Pregnant Bodies in Away We Go

Today I finally went to see Away We Go. It was a great movie, both funny and touching, and not that predictable. Watch the trailer if you've missed out so far:



The movie is the story of Burt and Verona, who are 33 and about to have a baby. They go on a trip trying to find a "home" near friends or family. They go from Phoenix to Madison to Montreal to Miami, meeting up with hilarious characters along the way. Every place they see as some where they could live but then realize that the people they are visiting are just as messed up as they are.

One of the things that really struck me about the movie was the commentary (I believe it was purposeful) on pregnant women's bodies as public property. There were of course all of the people who felt that they had the right to touch Verona's stomach. And then there was the mother who pointed at Verona and asked her child: "what's that?" The child's response: "a baby!" (Not a woman, not a pregnant woman, just a baby as if her sole purpose in life was the serve as an incubator for this one child.) And the airline workers who stood around debating how far along Verona was. Verona was only six months, but the airline workers thought she was lying and was actually 8 months which means she wouldn't be able to fly. And it was completely appropriate to stand around discussing not only the woman's body, but her size and weight. Plus, the topic of parenting is always open for discussion with no real consideration of how the parents want to raise their children.

For pregnant women (I am NOT speaking from experience here), the world has open access to your body. Women's bodies and personal space are completely eradicated when there is a baby growing in there. In society, the baby/fetus is more important than the woman.

And then there was the hilarious charicature of a feminist women's studies professor played by Maggie Gylenhaal. While I a normally completely opposed to stereotypes of feminists portrayed in movies, this was different. Maggie Gylenhaal played a women's studies professor at U of Wisconsin Madison who breastfed her 3 year old (I'm estimating on the age), used a family bed shared with her husband/partner and their children, and did not believe in strollers ("why would you push your child away from you?"). She was the earth mother type of feminist.

Even though it was kind of a stereotype of a feminist, the way that it was handled was hilarious. Ending with Burt putting her 3-year-old in a stroller and running him around the house.

This movie was the perfect combination of humor, story line, with a smidge of social commentary about pregnancy (at least to me and I really hope that it was purposeful) and finding home in what is meaningful for you. It even kept me occupied enough to forget that I was hungry! If you haven't seen this movie already, I recommend that you see it if it is still playing near you or go out and rent it as soon as it is released on dvd!

The Romanticization of Secret Life

Has anyone else seen Secret Life of the American Teenager on ABC Family? I first got hooked on this show last summer while working at a camp. The teenage girls would sit in the lounge and watch this, so I started watching it with them.

In case you are unfamiliar, here is the basic plot. Amy is a 15 year old girl who gets pregnant at band camp (yes, that one time at band camp). She's surprised she's pregnant because she didn't even know she was having sex until after it happened (abstinence-only at work?). She's not interested in dating the father, Ricky, and instead starts dating good guy Ben (who wants to marry her). Ricky is involved (as in they have sex but aren't really in a relationship) with Adrian, who befriends Grace, the resident Christian virgin, who is dating Jack. Grace and Jack get into many disagreements about having sex. Amy's parents are getting divorced. So, that's a very broad overview. There's obviously a lot more that goes on, but I think this overview should help you understand this post and the problems that I have with the show a little better.

This is by no means a good show. I have a problem of getting weirdly addicted to bad television, which is why I watch this show, as bad as it is. And just because I watch it doesn't mean that I don't have problems with it. When I started watching it with those teenage girls at summer camp, I asked them why they liked it so much. Their response: "It's so realistic!" Whoa there!

Now, into the second season of Secret Life, Amy has had the baby (John), her mom is pregnant (and it's unclear if it's her husband's or her boyfriend's), Grace and Jack have had sex, Grace's dad died and she thinks it's because she had sex (don't even get me started on that one!), Ricky is becoming responsible, and Ben is still dying to have sex.

