Sad stuff in the headlines yesterday – the idea that preventing bullying is coddling select groups is ridiculous.  Every person – every child – is entitled to safety in public, at school, and at work.  No name calling.  Talk to Jesus about it or something.

Focus on the Family attacks anti-bullying efforts as part of the “gay agenda” [feministing]

For these groups to use “what’s good for the children” as a guise to promote their intolerance only puts kids further at risk of serious harm — and we’re not just talking about hurt feelings; children are dying because of it. So if saving children from killing themselves over hatred that Focus on the Family is trying to protect is a “gay agenda,” then yeah, that’s exactly what this country needs.

The Pro-Bullying Lobby [yes means yes]

Their answer is tactically obvious: they have to try to encourage more homophobia at younger ages. They have to prevent young people from coming out in their early teens, forming their own peer groups and being seen to be happy. They need to use the social structures of teen life to enforce conformity to a heterosexist hegemon. They need to shut up the antibullying activists, and get those bullies back to beating up the queeny boys, the dykey girls, the gender nonconformists; marginalizing them by brutal force in the great public school tradition while the administration looks the other way.

Anti-Bullying Measures Are A Gay Plot, Says Gay-Bullying Org [jezebel]

In an interview with The Denver Post, Candi Cushman of Focus On The Family said, “We feel more and more that activists are being deceptive in using anti-bullying rhetoric to introduce their viewpoints, while the viewpoint of Christian students and parents are increasingly belittled.”

“I am not ultra-ultra-conservative on every issue. I actually support gay marriage. I think the gay marriage thing would definitely surprise people. I mean, for some people, it will surprise them to the point that they won’t want to hear it. ‘No, that can’t be, I really want to have this sort of idea of her in my head,’ so I sort of rain on their parade there. I am a person that does believe that life begins at conception, but I also don’t believe that the government should tell women what to do with their bodies. So I’m torn there in terms of supporting laws [for or against abortion].”

-  Elisabeth Hasselbeck

Um… yeah. Huh?  From fancast via jezebel.

Kristen Schaal always makes me laugh.  Usually by making me feel really uncomfortable/awkward first.  I think she also has this effect on Jon Stewart.

In related news, Jon Stewart’s new goatee also makes me feel really uncomfortable/awkward.

“The American Psychological Association is gratified that the court agreed that there is no justification for denying marriage equality to same-sex couples. The  research shows that same-sex couples are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways and that they are as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally healthy, well-adjusted children. Thus, there is no scientific justification for denying marriage equality, when research indicates that marriage provides many important benefits.”

- American Psychological Association
President Carol D. Goodheart, EdD

I am proud to be going into a profession that acknowledges and supports the rights of all people, and uses its resources to make sure that those rights aren’t taken away.

Some interesting links on family planning (and not-so-planning) out there this week, folks.  Read, think, share, enjoy.  And don’t forget that the Planned Parenthood nearest you could always benefit from donations if you want to put your money where your heart is.

Nearly half of U.S. pregnancies are unintended [feministing]

“We’re trying to figure out where the system is breaking down,” England said. “You need to get to the point where contraception is so convenient and user-friendly that people who don’t want to get pregnant use it all the time.”

To Whom Do Children “Just Happen”? [sociological images]

Notice that people with less education and lower incomes were more likely to have their first child by “accident” than people with more education and higher incomes.  They were also more likely to have their first child as a teenager.  These are the groups that we might expect, on average, to have less knowledge about birth control and less access to (especially more effective forms of) birth control.  Given that our society is class segregated, members of these groups may also be surrounded by other people who “just happened” to have kids.  The ideology of near-perfect control of reproduction, then, may not be as strong.

More American women choosing to be child free [feministing]

Education level also plays a factor – women who are more educated are more likely to choose to be child free.

Yesterday I stumbled upon this short over at Sociological Images:

Girls suck at video games / Les filles sont nulles aux jeux vidéo from Stéphanie Mercier on Vimeo.

What do you think?

