An Open Letter from Shaunti Feldhahn in response to the Focus on the Family Singapore school program controversy”
“An Open Letter from Shaunti Feldhahn in response to the Focus on the Family Singapore school program controversy”
To the leaders of Focus on the Family Singapore:
I have seen the news reports about the current questions and concerns raised by a student about the FOTF program taught in schools. It appears that some significant portions of your program were based on my research with men, women, teenage boys and teenage girls over the past 12 years. Even though I do not have much time to reply, I wanted to get you a little bit of information and offer a perspective, in case it helps you discuss this with the government. Especially since I see that the latest news is that the Ministry of Education is saying (at least for now) that the program will cease by the end of the year.
Here is my quick perspective:
In 2009, the government agency then known as MCYS brought in me and Jeff to conduct programs for several thousand young professional singles and college students, as well as train-the-trainer sessions for several hundred leaders and counselors who work in the marriage and family arena. (I met several Focus on the Family Singapore representatives at those train-the-trainer sessions.) At those events, Jeff and I shared the results of our many years of rigorous research, as published in books such as For Women Only and For Men Only as well as the teenage versions that were based on extensive studies with high school and college students.
The Government of Singapore brought us in because they were (and are) trying to encourage the establishment of healthy relationships and, eventually, marriages and families. This was a highly successful series of events that we hope to do again at some point in the future. These efforts by the government were designed to be both encouraging and preventative rather than simply fixing problems. The idea was to AVOID the social and economic problems seen so often in the U.S. as we have trended away from healthy family formation. Every sociologist in the world essentially acknowledges that a married two-parent family gives children (and the couple themselves) the greatest chance of thriving in life. Not that single parents cannot give children a great start, but that the odds are much better in a healthy marriage. And a healthy marriage has much better odds of forming if young people have healthy understanding of relationships and each other from the beginning.
Thus, the government brought us in to share our research not only to help individuals, but also as a way to help independent organizations and counselors create and deliver the very types of ‘healthy relationships programs’ that FOTF then created for the school system. (As you noted, your program is not a sexuality program but one for healthy relationships.) Because our research is extensive, scientifically rigorous and statistically valid across all age groups and ethnic backgrounds, it provides a good foundation for a strong education in those key elements that young people and married couples most need to know.
One of the key reasons why a good train-the-trainer program was needed, was that this research can also be misunderstood, as demonstrated by the Facebook post from Agatha Tan. While the vast majority of readers (and, it sounds like, your program participants) are supportive and find it extremely helpful and life-changing, there are some who, historically, misunderstand or misread the research. A clear example is the explanation of the ultra-visual brain wiring of men and boys. We are careful to say that this male brain wiring makes it difficult if not impossible for a man to avoid noticing a woman who is dressed provocatively (only 2% said they wouldn’t notice) – but that each man has a choice of how to handle that reaction (to respect the woman in his thought life and actions, or not). And yet there are always a few women who completely miss what we are saying and arrive at the conclusion that we’re saying “boys will be boys and there’s nothing we can do about it.” Similarly, as you know, since many men want to honor women but find themselves confronted by explicit images they would prefer not to see, we think it is important to emphasize that BOTH men and women, boys and girls, have a responsibility here. We emphasize the ned for men and boys to respect women, but also for women and girls to respect men. We strongly disagree with the idea that teaching the brain wiring and mutual respect is somehow contributing to a “rape culture.” That is a clear misunderstanding, and it confuses the real and important issue and teaching that will help both men and women.
It is my hope that you will ask for a meeting with the government ministry that is currently considering whether or not to discontinue your program. I urge you to show them that this is based on years of rigorous research, and to ask them to consider that this type of healthy relationships program is exactly the sort of program the government was wanting to create to educate and encourage young people now, in order to form healthy families later. While I don’t know the specifics of what your program involves, and I’m assuming there are always improvements and changes that can be made to any initiative, I hope that you and the government officials involved do not give up on something that already has, and will continue to, set a great foundation for Singapore’s future.
With appreciation,
Shaunti Feldhahn
Hi Shaunti, thanks so much for clarifying. Just to let you know, the program had already been slated to end this year, even before the saga. It’s just the end of a contract. The Straits Time article, in my opinion, caused a lot of misunderstanding, including the impression that the program was poorly planned and executed. From what I’ve heard elsewhere, the program received positive responses from the majority. Channel News Asia, in my opinion, gives a more balanced report.
Jerick, thanks for that info. I am always behind on singapore news given the 12 hour time difference (it is breakfast time here!). I have read some of the latest articles this morning (your evening). Although this is the end of one contract, it isn’t the end of the issue since FOTF Singapore appears to be intending to ‘improve and update’ the program and continue to use it in other ways. I have always had a great deal of respect for FOTF, and find their work very important, so I do hope that they will continue to move forward with those updates and look for other avenues to share healthy relationships programs.
Hi
What is your comment on the inclusion of the phrases “No means Yes” in the course material?
thanks
Rgds
Thanks for asking. Although every teenage boy probably feels he has encountered confusing instances when a girl doesn’t seem to mean what she says (‘No, I’m fine!’), it is dangerous to casually create a blanket statement like that in a program like this.
I am guessing that it was intended to be part of a joking atmosphere on both sides that would appeal to students (‘look at our foibles’), and there actually is value to a lighthearted approach because it helps students listen. But the program designers could have (and probably should have) accomplished that another way.