While I think it is great that ABC Family has a show about teen pregnancy, it is not a realistic representation of this situation for a lot of people. In the most recent episode that aired on Monday, July 20, Amy (who has by now had her baby, John) complains to her mom about not being able to go to Italy with her boyfriend, Ben, for the summer. She claims that she is an adult now solely because she has a baby and can make decisions for herself. Mind you, she is still 15 (almost 16), does not have a passport, wants to go without her baby but doesn't have anyone she trusts (she wants her mom to do it) to watch the baby. A. What 15 year olds parents are going to let them go to Italy for the summer with her boyfriend who is going to stay with family and B. I bet a lot of single, teen parents wish their biggest problem was not being able to go to Italy for the summer.

When the teen girls told me they liked the show because it was so realistic, I asked them how many of their friends or people they knew were pregnant and had boyfriends who they were dating for a month who have pledged their love and desperately wanted to marry them (to the point of trying to get fake ids to elope)? Their answer: none. So, how is this realistic? While I'm sure this is the reality for some people out there, I really think that this show is romanticizing teen pregnancy.

When you look at the differences between Secret Life and something like 16 and Pregnant on MTV, you can plainly see the romanticization that happens in Secret Life. In 16 and Pregnant, the struggles of the teens are very clear (even though I wish they would show a little more of after the baby was born, maybe they'll go back to the same teens in a later episode...). Some of them deal with absent fathers, economic struggles, non-supportive or controlling parents, and social ostracism.

While Secret Life does show some struggles that Amy goes through, recently she just seems to be concerned with her social life and John, her baby, falls through the cracks, at least in her mind. Amy is just coming off, at least to me, as whiny and ungrateful. Her parents, especially her mother, are supporting her immensely through this and trying to help her take responsibility, but she won't have any of it. In the first season she was mad because she didn't want to give the baby up for adoption (which is completely reasonable) but was expecting her mother to provide free day care while she went on with life as normal. In the second season, she is heartbroken that she can't go to Grace's dad's funeral because she can't find a babysitting not because she wants to honor and say goodbye to her father, but because everyone else is going to be there. Seriously?

I don't mean to negate any experiences that teen parents might go through, even those similar to what happens on Secret Life. Maybe I have no place saying any of this because I was not a teen parent. But just because I wasn't a teen parent, doesn't mean I can't at least have an opinion about the show. Has anyone else seen this show? What do you think about it?

Harry's All About the Sexual Tension

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince came out last Wednesday and I have already seen it twice. I really liked the most recent installment. However, I have talked with some people who haven't read the books (gasp!) who didn't really care for it. I think that if you have read the books, you can better understand the pivotal points in relation to the Deathly Hollow (the 7th book and 7th and 8th movies). This movie doesn't do a great job at filling in people that have forgotten what has happened or hasn't read the books or seen the movies.

I thought that the movie was really good and pretty funny, at least more so that the other Harry Potter films. In this installment, the main characters discover the opposite sex. Harry and Ginny Weasley start to develop feelings for each other (which I was a little disappointed that they didn't develop this further as they did in the book), Ron starts dating Lavender Brown (which is where a good amount of the comedic relief comes from, that and the love potion Ron accidentally ingests), and Hermione is all about the teen angst when she sees Ron with Lavender.

But some controversy has come up over the sexualization of the characters. In the movie, the characters are entering their sixth year at Hogwarts, making them 16-years-old. This seems like a perfectly reasonable age to bring romantic relationships into the mix of the Harry Potter movies. But many don't think so...

An article on EW.com attacks the film for being too sexual, saying that's not what J.K. Rowling intended. Maybe the film did develop these relationships further than the book (it has been a while since I've read the book all the way through), but the book definitely had these relationships in them. The author, Jean Bentley, proclaims that, "Despite illusions to the contrary, teenagers don't actually have adult relationships."