Friday Night Lights is an amazing TV show, and if you’re not watching it, you should be.

I’ve been in love with the show since about halfway through the first season. I, like many fans, grew a little concerned as the early part of second season brought in some elements that seemed out-of-place, but I chock that up to the network getting involved and since those few missteps the show has returned to being one of the most sweet, gut-wrenching, beautiful, raw, poignant and genuinely optimistic shows on television. While I can try to articulate its awesomeness, however, I know others have already said it so much better…

“Friday Night Lights is delivered with the precision and manner of ethnography — it never condescends…. [It] both compellingly honors conservative codes of family values, and doesn’t: the discrepancy has perhaps nowhere been clearer than it seems to be this season. The two-parent family is idealized, but at the same time religion is understood as an unreliable savior, and sex as a consistent comfort.” (source)

“While Friday Night Lights is about a football coach and his team, it’s about so much more than sports — small-town politics, race, class, family and romance, among other topics — and it’s a shame that the title and setting scare away so many viewers who would love the show.” (source)

“This extraordinary drama lets us peek inside the lives and the minds of people who aren’t any different than we are, who are struggling with the mundane and major problems of real life. And it’s done with such subtlety, surprising wit and grace, that at the end of every hour, I devoutly wish it wasn’t over.” (source)

“In fact, the whole show works because of its deep respect for its characters, whom its writers paint with a nuance and depth rarely seen on network television. In situations ripe for caricature, FNL manages instead to convey the complexity of relationships, dreams, and desires, and the casual ways in which simple interactions can have lasting, if not cataclysmic, effects…. appealing, interesting, well-rounded characters flesh out FNL’s story, all of whom go about trying to lead their lives the best way they can, given their circumstances. The show’s obvious affection for each of them, and its willingness to treat them with both humor and gravity, makes FNL one of the most human, humane, radically humanist shows around.” (source)

“This is about the classiest show on TV I think since My So Called Life.  I know that next season will be the last, but it is going down as one of the best….  This show is so full of what can best be described as “heart,” and because that is missing from most of TV nowadays when you see it and feel it, it kind of takes your breath away.” (source)

“For a great series about football, it also has some of the most authentic, intelligent female characters on TV…. Shows like Lipstick Jungle– which FNL has replaced on the NBC schedule– are supposedly about the great bonds of female friendship and represent how far women have come in terms of career, choices, relationships, etc. Yet truly those characters are far more cartoonish and stereotypical than the women on FNL. In fact, Lyla and Tyra are fiercely fighting against the roles small town Southern society is trying to foist on them. And Tami has always been a character who is smart, sassy, yet a devoted wife and mother.” (source)

“This is what the show is all about–decent people … put in hard positions by life’s unexpected occurrences.” (source)

The show isn’t afraid to touch on difficult topics, but it doesn’t preach about them. It starts with stereotypes and formulas and then fleshes them out into complex people and real situations. It features some of the strongest and most interesting female characters on television, it delves into class and race issues (and the ways they are often intertwined). The show features characters who are disabled, gay or poor, but doesn’t force those labels to define them. That’s not to say the show is 100% perfect, but it’s about as close as network TV has ever gotten, and it’s a shame more people don’t watch it.

So I implore you to give it a shot. The first three seasons are available on DVD or for Instant Viewing on Netflix. The fourth season has already aired on DirecTV and will premiere on NBC on April 30th. Check it out, and then tell me what you think.

If you’ve already given it a shot, I’d love to hear what you think, even if you disagree with my glowing praises.

Released in 1999, I had never seen The Cider House Rules until a few weeks ago.  I’m not usually into period pieces or Tobey Maguire, so I didn’t expect much.  However, there were some powerful lines about the importance of a woman’s right to choose and to have safe medical treatments available to her once she’s made her choice.  Furthermore, there were some powerful examples of times that removing that choice is truly cruel, regardless of your political beliefs on the matter.

