The JUNO Effect

I'm not talking about what the media predicts will be a surge in teenage pregnancies. Well I am indirectly. I'm talking about the recent surge in popular pregnancy movies. Begin feminist rant.

Recently I found myself watching a show I never thought I would in a thousand years. It is a show we all ridicule and which begs the question, "who would watch that?" (Who wouldn't watch that?). But I watched it anyway. Despite the fact that I knew I would hate it, I knew it was simply a shoddy attempt to capitalize on the "Juno" effect, and I knew it would provoke me into writing something like this. Confession: I watched "The Secret Life of the American Teenager." I watched it because I am seriously concerned with the way the media portrays sexuality/sexual issues. Being the raging feminist I've become, I'm hypersensitive to the way contraception and abortion are being represented (or not being represented). It's what made me angry when I saw "Knocked Up", and made me unable to fully enjoy "Juno". Well this show basically combines the worst aspects of both. Let me break it down:

-------------------------------------------------------

Knocked Up: A successful 30-something woman decides to celebrate a promotion by having a one night stand. (Thumbs up for associating promiscuous sex with celebration). She's responsible and asks the guy to put on a condom before hand. When he attempts to do so, she pushes him to hurry, causing him to just throw it aside and go ahead without it. She gets pregnant, and wants to keep the baby. She is determined to strike up a relationship with the father (because naturally, children can't be born to UNWED MOTHERS. That would be TERRIBLE). So baby is born, and parents are in love. Happily Ever After.

Contraception
This movie gets points for at least dealing with the issue of prevention. She asked him to use a condom. Good. She was being perfectly responsible. He is an absolute scumbag for going ahead without it, without informing her. Honestly, to me, that almost equates to unconsensual sex, as she never consented to having unprotected sex with him. I hate how it was dealt with as a joke, but I'll try not to be so anal about humor. They also mention the pill, and how she wasn't on it. So I'll give this movie a 7/10 for portraying safer sex practices. She could've made sure that he was using protection, while he could've not been a virtual rapist and let her know what was going on. But at least the movie deals with the issue.

Abortion
This movie barley touches the surface with this option. I don't remember whether 'abortion' is ever properly discussed. I know the (oh so EVIL) mother encourages her daughter to get a "rhymes-with shmoshmortion". How could the mother be so INSENSITIVE? To suggest that she terminate a irresponsible, unplanned pregnancy which will alter the course of the rest of her life? Really, how dare she say such a thing? Of course the lead never CONSIDERS having a cruel cruel abortion. She's not a BABY KILLER!
And guess what? The parents eventually fall in love! The child won't even be raised in a broken home, which under 99 out of 100 of these cases he would! See? Having a baby brought the couple TOGETHER! Really, isn't it so much better that they didn't KILL THEIR BABY? So now she can marry a stoned slacker who is getting his life together but will most likely relapse once the stress of parenting gets to him. Congratulations!
I'll give this movie a 1.5/10 on abortion. They (barely) touched on it, but at least they didn't ignore it entirely.
(As an aside: I realize that these preggers stories can't opt for the abortion because then there would be no story. But still. Do you have to only approach it by calling it "shmoshmortion"?)

-------------------------------------------------------

Juno: A quirky 16-year old decides she wants to have sex with her awkward (and adorable) friend. Neither of them are concerned with contraception despite the fact that "the act was premeditated". I don't really blame them, I blame abstinence-only education. After she 'chickens out' on the abortion route, she decides to go through with the (unrealistically uncomplicated) pregnancy (she pukes ONCE in the movie? are you KIDDING me?), and eventually gives the baby up for adoption to a lovely single mother going through a divorce. But guess what? The baby brings the parents closer together! And they live happily ever after in a loving, monogamous relationship (proving that two people can stay happy together forever, and that polyamory is not an option!)