What? I'm pretty sure if you talk to 16-year-olds, they are capable of romantic relationships, and even want them (oh no!). But apparently, according to Bentley, teenagers don't have relationships and don't have sex. While there is no sex in the Harry Potter movies (and I don't think there should be because it was technically started as a children's series, even though it's evolved into much more), there is definitely a lot of sexual tension and snogging (I love British lingo).

And what of the lovely actors who play the main characters. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint are now between the ages of 19 and 21. Oh no! They've grown up! This seems to be particularly treacherous for Emma Watson, the beloved Hermione Granger. As Salon points out, it is harder for Watson to transition into maturity and change her image from girl to woman than it was for her co-star Daniel Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter (or would be for most any male actor).

After discussing Watson's "Interview" cover, Joy Press (author of the Salon article) states...

Is this Hermione's get-out-of-child-stardom card, I wondered? Daniel Radcliffe had already plotted his escape route last year with a quick shortcut to instant adult status: full-frontal nudity. Since it was for a serious role in a serious play (Peter Shaffer's "Equus"), Radcliffe was feted for artistic credibility and bravery (especially after he talked in interviews about the shriveling effects of a live audience on the male member).
But shifting your image into a more mature gear has very different ramifications for a young woman than for a young guy. I doubt many people actually wanted to glimpse Harry Potter's wand, whereas at least one creepy Web site counting down the days till Watson's 18th birthday popped up back in 2004.

Yes, there was some controversy surrounding Radcliffe's appearance in Equus, but, like Press says, that was accepted once it was realized that it was a "serious role." But Watson's entrance into maturity is not as easily accepted because it involves her posing seductively on covers of magazines, not taking serious roles where you have to run around naked on stage. But she's 19. We only care because we still think of her as the 10-year-old from the first Harry Potter movie. And she can hold her own against the press (at least from what I've seen) and even describes herself as "a bit of a feminist."

And speaking of the movies again, can we talk about Watson's character, Hermione? She's amazing. She's smart, sexy, and kicks ass (much like I believe Emma Watson to be). One of my favorite scenes of the series (there are many) is from Prisoner of Azkaban when she punches Malfoy for laughing at the execution of Buckbeak the Hippogriff.

Overall, I really loved the Half-Blood Prince. I appreciated the sexual tension that was there, I thought it lightened the movie and gave some great comedic relief. And really, there wasn't a whole lot of it seeing as how the movie was still PG. But, granted, it would take a lot for me to not love the movie because I am pretty much obsessed with the series. I think people just need to get over the fact that teenagers have romantic relationships. It's really not a big deal.

Further Reading:
Half-Blood Prince Suffers From Lack of Action, Emma Watson's Hotness [Jezebel]
Our Little Wizards Are All Grown Up [RHRealityCheck]
Emma Watson Owes It To Her Public To Get Naked, Says Public [Jezebel]
Just Saw Harry Potter and... [F Bomb]

The Implications of "16 and Pregnant"

I'm not normally a huge fan of reality shows on MTV, I find them pointless and vapid. So when I was strolling through channels and came across their new show "16 and Pregnant," I just kept going because I expected it to just be another shallow show. But when I saw this blog post, I became more interested in it. Right now I've seen 2 out of the 3 shows that have aired.

The show is actually pretty decent. It doesn't romanticize teen pregnancy too much (like shows like "The Secret Life of the American Teenager"). "16 and Pregnant" shows many of the struggles that teenagers go through when they are pregnant. MTV has even created a partner website for the show called It's Your Sex Life (IYSL). While not complete, this website has some good information on how to talk with your partner about sex, staying protected, and getting tested.

"16 and Pregnant" (at least the 2 episodes I've seen of it) have dealt with the reactions of friends when they found out the girl was pregnant, father's of the baby not pulling their weight, absent fathers, trying to make ends meet, attempting to continue education when they have a newborn baby, and so on. However, in each of these two episodes, the parents of the girl (and the guy in the episode where the guy is involved) are supportive and help the teenagers through. This is great! But definitely not the reality for many teen parents.