The Cider House Rules is the story of Homer, an orphan boy who never made it out of the orphanage, and has been trained as a doctor by his mentor and father figure, Dr. Larch, who runs the orphanage.  In addition to delivering the babies of women giving their children up for adoption, Dr. Larch offers safe medical abortions to any woman who asks for it.  He doesn’t advertise this service (as it is illegal), and he doesn’t suggest it to women no matter how many times he’s delivered their unwanted babies, but he won’t turn away a woman in need.  When Homer accuses him of playing God in this way, Dr. Larch responds:

Dr. Larch: I have been given the opportunity of playing God or leaving practically everything up to chance. Men and women of conscience should seize those moments when it’s possible to play God. There won’t be many. Do I interfere when absolutely helpless women tell me they simply can’t have an abortion – that they simply must go through with having another and yet another orphan? I do not. I do not even recommend. I just give them what they want.

Needless to say, Homer disapproves of Dr. Larch’s willingness to perform abortions, and Dr. Larch in return disapproves of Homer’s closed mindedness on the subject (a common butting-of-heads between the pro-choice and pro-life among us – we can’t get past our hangups to have a real discussion about the matter because it is so personal and so tinged with emotion).  When a young girl arrives nearly dead at the orphanage due to a botched D.I.Y. job, Dr. Larch sees a “teachable moment” in her tragedy.

Dr. Larch: If she had come to you four months ago and asked for a simple D & C [procedure], what would you have done?  Nothing.  This is what doing nothing gets you.  It means that someone else is going to do the job, some moron that doesn’t know how.

Even as Homer digs the grave for this woman, he cannot step outside his beliefs.  Dr. Larch is equally embedded in his need to make Homer see things differently.

Dr. Larch: She died of secrecy.  She died of ignorance. Homer, if you expect people to be responsible for their children, you have to give them the right to decide whether or not to have children.  Wouldn’t you agree?

Homer: How about expecting people to be responsible enough to control themselves to begin with?

Dr. Larch: How about this child?  You expect her to be responsible?

Homer: I’m not talking about her.  I’m talking about… adults.  You know who I mean.

How often has this played out in your discussions of choice with people who believe differently than you?  A point is made for the necessity of choice, for the unability to control for all possible variables at all times, and you get a response along the lines of “Well that’s different.  But most of the time…” with most of the time being equal to what the decisions are based on, rather than the human messiness of complex, different situations.

It takes Homer a long time to become comfortable with the moral gray areas of choice, but when he discovers his fellow apple-picker Rose is pregnant, and with her own father’s child no less, he suddenly realizes the gift that Dr. Larch has passed on to him.  He is able to help Rose by performing a safe, medical abortion rather than leaving her to her own devices and putting her in an early grave, like the poor young woman from the beginning of the film.

The Cider House Rules is a thought-provoking film, and potentially a great conversation starter (if you want to go there).  I wasn’t astounded by it, but I was impressed with how diplomatically it presented two perspectives on choice (although it is right-to-choice rather than right-to-life that wins out in the end, so it is probably more biased than I can see from my side of the issue).  I am interested to read the book someday to get a more in-depth look at the story.  Have any of you read the book?  How did you like the film?

CBS doesn’t want America to think about Choice, so we have to do it virally.  Here are some awesome counterpoints to the anti-choice rhetoric that is being crammed down our throats with Doritos and beer this SuperBowl Sunday, starting with Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards explanation of the meaning of Choice:

For a multitude of reasons I will not be watching the SuperBowl today, but welcome any tips on who the winners and losers in advertising are this year.

There were two things that had me pumped up about The Wild Things: 1. Jim Henson muppets, and 2. Karen O.  I was never very attached to the story as a kid, and was pretty sure that it was going to be a hyped-up-indie-fest as a film.  However, this was also during that period that I kept going to movies expecting little and being blown away (Away We Go, Jennifer’s Body, Paper Heart, and Whip It!), so maybe that explains the mild obsession that overtook me after seeing The Wild Things last fall.  The film, the soundtrack, and the book all made their mark on me, and all have a little feminist spin in my opinion.  Let’s break it down:

The Film

Sadly this trailer doesn’t incorporate the Karen O led music that really contributes to the feel of the film, nor does it capture what, to me, was the most meaningful theme: Max’s relationship with his mother.  What? you say?  His mother?  Please, this is a story about a naughty and wild little boy. On the surface, yes, but Max’s relationship with his mom is what gave the film depth.