Contraception
Condoms are mentioned in two scenes: when Juno enters the abortion clinic and the receptionist offers her a flavored one, and when she recounts this story to her friend. That's it. And of course the only REASON they're mentioned is to demonstrate how inappropriately upfront an abortion clinic receptionist is. Not once is any talk of safe sex or pregnancy prevention mentioned. I don't really think this detracts from the movie, I just feel like they couldn't mention it because they know Juno is the kind of person who would have no scruples acquiring and insisting contraception be used. She certainly doesn't have any issue publicly announcing her pregnancy in a convenience store. But overall on the contraception front, I'll give this movie a 2/10.

Abortion
Abortion is dealt with in depth here. I was initially horrified with how it was portrayed due to my hypersensitivity, but in retrospect, I think it was dealt with as best as they could (working with the initial constraint that she COUDLN'T go through with it as then there'd be no story). Although I was concerned with how it was shown as something "scary", and how only odd-balls are in the abortion clinic which freaks Juno out, I've since realized that it was less about the place being inherently frightening and forbidding and more about the situation and Juno's personal reaction. It was the only realistic way they could dismiss the abortion option given Juno's spunky character. I was pleased to see that the anti-abortion protester was portrayed as extreme. I appreciate how this option was considered. I thought it was very artistic and symbolic that they had Juno freak out over fingernails. I don't like the initial message, when discussing the idea that teens approach abortion flippantly (as the friend automatically assumes that is the route she'll take, and has set up abortion appointments for some of their other peers previously). I'm just worried that audiences won't pick up on these subtleties. I'm worried that they'll just get the message: abortion = scary. Still, given the initial restriction (that Juno couldn't go through with it as there'd be no plot), I give it an 8/10.

-------------------------------------------------------

Secret Life of the American Teenager: A "responsible" freshman in high school has sex for the first time over the preceding summer. Apparently she "wasn't sure it was sex" until she found out she was pregnant, but it was also sexual enough to get her pregnant. Remember, don't have sex. Or you WILL get pregnant. And die. Don't have sex in the missionary position, don't have sex standing up... Just don't do it, promise? How such a "good-girl-never-been-kissed" character is even APPROACHED to have sex in the first place, much less lets it get that far is beyond comprehension. As I constantly reiterate, it defies her character even moreso than Televesion Gossip Girl's Serena's bad-girl past. (Yeah, the past where she refuses drugs and isn't into sexual advances. The past where she thinks she killed someone just because he ODed in her presence. That's SOOOOO bad girl Serena). Anyway this show just wants you to know that if you have sex you WILL GET PREGNANT. Even if you're a goody-goody who would never be in that situation in a million years. Because there's clearly no PREVENTATIVE MEASURES THAT COULD BE TAKEN. So the show is all about her struggling with telling her parents and deciding what to do with the "baby" she's carrying (because as we learn, the word "fetus" is gross.) Also, keep in mind that if you're having a lot of sex, no matter how safe you are, you must have psychological or emotional problems. Either your father molested you or your mother is a neglectful home-wrecking slutfaced hobag. Also, lets stereotype all religious people into innocent naive abstinent anomalies, who the evil sluts are trying to corrupt. In fact, lets simplify all high school dynamics into 3 categories: religious, slutty, or awkward. Yeah. That's what high school's like.

Contraception
Although the lead male (Ben, Mr. Awkward, the pregnant girl’s love interest who is incidentally NOT Mr. Slut who she had sex with), does ask for condoms from the guidance counselor, that is about the only time contraception is mentioned. It is soooo characteristic for the goody-goody girl to engage in unprotected sex. Very believable guys, keep up the good work! No, the message of this show: don’t have sex because pregnancies are unavoidable. Also, it’s absurd to expect a school to keep a supply of condoms on hand. Why would we want to avoid teenage pregnancies? Having them available will obviously make everyone in school start having SEX. And then you’ll be responsible for sending poor innocent children, who would’ve never CONSIDERED sex otherwise, straight to hell. I give this show a 1/10 for accurately exploring contraception. It (grudgingly) got that 1 point for mentioning condoms.

