On the news this morning there were several segments about a group of high school sophomores in Massachusetts who created a pregnancy pact. I'll admit, I watched the coverage and thought "seriously?" Fads a great; I layered socks and wore stonewashed jeans at one point, but babies are not fads. At the same time I was watching, I was thinking that I really felt sorry for these girls, not just because they have forever changed their lives but because Time magazine had made them headline news, so they will also be villainized publicly for making what was probably a really bad decision. Even more so, they will be used as scapegoats for people to theorize what went wrong, and those people with likely be quick incite opinions that are neither rational nor productive.
For example, the first comment on the Pantagraph's website reads as follows:
Everyone of these babies should be taken away from these girls and given to a good home. What a bunch of sick kidsWhat follows is 27 other comments (and growing by the hour) of people blaming the girls, their parents, society as a whole, the school, the boys who got them pregnant. The only person I have not seen blamed yet is a politician (on either side), but knowing the Pantagraph commenters, that should be included shortly.
So, this morning I was both annoyed at the actions of the girls (because we have teens who don't plan to get pregnant and are stigmatized when it happens unexpectedly and this isn't going to help that) and really annoyed at the media coverage (yes, I realize that I am contributing to the attention by blogging about it, but the rant is still to come).
Somewhere in the back of my mind, I should have known the coverage was only going to make me more upset, but as I was flipping through channels this afternoon, I came across a report on Foxnews that sent me through the roof. The internet story starts like this:
With films such as "Juno" scoring well among critics and moviegoers last year and the media's great attention to the birth Thursday of 17-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears' daughter, many say teen pregnancy is being glamorized in the media.Okay, I get it...the Spears are not the best poster children for responsible decision making. Do we think that teenagers think that they are? Even the infamous "media" has described Brittney more times than I can count as: a bad mother, mentally unstable, impulsive, a trainwreck, and numerous other pejorative adjectives.
This gets my to why this story really, really bothers me. FoxNews, and to be fair most other news outlets, has now decided that we must explain this behavior in some way, and the target of choice: Juno. Google News currently lists 89 news stories that link the "Pregnancy Pact" with the film. Better than half of these throw in the media coverage of Jamie Lynn Spears giving birth yesterday, and quite a few add the film Knocked Up to the list of those to blame. This assumption is one that I spend entire semesters trying to move my children's literature students away from. Books don't teach, and by extension movies don't teach. It's true that movies and books may spark and interest or start a discussion (in fact we hope that they do this), but simply by watching a movie the reader doesn't not instantly decide that pregnancy is "cool." If this theory were correct than every time adolescents watched or read Harry Potter they would be jumping in fireplaces to travel via Floo Network. Last time I checked, this has not been the case.
In fact if we look at the two movies being cited in this case, Juno does not keep the baby and her pregnancy is not presented as the height of fashion or convenience. Knocked Up is an even more bizarre film to blame because neither of the characters in the film are teenagers and the mother has a career and means of supporting the baby. Blaming the media (of any type) doesn't make sense, in addition to the fact that it's not productive. If media images of adolescent sexuality were really to blame then teenagers would likely not be getting pregnant. In adolescent literature, for example, an adolescent female who has sex will nearly always end up portrayed in a negative light--she will lose her job, her car, the father of her child, sometimes be stricken with and STD or other negative health issue. The overwhelming message is frequently if you have sex, bad things will always happen.
The term Juno effect being blamed here, isn't even being used correctly. John Seery first coined the term when discussing a report that abortion rates in the United States have dropped. He says:
The movie Juno--perhaps a sign-of-the-times flick--depicts a sixteen-year old girl who gets pregnant. She goes to an abortion clinic, first encounters outside a classmate who is a clinic protester, enters the clinic anyway, declines the receptionist's offer of a flavored condom, surveys the rest of the setting, and then turns away.His use of the movie here is meant to explain the phenomena that has resulted in abortion rates dropping despite the fact that they are more accessible. He then goes on to note the following about why the movie is a significant reflection of "the times" adding an explanation that I've yet to see brought up when the term has been used to explain the teen pregnancies in Massuchussets:
We are left, I dare say, with a sense of Juno's own resolve and agency, a maturity and perspective seemingly beyond her girlish years. Her decision could conceivably have gone, however, the other way. And the film doesn't continue onward nor end as a happy-ever-after, feel-good triumph, though we do leave impressed with something more than Juno's pluckishness.
The upside of this rant is that it gives me something to talk about in my children's lit classes next semester.
UPDATE: apparently it's a feminist blogging kind of day. M just posted this which nicely addresses the complexities of feminism.
‘You lose everything,’ teen mom warns - Parenting & Family - TODAYshow.com
7 comments:
I read the stories about this today and almost posted on it, but I was just so angry I couldn't.
What gets me is that by writing all these news stories, the media is doing the EXACT same thing they are blaming the movies for--romanticizing these girls. Sure, they are are upset and accusatory, but at the end of the day, these girls are getting TONS of atttention.
I have to assume that so many of these girls are just so desperate for validation. A few years ago I did some pretty heavy duty research on teen pregnancy for a paper, and while this is a generalization, so many of the teens who get pregnant on purpose do so because they "want to be loved." They think that the child, the father, their classmates will shower them with love. And the problem is that a lot of these girls AREN'T getting love at home.
And I am not talking about the stereotypical "bad homes." I am talking about decent people who get so caught up in the world that they miss what their child so desperately needs.
Ug, I could keep going here, but I just need to get off the soapbox for now.
Saw coverage of the pregnancy pact today, and found it unbelievable.
Clever blog,adding a link!
Great post, G. I completely agree that all this ‘blaming’ is unbelievably unproductive.
I just love, in a non-loving sort of way, the way the articles are obsessed with repeating with the fact that one of the fathers may be a 24 year old homeless man.
I’m really curious about your comment that books don’t teach, and now I feel like a 170 student. I completely agree with you—after reading the twilight books, I didn’t suddenly want to give up my entire life and pine after a boy. But I guess that I do think, to a certain extent books/movies/whatever do teach—maybe not an individual book but a group of books, and perhaps not all texts teach the same person but certain books teach different people. For me, the Sweet Valley High books were like “this is what it’s like to be in high school, and this is what it’s like to have a boyfriend,” and I think some of my messed up ideas about relationships and boys came from consistently reading about the messed up relationships in those books (though I’m sure those ideas came from other places too) –does that make sense?
And I think that, for example, seeing women in a variety of roles and positions teaches possibilities; I may not want to become a real estate agent after reading a book about how cool real estate agents are, but perhaps that has opened up my understanding of the types of possibilities I have –I could be a real estate agent, if I wanted to be. Or, if I’m a teen having sex –these are some of the possible things that could happen to me (though from other experiences and other texts, I know that other outcomes are possible too). Does this make sense? Am I completely wrong? --If I am, at this point in my life, someone should really be cluing me in, okay
@B I should have clarified. We talk A LOT in 170 about how books have ideologies and sometimes these ideologies are problematic. If the only image of women people get is one singular image, this is a problem, but the book itself doesn't not teach. People teach books. My issue is the value some 170 students but on books in order to deal with issues that they don't think children are ready for. So, for example, they are all about books that promote sharing, but they object to books that contain adolescent sexuality because they claim that those teach teens to have sex (as if nothing else in society does this).
I like how you point out the prolonged exposure. Overtime, readers may start to identify with or adopt specific ideologies, but a since book in a single moment doesn't "teach" readers to do anything. (Keep in mind that the notion of teaching in their mind is a direct transfer of information) The reader brings other experiences to that book and these experiences are constantly influencing how a text is read. So, saying that Juno inspired these girls to get pregnant might be more credible if we did in fact have a plethora of positive images about teenage mothers floating around in society. The hole in this logic is that we don't.
My major annoyance with this logic is that we don't think the same way about adults. We assume that children/adolescents behave in cultist manors, but adults don't.
So, I realize that these comments are now longer than the post, but one last thought on books teaching. Books contain ideas, but teaching is an active verb in my mind. A book (or really the author) can determine how each person will interact with me. I guess my pet peeve here is that when my students can only think of what the book teaches, they fail to see it as an ideology that interacts with their own ideologies. Sarah Dessen's Someone Like You shows a teen who has sex and gets pregnant, but it is far from promoting such behavior. The protagonist gets pregnant the night she's loses her virginity, her relationship with her mother dissolves, her boyfriend is killed in a car wreck (the only reason I read the book :), and she misses out on a lot of life. I resist the verb teach because many would lump this in with Juno and say it glorifies/teaches/encourages teenage pregnancy, there for it's bad. I say it's problematic, but not for that reason.
Oh, okay, I understand the difference now-- thinking about it in active terms is helpful --you're right the book doesn't do anything . . . although I wish some books did stuff. I hadn't really thought about how, especially in the media, "teaching" is usually associated with promoting something-- I think I was using the word differently and probably wrongly :)
Ah, Someone Like You --I too read this book. I think it was because you mentioned the mother in the book to me. I have the movie How to Deal, if you get bored this weekend :)
I'm just catching up on my blog reading (it's been a busy couple of days). Just a quick note to say "kudos."
Post a Comment