The show is about teens who have decided to keep and raise their children. There is barely any discussion of the other options that people facing unwanted pregnancy have: abortion and adoption. Many teenagers who get pregnant struggle with these options and making this decision. While I think that it is fine if the show focuses on girls who have decided to keep and raise their children, it is also important to show how and why they came to this decision. By not showing the discussion of other options, it is sending the message that raising your child yourself is the only socially acceptable option.

I can kind of understand not highlighting teens who choose abortion, just because it is such a political issue and they need to keep their audience and advertisers (I didn't say it was a good reason, I just said I kind of understand it). But adoption can be a very traumatic and emotionally stressful experience. I think the show and its audience would greatly benefit from showing the adoption process and what it puts the parents through. This will show the reality for many teen parents and help people who are in this situation with their decisions about their pregnancy.

While I think this show is a great idea and does a good job at showing the reality of teen pregnancy and parenthood when you decide to raise your child, it is not the reality for many teens you get pregnant. It is important to show all of the realities so as to not discriminate against any decisions concerning teen pregnancy. But I am going to keep watching because it is an interesting show.

Megan Fox is Setting a Bad Example...Anyone Surprised?

I saw "Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen" for the second time last night when I took my neighbors to see it. I was interested in seeing it again not only because I like action movies but also because something about it bothered me the first time. I thought that seeing it a second time would help me get past the explosions and loud noises to help me better understand what bothered me about it the first time.

It was obvious, even the first time, that there were racial stereotypes (even though Michael Bay, the director, claims it's just comedic relief) and it was also obvious that Megan Fox's character didn't really serve a whole lot of purpose, at least not to me.

I'm not going to talk too much about the racial stereotypes, there has been a lot of discussion of that (see Newsday and Valley24 - for a more positive review of the movie). What I do want to talk about is the obsolete character of Mikaela Banes, played by Megan Fox.

To me, it seems like the only thing that Fox seems good at in this movie is having pouty lips and wearing low cut shirts while running in slow motion and falling cleavage first in front of the camera. And the main storyline surrounding Mikaela Banes is her trying to get Sam (Shia LaBeouf) to tell her that he loves her.

The first time she tries to get him to say those three words she changes into a white dress to look like the hot, innocent girl. Throughout the movie, she brings this up numerous times and threatens to leave him if he doesn't say it. The message that I got out of this is that to get boys to love you, you have to look hot and wear low cut shirts and very high heels and this is your whole purpose in life. You can't contribute meaningfully to saving the world from killer robots, you just have to get the guy to want you. What kind of message is this sending to the teenage (and younger) boys and girls that are populating the theaters in the thousands (or more, I don't know exactly)?

When I saw this last night, I took four children (1 girl and 3 boys) all under the age of 12. I didn't know what to tell them when they asked why I didn't like Megan Fox's character. Do I tell them that she's only there as a sexual object whose only purpose is to have teenage boys stare at her for hours on end (and Fox likes it that way)? What I did end up telling them was that she was setting a bad example for women and teenage girls. But they didn't really understand what I meant.

How do we talk to children (especially ones that aren't your own, in my case) about what Megan Fox and her character mean for women? How do we expect these children to grow up to have healthy relationships if they keep seeing these types of ones in the media where girl is desperate to be desired and the guy refuses to say "I love you" until the girl says it first? Not to mention how do you discuss the racial stereotypes of the Transformers with them?

Maybe it's just me or the fact that these children aren't my own (I don't want to step on the toes of their parents), but it was a really awkward moment for me when they asked why I didn't like Megan Fox. If they don't understand why this character is harmful to women, what does that mean for them when they grow up?

What Happened to Weeds?

I used to love the show Weeds. It was sarcastic, had great social commentary, and always kept me interested. But something has changed. Something has been bothering me about the show lately. It all started when the Botwin's moved out of Agrestic and to Del Mar. And Nancy's move away from selling pot and into the Mexican mob.