Abortion

Abortion is considered the cowardly, murderous, easy-way-out option that everyone should be too brave and noble to take. Because if you do terminate your pregnancy, you won’t be able to live with yourself, due to the incredible guilt we’ll heap upon you. Point in case: in the first episode, when she initially discovers she’s pregnant and tells her friends, her (responsible because we’re blatantly patting ourselves on the back for defying stereotypes) black friend encourages her to see a doctor to explore her “options”. Her over-the-top-red-headed friend jumps ten feet and yells, “you’d better not be suggesting she get an ABORTION”! (The WORST THING IN THE WORLD. ABORTION! To quote that profound Japanese exercise/learn English video: “How dare you say such a thing to me!”). And the idea is completely dropped. Even though she’s 15, practically anorexic, with no personality, and completely unable to support a child. But God forbid she do such an IRRESPONSIBLE thing as not bring a BABY into the world under these conditions. I thought that would be the end of it until the most recent episode, two nights ago, where she threatens that she’ll get an abortion. Just to avoid telling her parents of course, not because it’s a LEGITIMATE OPTION. But Mr. Awkward assures her that she doesn’t “HAVE to do that” since he’s there. Well thank God for you, Mr. Awkward. Another 15-year-old who wants to throw away his life raising a kid. Better that than be such a COWARD and get an ABORTION. Even if they come back to this issue, I’m sure they won’t ever portray it as a viable option. The only voice of reason in the whole show is her black friend, and she is the Spock to the girl’s over-the-top-red-headed McCoy. Aka just as extreme in the other direction. So this show gets a 2/10 on accurately portraying abortion. It scores slightly higher than “Knocked Up” on the abortion front, because at least they examined it with greater depth than “shmoshmortion”. Unfortunately depth does not equal accuracy.

-------------------------------------------------------

Why am I so concerned with this? I’m concerned that the target audience of these movies/shows (young teens), won’t be able to recognize these distinctions. I’m worried that they’ll only get the message: abortion = wrong, and babies = uncomplicated and adorable. And they may even help you fall in love with that special someone! Look at Jamie Lynn! She’s engaged now isn’t she? Oh her sister? Yeah, just ignore that broken home. As Amy (“Secret Life” girl) would shout in the middle of a hallway: “NEVER HAPPENED!”

End feminist rant.

Don't go breaking my heart...

I want Obama to get elected. I want him to appeal to, and understand, a majority of the population. It doesn't bother me that he needs to be politically savvy at this point in the election process. This is why, when he began his inevitable swing to the center, I cringed a bit inside, but accepted it. It didn't bother me when he gave vague answers to issues regarding gun control in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. I understood when he had to reword his thoughts on Iraq, given the public's perception of the current situation there. I became little worried when he talked of expanding Bush's faith-based initiatives, while assuring us that he would maintain separation of church and state. But when he began talking of further limiting my right to an abortion, I got angry. Normally, I'd be content figuring that this was just pandering to the religious right, which it undoubtedly is, but the way he "clarified" it was completely unacceptable.

This is what he originally said:

I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

And this his how he clarified it:

Obama said this afternoon that he has "consistently" said health exceptions are required for laws banning or seriously restricting abortion. But he then goes on to try to carve out exceptions to the exceptions, and he ends up suggesting, again, he would support more limits on abortion than the law currently allows.

Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane, Obama said mental health exceptions—which are a real battleground issue in the abortion debate--can be "rigorously" limited to only those women with "serious clinical mental health diseases." He said mental health exceptions are not intended permit abortions when a woman simply "doesn't feel good."

"It is not just a matter of feeling blue," Obama said.

In "rigorously" limiting mental health exceptions to "serious clinical mental health diseases", he goes much further than the Supreme Court, which ruled that "[M]edical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors--physical, emotional , psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient." Note that only Justices Scalia and Thomas opposed this decision. Never thought Obama would be on the same team as Scalia. Furthermore his statement, "It is not just a matter of feeling blue", to me demonstrates a very misinformed understanding of both depression, and other pre- and post- natal psychological distress, as well as the percentage of women seeking late-term abortions. Very few women carry a child past the point of viability with the intention of aborting it. It is not something you do when you just happen to be having a bad day. If you seek a late-term abortion, you'll have a serious reason for doing so. It is an extremely complex and dangerous procedure, which is never undergone lightly. His critical distinction between physical and psychological effects is also extremely worrisome. To me it suggests that he does not consider damage to mental heath as legitimate or severe as physical damage. His having to limit the availability of late-term abortion to only the most "serious" of mental health conditions, while simultaneously allowing for a broad range of physical effects to be taken into consideration, is almost offensive. I'm certainly indignant.