The message that she doesn’t mean what she says is not only dangerous in a sexual sense, but it also perpetuates the idea that girls are random and can’t be understood; an idea that our research disproves, and which sets a guy up to assume later that there’s no point in working to understand his wife or girlfriend because he will never be able to do so.
For example, one of the things we mention in For Young Men Only is that a main reason girls might say ‘I’m fine’, when they aren’t, is that they want a guy to recognize that they are upset without having to spell it out, because when they SAY they are upset, they often see guys overreact and shut down. If they see a guy respond calmly and supportively, they know it is safe to be more straightforward. That is a worthwhile lesson to discuss on both sides, but was not what was being covered here, as far as I can tell.
As noted in my open letter, I strongly support the need for healthy relationships programs but would hope they are being continually improved and updated as needed. And I definitely would hope that any successor program avoids that ‘girls don’t mean what they say’ language.’
I hope that clarifies things.
Dear Shaunti, I deeply appreciate you for writing about this matter and giving your considered perspectives.
Rgds
Joshua
“…many years of rigorous research” [peer-reviewed citation needed]
Thanks for your question. You can see the details about the methodology and findings of each of the different research studies via the “research” tab on this website (see above). As you may know, peer-reviewed studies are almost entirely ‘pure research’, rather than the ‘applied research’ that I do, which is conducted for a specific practical purpose and published not in a peer-reviewed journal article but in a book for the popular audience. Each of my seven research studies thus far has taken anywhere from 2-4 years to conduct, costs between $40,000 -$80,000 USD, and is based on interviews and surveys with at least at least 1,000 individuals of the group under study. (For example, adult men, or teenage girls.) Each survey is conducted by a leading survey and research firm, Decision Analyst, and each is nationally-representative within the United States across all ages, racial groups, and religious backgrounds. All the studies have at least a 95% confidence level, +/- 3.5. I hope that provides a little more clarity. You can find more via the ‘research’ tab on my website.
Hi Shuanti,
Focus on the Family Singapore (FotF(S)) has just released their statement clarifying their program. It can be found on their website.
They state that they were informed that the program would cease by end-2014 in July 2014. The stated reason is that the Junior Colleges, or government college preparatory schools, are to use their in-house program. The party who informed FotF(S) is assumed by this Singaporean to be the Ministry of Education, which manages and governs nearly all aspects of education in Singapore.
This incident therefore has had zero bearing on the decision to end this program. As your open letter has been used to lend support to FotF(S) and its programs, I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge this recent disclosure and how it completely refutes the previously held opinion that the end of the program was due to this incident.
I appreciate your balanced and well-argued contribution to this controversy. However, Agatha’s report implies that not enough attention was given in the program to the way men and women can decide to act on the stimuli they are exposed to. Therefore, I would, in addition, advise you to clarify with FotF(S) on whether they attempted to successfully deliver this message to their participants. I am sure you agree that an understanding of our hard-wired impulses should lead us to their management, and not to the acceptance of expected responses to these stimuli.
Thank you.
I agree with NeWater.
For some reason, the website Humor is contagious
http://humoriscontagious.com/what-she-really-means/
seems to have cited the rigorous research findings too.
Please see my response to NeWater above – thanks.
You mentioned “… peer-reviewed studies are almost entirely ‘pure research’, rather than the ‘applied research’ that I do, which is conducted for a specific practical purpose and published not in a peer-reviewed journal article but in a book for the popular audience.”
Your above statement is factually wrong and contradicts your earlier statement on “rigorous research”. If indeed your findings and interpretations are sound, they will stand up to scientific scrutiny (or the peer-review process). Even “applied research” has scientific standards that must be followed. If not, what you have is just simply a collection of data from the “pop-quizzes”, which is very prone to all sorts of biases and misinformation.
Combining such fuzzy data with neural theories (e.g., that men’s and women’s brains are wired differently) gives a false sense of legitimacy, as well as contributing to gender stereotypes.
I am sorry you feel that way. We will have to agree to disagree. You are correct that applied research has scientific standards that must be followed, which is why we did so, and which is why my findings are recognized as credible by researchers of all stripes.
Truth has a loud voice . If we want to avoid the word stereotyping we can say mainstream or vast majority . One girl among a thousand may prefer toy guns to the others who prefer dolls .
If these minorities don’t like such healthy discussions they should stay out and let the majority benefit from the workshops .
Thank you very much for clarifying, Shaunti. I really appreciate your clarification on the matter.
There will always be people out to criticise and cut down anything that goes against what they believe or feel. So no matter what you say or do, there will be people who will deliberately choose to disagree and find fault – even if they have no valid reasons to do so. Blame it on our biased human nature.
Sometimes, I feel our younger folks think they are too smart for their own good.
Flame on!
It would help to understand that social science (including humanities, law, education, economics) research and scientific/technical result are quite different in approach, methodology and interpretation. There are some soft part from the humanities end and lots of hard part in that spectrum (biological, neurological, scientific, technological and engineering). In between are the malleable (like economic theory, law, behavior, sociology).
What is important and serve as the common benchmark is peer review of the respective discipline by reputable people of standing in that field. For those who attain that, we respect their contribution. A fruitless debate is initiated when we apply research methods of one end to the other. Hence, there is a place to agree to disagree.