The main thing about this move that bothers me is Nancy Botwin's relationship with Mexican mob boss, Esteban. I hate this guy, and I'm pretty sure we're supposed to. At least I hope we're supposed to hate him.

Nancy and Esteban have an abusive relationship. But nothing is being done about it. He rapes her, he hits her, he threatens to kill her...and when she gets pregnant, she is forced into constant surveillance and going to a doctor that treats her like dirt and Esteban like a God.

Nancy barely stands up for herself. She tries to protect her family the best she can, but not very well. While I think (hope) we are supposed to realize that this is an incredibly unhealthy relationship, I wish the show presented ways that women could get out of situations of domestic violence. It could show women who are actually in this situation that there is a way out, that there is hope, and that there are services and people out there to help them.

Weird Fascinations Aren't Always Good Things

I have this weird fascination with the Twilight phenomenon. I have always been intrigued by things that cause mass followings. I was first exposed to the Twilight series while working at a summer camp where a good number of the teenage girls were wandering around campus all day clutching their copies of one of the four books. I didn't think too much of it then, but then the uprising around the movie started happening and I started paying attention. (I must note that I have not read the books, the writing was just too much for me, but I have seen the movie a couple times and read articles about Twilight when I see them).

I'm not going to go into the feminist implications of Twilight too much right now because there are several great articles out there about it (check out Bitch magazine or Ms. magazine). What I do want to talk about now is New Moon.

A little while ago the first trailer for the New Moon movie was released (see below). In the trailer, Edward leaves after an incident where his "brother" Jasper almost kills Bella. Bella is distraught. She lies on the floor of the forest for who knows how long. Showing that she apparently cannot live without Edward. After that, she allows the vampire Laurent to taunt her and call her "mouth watering" while she just stands there helpless.

From what I can tell from the trailer and the little that I know of the plot of the book, I can see that New Moon is not going to be any less anti-feminist than Twilight, not that I was expecting much. I just wish that people wouldn't idolize Edward and Bella so much. They have such a messed up relationship. Edward is creepy as hell and Bella is this meek, little excuse for a woman. Even just looking at the tag line for Twilight: "and so the lion fell in love with the lamb." Bella (the lamb) is portrayed as this helpless animal that has no agency of her own. She's not even falling in love. Edward (the lion) is falling in love with her.

I won't even pretend to say that I won't go see New Moon. I really do have this weird fascination with this phenomenon. I honestly don't see why people are sooooo obsessed with it.

More to Objectify?

I'll admit...I like to watch "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette." I'm not saying they are good shows, but I enjoy watching this type of trashy television. But, Fox has a new show airing on July 28th called "More to Love." It is basically "The Bachelor" for "real people" (aka heavier people). I have mixed feelings about this show.

One ad for the show states that the average dress size for American women is 14/16 but the average size of reality TV show stars is 2. The Fox website says that they are "setting out to prove that love comes in all shapes and sizes with the new inspirational dating competition series." While I think it is great that there will be a more realistic representation of women in television shows, I'm not convinced that this show is a good thing.

We all know that the women that are portrayed in the media through television shows, ads, celebrities, and on and on do not represent what women really look like. But does making a separate show for "real"/heavier people just further other and objectify them? These contestants are separated into their own class of people. They aren't good enough to be on the real reality shows, so they had to make them their own show. By creating this show, we are further making heavier people "the other." Fox may think they are doing a good thing by saying "look, real people can find love too." But this implies that they can't find love on their own, without the help of a television network.

Fox's description of the show says that "each week, the husky hunk will wine and dine a group of curvy women to determine if they have more love to give or if they are truly more than he can handle." Even this description is objectifying the people on the show. They are described as "husky" and "curvy" as if their only defining characteristic was their weight. According to Fox, there is nothing more to these people than how they look, even though they think they are showing that people are more than how much they weigh. But is there really a way to have a "dating competition series" that doesn't simply value people for how they look and doesn't objectify both the contestants and the person "looking for love"? If there is, I have yet to see it.