Not to mention his brief allusion to abstinence-only education:

I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those are going to be things I focus on when I am president.

Isn't "abstinence education giving good information" an oxymoron? We've already seen the disastrous effects of abstinence-only education; I don't need to bore you with repetition. Plain and simple: it doesn't work. I have no problem with, "emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior" -- provided that sacredness is not linked to marriage, heterosexuality, monogamy, guilt, or shame. Which, if his position on abortion is any indicator (a woman "has a right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family"), it will be.

And yet, ever the ardent defender of women, he saves them from the humiliation of the color pink. Exactly what I like to see in my president.

Nontheism ≤ Atheism

I absolutely abhor the emergence of the term "nontheist". If I ever came across a concise definition which did not amount to the equivalent of "atheist", I'd be much more inclined to accept its validity. But why use the word "nontheist" to say you don't believe in a god? That is precisely what "atheist" means!

It's already frustrating enough that nonbelievers spend so much time arguing over semantics (while we're arguing over words, fundamentalists are busy wrecking havoc on all sectors of our society), but when people feel they need to adopt a label like "nontheist" just to escape the stigma surrounding the word "atheist", something is distinctly out of whack. Why is the word "atheist" so offensive? "Atheist" does not intrinsically imply "antitheist" or "amoral", which so many people take for granted. The word can literally be reduced to "non-theist". Rather than disguising what you mean with "softer" language, why not deal with the root of the problem? Otherwise, you become no better than these creationists who support "academic freedom" (formerly known as "intelligent design"). Maybe you don't want to be associated with some of the more radical antitheistic activities of vehement atheists. But if you let them define the movement, godlessness by any other name will smell as sour.

As atheists we support openness and honesty. So please, dispense with this idea of "nontheism". It only serves to reinforce the "atheist" stigma, and further splinter our movement.

It's SCIENCE vs. RELIGION (or so say the candidates...)

As nearly everyone who would potentially read this blog will know, there has been a large effort on the part of many in the atheist community (and others) to encourage the presidential candidates to agree to a science debate. I haven't been overly concerned with this; I realize it is essential to understand where the candidates stand on issues pertaining to science (global warming, bioethics, and a whole host of others), however, the basis have been covered in debates. What has not been covered is the specifics, but that doesn't overly worry me. I doubt the candidates have worked out all the specifics, or even have the scientific knowledge to work them out. Not to pull a Bush on you (I'm only the president, that's what the smart people are for), but really, I'm comfortable with my president being intelligent enough to understand what needs to be done and delegating the specifics to the specialists. So I haven't been too upset by the candidates' refusal to participate.

Most recently, they declined an opportunity set for April 18 to debate before the PA primary.

What irks me is that after declining to discuss these important issues which actually have some bearing on running a country, they've agreed to attend a "Compassion Forum" to discuss "faith, values, and other current issues". I realize it's not their fault; after all, it's just what the voters want. But really, what will actually affect our country and the world: a solution to the global climate challenge, or what specific fairy tail these candidates subscribe to? By first refusing to participate in a debate specifically targeted at scientific issues, but then agreeing to talk specifically about "faith and values" (read: religion), these candidates seem to have bought into the old "science vs. religion" perspective, and moreover, have let religion win out.

Not that I'm overly worried that Obama or Clinton would decide based on faith or let it interfere with their presidency, and I understand that this is just an election ploy and that their decision to participate in the faith debate wasn't directly related to their refusal to participate in the science debate. HOWEVER, I really would prefer a candidate who would put that aside and say, yes, maybe faith is personally important, but let's concentrate on what will impact each and every one of our lives over the coming years. Science will. A president's personal faith? (Assuming they support the separation of Church and State), not so much.

