now catching up on the stuff I missed when my phone was out.)

I too am troubled by the elements in the fifth circle being all negative.

Beauty is a power. Beautiful two-year-olds get more attention and better treatment from the adults around them than their neighbors who are less pleasant to look at, and I suspect that's also true of beautiful fifteen-year-olds.

The power exists whether or not the attractive person is using it deliberately.

Is it only "sexualization" if it is deliberate?

Is this power intrinsicly more problematic than other powers that can sway people?

As you can see, I am not yet really articulate on this issue.

If the person who was prepared and had a doctorate was male, would the guys have been so snarky? It's good that you reached a comfortable level, but it feels like harassment to me.

This is so fascinating. I'm so glad you are posting about it. Thank you!

Hello! I'm a fellow UU on LJ and I'm wondering if you'd mind me friending you ... your OWL experiences sound like they have been/will be interesting!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Everything you ever wanted to know about OWL training: Part 1.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject