TV Review: 16 & Pregnant

This is another post I have up on Jump off the Bridge for the Blogathon. I've been blogging for almost 24 hours now to raise money for READ Foundation.


I have to admit that I had zero interest in watching 16 & Pregnant when I learned about it. MTV is all about reality tv nowadays, and a lot of it is crap, so I just assumed this would be too. But people were posting about the show all over the blogosphere, and I started to get curious. So I set my DVR and decided to watch some of the episodes.

To say that I have mixed feelings about this show is an understatement.

My initial discomfort came from getting the sense that this might glorify teen pregnancy. But, considering the fact that the U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world, I suppose we need to just keep trying things until they work. Still, there is a bit of a sense that everything will turn out okay with these teen parents that might be misleading and not make for much of a deterrent.

I was then bothered by what other bloggers noticed as well, the fact that abortion and adoption were not being considered as practical options. I understand that the sponsors probably wouldn't be too thrilled about portraying abortion as an option for any age, and certainly not for teens. But it's reality. Isn't reality tv supposed to, you know, represent reality? Okay, no, I guess not...

To be fair, I did watch one episode where the teen couple ended up giving their baby up for adoption. It was actually my favorite episode because it showed the struggle over the decision itself, in addition to all of the other aspects of the teen pregnancy. But then I thought, what if it was too negative? Will people forget about adoption as an option because it's too painful? Reactions on twitter while the episode was on mostly commented on how sad the episode was.

It's really a big balancing act, but ultimately I think the series could do a better job. I'm not sure if there is another season planned but if there is, I hope they take it as an opportunity to highlight teens from various backgrounds in the hopes that it provides a richer range of perspectives.

All of that said, I did enjoy watching the show. It wasn't full of the unnecessary drama that often comes with reality shows on MTV. I was sort of expecting Sweet 16 with a bun in the oven, but it seemed much more genuine than that.

(Originally posted at Jump off the Bridge.)

Vintage Sexism: Pop Science from Centuries Past

Google Book Search has recently added a massive collection of vintage Popular Science magazines dating back to the 1800's and, throughout the decades, most issues spend a considerable number of pages dedicated to the controversial questions of Lady Brains and The Woman Question. Here are some classics:

From May 1872 (p. 87): "...excellent suggestions are frequently made by those who are not fitted by Nature to carry their own ideas into operation. This is especially true in the case of women, who, if they were to devote their whole energies to science or politics, would do violence to their physical organization." (Read: oh noes, if we let them have power or education, their titties will fall off!)

From May 1872 (p. 91): "Women, however, with intellects truly masculine, are, and have always been, more rare than women with masculine development of muscles. There are few, if any, distinctively masculine pursuits in which any woman has ever succeed..."

From October 1872 (p. 165): "It is a lamentable truth that the troubles which respectable, hard-working married women of the working-class undergo are more trying to the health, and detrimental to the looks, than any of the irregularities of the harlot's career."

From March 1872 (p. 553): "It is true that the actually existing generation of women do not dislike their position. The consciousness of this haunts Mr. Mill [as he argues for women's rights] throughout the whole of his argument, and embarrasses him at every turn."

From August 1910 (p. 161): "One phenomenon in this connection is almost embarrassing to mention, in view of the present growing sentiment in favor of women's rights and woman suffrage. It appears from the effects of a recent earthquake on the American people, that human reason is more readily inhibited in the gentler sex and in children, than men... This statement will hardly pass for anything new. This distinction is implied in the wording of one report, which states that 'men were excited, women and children frightened.'"

From February 1920 (p. 36): "'I care nothing for style; I can wear the suit I have on indefinitely,' said Miss Fanny Harley... That, presumably, is why she wears trousers instead of skirts... She is convinced that women's success in the business world is threatened by their traditional, fashionable clothing. Undoubtedly, she would prefer to see our stenographers dressed in white trousers... We gravely doubt that would add to their efficiency."

Of course, today's Popular Science is not much better, as you can see by looking at the stories currently on the front page:

1. Science Dweebs Often Virgins - in which we learn that Science Dweebs are always male: "He blames a dearth of sexy role models for today’s blossoming men of science..." (emphasis mine)
2. Sex, Thighs and Video Games - the audience of this book review is assumed to be all-male as it discusses the depiction of women in video games. Here's an actual quote: "So have a read, ogle the pictures, and then grab your, er, controller and get your game on."
3. An article that dares to ask 'are men more likely to fall fast asleep after sex?' in which the author quotes a "sex expert" as saying "Men go to sleep because women don't turn into a pizza" - creepy image there, dude.

So, Popular Science still delights in gender stereotypes. I'll leave it to you to decide how far we've progressed in our popular notions of both science and gender over the last 136 years.

Baby Dood Sells Studio Rights to "How to Talk to Girls"

You remember that little kid who wrote an advice book that warned all males to steer clear of 'pretty girls' - girls who "have big earrings, fancy dresses and all the jewelry but are like cars that need a lot of oil"? Remember how Harper Collins gave this little dood a book deal (and, yet, they still won't return my calls)? Well, now he's sold the film rights to Fox. Classic.

Seriously, you can't get too irked with a 9-year-old for the dumb things he says or writes. Little Dood is getting these ideas about 'high-maintenance ladies' from somewhere, maybe there's a Big Dood at home. Seriously, though, what makes us so eager to buy back our own sterotypes repeatedly? What about a kid parroting them back to us makes us all sigh "awwww"?

UPDATE: Oooo, it looks like Guanabee is already working on a script. Go help them!

When Nice Guys (TM) Attack: Hot Chicks with Douchebags

First, a word about Nice Guys™:

“Nice Guys™”: The “™” marks the difference between men who are genuinely nice people and men with entitlement issues who wail “but I’m a nice guy!”. There are two types, which often overlap in one individual:

1. a guy who believes that the simple act of being decent means that the universe owes him a girlfriend.[defn from Mickle][more from Jeff Fecke at Shakesville]
2. men who are looking to date a woman with the appearance of a supermodel, and yet they continually whine about how “women don’t like nice guys - they only want good-looking assholes”...

And now that you know the Nice Guys™, I give you... their website! That's right, Hot Chicks with Douchebags is run by and for Nice Guys™ - a special place where they can collectively assert that the universe owes them women that look like supermodels while chanting "women only want assholes" in unison.

Sure, I'll admit HCwDB is funny at first glance. The site routinely mocks some colossally over-the-top displays of a particularly ridiculous idea of masculinity - one that would define 'manliness' as enormous muscles, tough-guy tattoos, and a loudly-stated and often-repeated interest in firearms. Muscle-flexing guys strutting for the ladies through loud displays of faux aggression and crotch-grabbing are an embarrassment, and they no doubt deserve to be mocked.

Still - the icky on HCwDB works on a lot of levels, and - after an initial guffaw - will ruin your fun. The problem is that instead of sticking to pointing out one type of harmful (and silly) gender performance, the site mixes in a healthy dose of misogyny and some huge double standards. Here are a few of the ways Hot Chicks with Douchebags goes wrong:

1. Drooling over the women in the photos is, in large part, what this site is about. Sure, Jay Louis, the site's author, tries to be 'ironic' as he publicly lusts over the women in the photos he posts- he writes "I would humbly bongo her hindquarters with only a quart of yak's milk and a small Malaysian sherpa named Shingwa to guide me" and "Speaking of manna, [this] blonde is trashy/tasty, but undeniably sexy, with a shoulder I'd suckle with the fright of a caged calf sensing his impending transition into veal" and "I long to fondle her inner thighs with chicken grease" - because ridiculousness is totally an antidote to creepy - right? Yet, this guy is posting pictures of women without their consent and writing about what (funny?) sex act he'd like to engage in with them - and that's not cute, its icky. Adding a few lines about the guy in the photo doesn't change the essential creepy wanker dynamic here either.

2. Just... this quote: "...Native Hottmerican on the right makes my wumpa want to wigwam, and my Native American term for something want to Native American term for something." I have no words. There's more like the above though - pretty much every woman of color on the site gets some type of similar treatment.

3. So, let's see if I've got this straight - if a woman works out, applies some makeup, and sometimes chooses revealing outfits... she's hot. And that's good, hot is what's she's supposed to be - so that men can have the pleasure of looking at her and deciding that they deserve her more than the guys she's freely chosen for her company. Yet, if a guy goes to the gym, styles his hair, and chooses an outfit that reveals what he considers to be his best physical assets... he's a douche who has somehow stolen the women that better men (men less concerned with their looks) deserve. That seems a bit like a sexual double standard. Of course, Louis responds to a similar criticism (deploy irony shield!) on the site:

[...] My mission quest is to save the hott by changing the culture. By rearranging the semiotics of discourse into a new alignment in which douchery is no longer necessary.

Then, and only then, will the boobies be free.

So someday it will be socially acceptable for a normal-looking guy to be the love interest of women who invest time and energy into looking like supermodels. Oh, wait a minute:














Look, to me HCwDB is a maddening display of male entitlement a la Nice Guys™. Yet, I haven't been able to convince a single person out here in the 'real world.' Several friends of mine maintain that the site is uproariously funny and that, if I just keep reading, I'll see how clever it is and fall madly in love with it. There have even been threats made of buying me the book. All I can say is... this guy got a book deal?!? I'm a nice blogger, the universe owes me a hot book deal... but not the accompanying lawsuits.

And so, dear readers - what do you think: is HCwDB super-plus funny or about a million tons of just plain gross?

Lesbians on ABC Family's Lincoln Heights?!?

Its no secret that we form our ideas about the way the world is 'supposed' to work in part by watching and parodying the attitudes and actions of those around us - especially when we're young. For just one little example (and I promise I'll get to the lesbian kiss soon), a recent report on NPR explained that many teens see smoking as relaxing and refreshing because they are "...primed to see smoking as a sort of relief... That's the image television — one of the strongest influences in their lives — portrays." Teens who watch shows like Sex in the City learn to expect a sense of relief when smoking a cigarette because that is what so many of the characters express when they light up. This 'priming' of young people's expectations also influences ideas about gender roles, body satisfaction, and heteronormativity as well.

Where was I? Oh, TV lesbians. TV's ability to prime our expectations about relationships and sexuality is one of the reasons I was so tickled to see this scene from ABC Family's Lincoln Heights. The story line is one that you've probably seen on made-for-teen and family shows before. As StuntDouble of After Ellen explains, the plot of this episode revolves around "...the old "I have this friend" trick. It works so well, until you actually do have this friend who needs you to intervene on her behalf... Cassie and her gay BFF, Stacy, have heard word that Kelly is a lesbian. Cassie thinks Stacy should just ask Kelly to prom, but Stacy doesn't even know if Kelly is actually gay! What to do? Send in your wingwoman, of course."



Oh no! We've got a Cyrano de Bergerac dilemma! For a good guess at what happens next, I'm sure we could refer to at least three Saved By the Bell plot lines. Yet, the predictability of the drama is part of what makes this scene so promising as a social message - it isn't that they're lesbians that complicates the plot, but the mix-up about who's doing the wooing. That its a same-sex love triangle, come on, that's no big deal. And that's a good thing.

Paris Hilton = Patriotic ?!?

God Bless America. While I support the country, I can think of 237 reasons why America is less than love worthy. Paris Hilton is one of them. (Honestly the ready availability of animal print hotpants might also make the list).

What would make your list of top reasons to love America? The site fivethirtyeight.com outlines why I think we'll all have a lot more things to celebrate in the future.