The Purity Myth

This is one of the best books I have read in a while. The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Women was written by Jessica Valenti, founder and executive editor of Feministing (one of my favorite blogs, you should check it out). So, how is the virginity movement harming women and girls? The virginity movement and the "purity myth" place women's value in their sexuality. Moral women are women who are pure (i.e. save themselves for marriage) and immoral women are dirty (i.e. have sex before marriage). Boys are taught to be respectful, strong, aggressive, etc. to be moral people where as girls are taught that their morality lies in their sexuality. Valenti offers many examples of this from purity balls (gag!) to Girls Gone Wild to abstinence-only education and everything in between. The book is very comprehensive in its argument and just overall a good read. It is easy to approach, funny and sarcastic, but obviously has valuable and credible research behind the argument.

So what needs to be done about the virginity movement's attack on women?

"Abstinence classes that tell girls they're dirty and used unless they "save it"; a culture that doesn't believe women who are raped; porn-based beauty standards for our genitals; a moral compass for young women that's based solely on sexuality...There's no doubt that we have a difficult fight ahead of us, but I know we're up for it," (203).

What we need is a more complex and comprehensive approach to sexuality. Should all teenagers be having sex? No, that is not what Valenti is arguing. She is simply arguing that we should teach our youth (through schools and cultural views and values) that sex is a natural thing, but you have to be prepared for it both in the way of protection and in the way of maturity. We cannot stop women from having sex. That is not what we want to do. Women's sexuality is a natural thing. We want women (and men) to be prepared for sex and not feel ashamed of their sex life.

I cannot not make this argument as eloquently as Valenti did, so I recommend that all of you read the book (and check out Feministing!).

Sandra Bullock is a guy...?

Last time I checked, she wasn't. As I was driving back from Indianapolis today I listened to part of American Top 40 with Ryan Seacrest. He had a little blurb about Sandra Bullock's new movie, The Proposal. He basically said something along the lines of "Sandra Bullock's playing a guy." (I didn't get a chance to hear his interview with Bullock because the radio station cut out). Now, I was thinking about going to see this movie already because it looked like an amusing, light movie, but after hearing that I had to go see it!

What Seacrest was expressing in his little blurb was the belief held by many people in the United States still today. Someone who is a strong, successful, hard-working business person has to be male. Bullock's character is an editor at a publishing firm and everyone in the office is scared of her, using instant messenger to warn co-workers when she's coming. She's even called a "poisonous bitch" when she fires someone who hasn't been doing their job. Granted, she is pretty unemotional and detached from the people around her, but when did this become a bad thing. If she were a man, people might still be afraid, but he would be respected. It's so sad that this kind of sexism and double standard still exists in our society.

Later in the movie, Ryan Reynolds' character avoids helping a struggling Bullock by saying, "she won't let me help...she's a feminist." So, what's so wrong with this? Women can take care of themselves and can certainly carry their own luggage. But using feminism as an excuse to help someone who is clearly struggling is the kind of thing that has turned feminism into the "f-word." This kind of use of feminism is what is turning people off from it because feminists are then seen as "crazy bitches" who hate men.

This movie would have never been made, though, if the roles were reversed. If Bullock's character were a man who was forcing Reynolds' character to marry him, it would not be a funny, romantic comedy, it would be sexual harassment. This is true. But why is it funny when it's a woman forcing a man to marry her? Why isn't this sexual harassment, or at the very least, a misuse of power?

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't hate the movie. I laughed during quite a bit of it. It was a light-hearted, romantic comedy that I did enjoy watching. But what message about women and feminism is this movie spreading? This is just the kind of thing that is adding to the perpetuation of our sexist society. I'm not saying don't go see the movie. It was funny. It was pretty good, if you like romantic comedies. All I'm saying is that you should become aware of the kinds of messages the movies you watch are spreading about different genders, sexes, races, classes, sexual orientations...and the list goes on.