Max is being raised by a single mother who has a new boyfriend, which can be hard on any kid.  It’s hard even into adulthood to understand split parents, and when a newcomer steps in things become even more difficult.  Max was already a pain-in-the-butt kid, and between a fight with his older sister and the apparent intrusion of a new man into his home, he loses it.  He runs away and winds up living among the Wild Things as their king.  And each Wild Thing offers us an insight into Max’s relationship with his mom.  Carol represents the possessiveness Max feels towards her; Alexander represents how ignored he feels; Judith represents his difficult and disagreeable side; Ira represents the doting and needy part of him; and the Bull represents the stoic role our society asks us to show when we’re really experiencing pain.  K.W. on the other hand, represents Max’s mom.

K.W. is warm, loving, kind, and is more complex than the other Wild Things can understand.  She has a different level of maturity, she needs relationships outside of the group.  Carol in particular is resentful of this and alternates between loving K.W. and not knowing how to express it and loathing her in a violent and possessive way.  This is a clear reflection of how Max has treated his mother on the night he ran away.  When Carol turns on Max for letting him down as a king, it is K.W. that protects him, hiding him in her mouth.  For a moment after it is safe, K.W. wants to keep Max, but she understands that as much as she loves him, she must let him go.  Whether Max has the capacity to understand this as deeply as I see it or not, this is the turning point where he realizes he needs his mother and must return to her, hopefully with a new respect for her as a person, not just a mom.

The Soundtrack

So awesome.  Where do I even start?  Full disclosure: I don’t actually like the music outside of the film, although it complements the film fantastically.  But that kind of says something: this music supports its film, it’s not a greatest hits that you pop in your car and take a road trip to (unless maybe it’s through the woods) like the trendoid soundtracks of indie films and the O.C.

Furthermore, the choice of Karen O. of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs for this project is ingenious.  Karen is quite the Wild Thing herself, and her animalistic vocals are perfect for the mystical, raucous world that Max finds himself in.  Additionally, the incorporation of kids throughout the soundtrack also gives it a bit of whimsy along with the wild – the kids aren’t your typical in-tune choir, they’re natural, messy, heartfelt voices having fun.  That actually describes the story pretty well, too.

The Book

The original children’s story, Where The Wild Things Are, was written and illustrated by Maurice Sendak.  Although after seeing the film I was convinced that I had the book as a child, my mother assures me that this is untrue (she has since sent me a new copy – thanks, Mom!).  Whether I had the book or not, it’s a common kids story that I was familiar with, but never really invested in.  It was about a boy and some monsters.

Sendak worked with director Spike Jonze to make the story into film, and Dave Eggers was invited to join the project as well as complete a novel adaptation of the story.  The novel follows the film closely, to a point, but offers a deeper history for Max and his family, some darker adventures on the island, and (my favorite part) a lot more of Judith’s cutting sarcasm.  The book was easy to read and enjoyable, but the motherhood aspect that I found so touching in the film is missing, replaced by Max’s longings for his absent father.  Eggers’ explains the differences between the tellings of the story as illustrations of the differences between the men behind the scenes.

“The children’s book Max is, after all, a version of Maurice, and the movie Max is a version of Spike.  The Max of this book, then, is some combination of Maurice’s Max, Spike’s Max, and the Max of my own boyhood.”

Maybe that means that these interpretations are a version of Miss Wizzle, and the Max of my girlhood.  I recommend (against my own predictions) all The Wild Things you can get your hands on.  Maybe they will give you a vision of your own inner Max.

The soundtrack and book are available now, the film releases on DVD March 2.