But of course that may be too complex for the American populace to grasp. Who knows, given our education system.

Did you know drinking bleach will prevent HIV?

Brought to you by abstinence-only education.

Aw, shucks, just when things were starting to look up...

Take it from Holden's not-so-distant cousin (another fabulously crafted JD Salinger creation): "The worst that being an artist could do to you would be that it would make you slightly unhappy constantly. However, this is not a tragic situation, in my opinion. The happiest day of my life was many years ago when I was seventeen. I was on my way for lunch to meet my mother, who was going out on the street for the first time after a long illness, and I was feeling ecstatically happy when suddenly, as I was coming in to the Avenue Victor Hugo, which is a street in Paris, I bumped into a chap without any nose. I ask you to please consider that factor, in fact I beg you. It is quite pregnant with meaning." ("De Daumier-Smith's Blue Period", emphasis added)

Some scholars are starting to agree. In a Newsweek article from February, a "radical" proposal is presented: sometimes people need to wallow, grieve, mourn; be downright mopey for a while, if that's what floats their boat. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to squash any negative emotion. Doing so might be the equivalent of lobotomizing a person. If you want everyone to walk around in a blissful stupor, please proceed with this anti-sadness campaign. Personally, I think we, as conscious beings deserve more. People don't seem to want to experience life anymore. They want to cut out the discomfort, the pain, the problems, until we all lack any incentive for growth or reflection. If you eliminate all human suffering, where's the need for critical thinking? Why don't we all sit around eating ice cream till we die? That might be nice. But as a wise man (or Captain Kirk) once said, "Maybe we weren't made for paradise." It's unnatural for humans to be content without progress. Of course there are people in dire need of treatment for mental issues like depression. However, I'm starting to agree that those tend to be over-diagnosed. Eliminate suffering and you eliminate motivation.

Or, as the article focuses on, muse. I'm sure a lot of those creative types would've benefited enormously from stabilizing psychiatric help. Maybe Van Gogh wouldn't have lost that ear. But the world would've been worse off without them. Not to suggest that those who need help shouldn't seek it in case they turn out to be geniuses (and "knowing" these guys, they would've run away from any stabilizing medicine/procedure screaming), but I do think we shouldn't be so down on the unhappy. Today, there's something "wrong" with you if you're sad. I think there's something "wrong" with today.

That being said, I am quite content. I might even be one of those unmotivated 9s because of it. At least I'm comfortable.

Watch out, boys...

1 in 4 teen girls has an STD. While the majority of this statistic can be traced to those infected with HPV, the virus which causes cervical cancer, this statistic should be disconcerting to someone of any gender. Not only does it pose a health risk, but it illustrates a serious failing with our sex education system. I have a sneaking suspicion that this high rate of infection is directly correlated with the prevalence of abstinence-only sex ed programs, fed by continually increased funding (even from our now Democratic congress!) One of the easiest preventative measures you'll ever take is simply slipping on a condom prior to sex. It takes all of 2 seconds. And trust me, no matter how guys might complain about the reported "inconvenience" or supposed "lack of sensation", they're likely to value some sensation, over none. And yet the only education many of these girls receive is more or less akin to, "Don't have sex, or you will get pregnant. And die." Moreover, 18% of those infections are almost completely preventable, even without the dreaded condom. There's a vaccine! It simply should not be on the radar at this point, especially among teenagers. Yet all the attacks on this vaccine as "encouraging promiscuity" and "unnecessary" and other nonsense have resulted in relatively few women electing to be vaccinated. More than anything else, this study should illustrate the urgent need for wider spread vaccination. I've wanted to do this for quite some time, but haven't had the money (I don't have very good insurance). I'd promised myself that as soon as I was able, I'd do this. Now I don't have enough time before going abroad. I'll leave it to senior year. But no later.

Please please stop funding abstinence-only programs. They've been shown again and again to be ineffective. STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and a whole host of life-long hang ups have a momentous impact on the lived lives of citizens (to coin a phrase from Khan). Isn't protecting your sons and daughters more important than any outdated sense of morality?