"Taking Control"

To steal a phrase, I do not think that means what Mr. Fitzpatrick thinks it means:

They know that only by encouraging young people like us to take control of ourselves - our sexuality, our behavior, our values - and resist the absurd "consequence-free sex" crud we've been force-fed at OSU and elsewhere. [sic]

In other words, we're being told that "taking control" means doing what Mr. Fitzpatrick says and following only one course of action.

Two Consequences

of thinking an environment in which abstinence-only education is promoted is a good thing, I present two examples to the contrary:

US-funded health search-engine censors all results for searches on "abortion"

Teens think drinking bleach will prevent HIV.

That second one is really pissing me off. Can we just admit that there's a huge overlap between anti-abortion and anti-intellectual, and that said overlap is not an accident?

Ugh, I'm so annoyed I'm even more incoherent than normal.

[Movies] Juno & The Great Debaters

So I saw two movies today (officially yesterday, but I'm still awake, so...). Juno, the first, was an excellent movie, and if I was still subbing I'd be talking it up to HS students (to be perfectly honest). It's much, MUCH better than Knocked Up.

Juno deals with one woman (played to perfection by Ellen Page) who happens to get pregnant while a junior in high school. I am loathe to give away the plot, so let's just say that I am now in love with Diablo Cody, the movie's screenwriter - and Ellen Page, who puts on a terrific performance as Juno herself.

My one critique of the movie is that I wasn't sure what the point was - i.e. that I'm not sure how the characters changed as a result of the events that occurred when the camera was on. And while that might seem like a serious critique, I still think it's a movie unquestionably worth seeing.

For anyone who has seen it: What was going on with Mark (Jason Bateman)? Was he supposed to be sympathetically viewed? Was he (in the words of a friend of mine (sympathetic or just plain pathetic?

...

The second movie I saw today was The Great Debaters. As brilliant as it was different from Juno (and wow, was it different... apples and oranges, to say the least), The Great Debaters was a Denzel Washington-directed, few-if-any-holds-barred film that addressed (in a way this philosophy major could love) serious issues of race, gender, morality and ethics in early 20th-century America.

It actually reminded me of the potential upside of debate (a subject I am sad to say I've had poor experiences with): The issues that get debated are often the major issues of the day, and in participating, the debaters often get to sharpen their minds for the "real" struggles they will face in the world.

The Great Debaters is not a movie to be taken lightly. It is often brutally honest, to the point that the crowd I saw it in clapped, laughed, shouted and most likely cried.

I think that's another of saying that y'all need to go see it - now. Just make sure to bring your serious self when you do.

Chris Matthews does something right

Normally that guy is pretty insane, especially when it comes to gender. This time, he gets one right. This is in regards to asking why anti-abortion activists don't seek criminal penalties against women who get abortions:

MATTHEWS: It just seems like you make a basic political judgment that would blame the doctor, when, in fact, these doctors don‘t go door to door offering people abortion services. The person who wants the abortion goes to a doctor and has the procedure done by the doctor. Yet you put the onus on the doctor. It just seems to be the strangest way to enforce a law.

Follow the links and check out the other guy's defense.

It's pretty telling.


I'm done posting for now. Promise.

h/t Hullabaloo.

Jezebel

...is the name of blog a friend of mine has turned me on to. At first, I was pretty skeptical - it reminded me of Wonkette but with more celebrities. It also reminded me of the biblical character and the resulting stereotype.

However, once I read enough, it penetrated into my tiny brain that the folks behind Jezebel (who I have been assuming are mostly or all women) are pretty critically feminist.

I like that.

They are also incredibly snarky, which I can't help but laugh at.

Anyway, this post is both an endorsement of my new favorite blog and an excuse to post something I read this morning that struck me as being exactly right. This is an excerpt from a suppose IM conversation between two contributors:

YOUNGJEZZY: I'd like to see a study on how the percentage of people who identify as pro-life dwindles after high school. To me, in a lot of ways, being pro-life is just another way of being a "good kid." The reason they get so crazy about it is because it's seriously the only political issue anyone in high school feels directly affected by.

HOTELLOBBYIST: I mean, I think everyone (Code Pink ladies excepted) is more radical in their youth than they are later in life.

Holy crap, does that describe the folks I went to HS with. It was (assumed) common knowledge that lots of the folks in the STARS (Students Today Aren't Ready for Sex, which was a codephrase for abstinence-only) program were having sex. And drinking, but that's another post...

Though I have to say I don't think HS students feel really strongly about abortions because they are affected by it, but because they've been programmed to feel really strongly about it. At least in my experience.

In any case, good on Jezebel for pointing out the - again! - class nature of HS abortion/abstinence debates: "Good" (read: middle class or higher) kids don't have sex. Only poor (read: slutty) women have kids while in school.

Do I even need to say that I've met HS students with kids, and some of them have their shit together far more than their student leader counterparts? No? Good.