This welcome is long overdue as Emily Kirkman, GWP’s new intern, has been working on vamping up our site for a number of weeks now. You may have noticed a few snazzy new adjustments to Girl with Pen thanks to Emily: this includes a listing of an author’s “Last Five Posts” at the end of a post, as well as a number of back-end tech work that is making our lives much easier, and Girl with Pen much more awesomely teched out.

Emily is currently a senior at University of North Carolina Wilmington where she impressively bridges both humanities and technology as an Art History major, specializing in Contemporary Art and Visual Culture, and a Technical Support Assistant at UNC-Wilmington’s Technology Assistance Center. She’s headed even further into academia, having applied to Master’s programs in both art history and gender studies for next year. We are extremely excited to have Emily on board and hope she will continue to give her tech knowledge–and hopefully some posts–to the GWP community!

Well someone is paying attention at last. Judith Warner, who writes the Domestic Disturbances column for the New York Times, has a column today that delves into the question I asked two days ago: Why is NO ONE interested in the fact that studies have shown that teens as a group aren’t actually promiscuous?

Warner first describes how Linda Perlstein, the author of Not Much Just Chillin’: The Hidden Lives of Middle Schoolers, kept being called during the media frenzy over the “oral sex epidemics”:

“I’d say, ‘No one is doing that,’” she told me when I called her this week to refresh my memory of her story. “Even the sluttiest kids I knew, when I told them about that said, ‘Ewww. No one does that.’ This really prurient stuff was being way overblown.

“Believe me, I wanted to be on ‘Oprah.’ I had a book to sell. I’d say, ‘There’s lots of stuff to talk about. Stuff that really should be talked about, that’s more nuanced and complex.’ They were like ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’”

Warner has a theory well worth considering as to why society and parents insist on oversimplifying issues that relate to children’s loss of innocence:

All the examples of child myth-making that I’ve mentioned here have to do, at base, with the perceived corruption of childhood, the loss of some kind of “natural” innocence. When they depart from kernels of reality to rise to the level of myth, they are, I believe, largely projections that enable adults to evade things. Specifically, the overblown focus on messed-up kids affords parents the possibility of avoiding looking inward and taking responsibility for the highly complex problems of everyday life. [my emphasis]

In the case of the allegedly lascivious Lolitas, Kefalas sees this flight from reality very clearly: “People don’t want to hear about the economic context, the social context” to young teen sexual activity and teen pregnancy, she told me. “For a 14-year-old to be having sex it’s usually a symptom of a kid who’s really broken and really hurt. Those who are having sex without contraception are a distinct set: they’re poor, from single-parent households, doing poorly in school, have low self-esteem. Teen pregnancy is so high in America compared to other places not just because of access to contraception but because we have a lot of poverty. But Americans don’t want to see themselves as a poor society. They want to make a moral argument: if only teens had better values.” [my emphasis again]

It does seem rather fantastical to me that articles and authors group “teenagers” as a whole into one category, and then encourage parents to practice parenting based on a grossly oversimplified and sensationalized definition of what it is that teens do. It should be the responsibility of these authors and talk shows, particularly if they purport to care about teens’ lives and futures, to ignore the ratings and the talk show invites, to report fairly and with an eye to the specifics, both differences and overlaps, between groups of teens–and with an eye to root causes, far beyond and much more relative than “morality”, as to why some teens do engage in promiscuous behavior.

I teach a persuasive essay writing class to high school sophomores and every time a student hands in an essay draft, I inevitably hand it back with a big circle drawn around the intro: “You need to push this thesis–make it more complex, more sophisticated, more specific. Tell me how and why and in what way,” I write. We, as readers, as [future] parents, as once-teens-ourselves, have the responsibility to do the same for those who report on contemporary teenage behavior.

–Kristen Loveland

Just over a month ago, the New York Times featured a column by Charles Blow lamenting the state of young people dating (in case it’s not obvious, his main points: dating = desired; hooking up = “sad”). The column was filled with over-generalizations, most notably about “what girls want.” To see a more even-handed, inquisitive, if still problematic, article about our fairer sex’s needs, you should probably take a look at the New York Times Mag’s “What Do Women Want,” which includes such felicitous quotes as, “Meana made clear…that, when it comes to desire, ‘the variability within genders may be greater than the differences between genders,’ that lust is infinitely complex and idiosyncratic.” As a keen follower of many a cultural-sexual zeitgeist article, it was a refreshing moment.

Far away from the Op-Ed page in the NY Times’ Health section yesterday, there appeared yet another article that made me sniff the air and wonder, “Has change really come to America?” The article, titled “The Myth of Rampant Teenage Promiscuity” documented how, despite making guest appearances on Oprah as an “oral-sex epidemic” and on Tyra, the idea of millions of not-yet-legal Americans getting it wildly on, is, well, not totally the case. (For the record, the Guttmacher Institute rebutted the notion of a teen oral sex epidemic last year: their research showed that most teens who have had oral sex have also had intercourse, and only 1 in 4 virgin teenagers have had oral sex.)

Tyra’s shows, on a teen pregnancy epidemic and teenage unprotected sex, were at least more on topic, though like most TV hosts her unscientifically-surveyed data was thrown to the public replete with exclamation points and sad-face emoticons.

So what’s the real dish on teenage sex? The National Center for Health Statistics troublesomely reported this month that “births to 15- to 19-year-olds had risen for the first time in more than a decade.”

But does this necessarily mean a rise in teenage promiscuity? Of course not, as one perspicacious NY Times reporter, Tara Parker-Pope, demonstrates. Having done her research, Parker-Pope also reports that “Today, fewer than half of all high school students have had sex: 47.8 percent as of 2007, according to the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, down from 54.1 percent in 1991” and goes on to write:

The latest rise in teenage pregnancy rates is cause for concern. But it very likely reflects changing patterns in contraceptive use rather than a major change in sexual behavior. The reality is that the rate of teenage childbearing has fallen steeply since the late 1950s. The declines aren’t explained by the increasing availability of abortions: teenage abortion rates have also dropped.

And indeed, as the Guttmacher Institute has reported, there has been a shift in sex education: in 2002 the proportion of teens likely to hear information about contraception had declined from 1995, while the proportion who were likely to have heard only abstinence information had increased.

Kathleen A. Bogle, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at La Salle University and the author of “Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus” (N.Y.U. Press, 2008), who was also cited in the Charles Blow column, though in a very different context, closes off the article by telling everyone to basically just chill the hell out:

“I give presentations nationwide where I’m showing people that the virginity rate in college is higher than you think and the number of partners is lower than you think and hooking up more often than not does not mean intercourse,” Dr. Bogle said. “But so many people think we’re morally in trouble, in a downward spiral and teens are out of control. It’s very difficult to convince people otherwise.”

Of course, reporting that we actually shouldn’t be worried about teenage sexuality isn’t sexy –it takes away our society’s opportunity to fetishize the idea of forbidden, rampant teen sex, our society’s leeway to take a morally outraged and overwrought approach to young people’s sex lives. So why should I be surprised that the article hasn’t gotten anywhere near the “Most Emailed List,” even in the Health section, and even though the Blow column spent a number of days in front-page, Number One spot? I guess I’m not. I just wish I could be.

-Kristen Loveland

Image Credit.

Oh, happy day! I was alerted by an email from NARAL Pro-Choice America announcing that President Obama has signed an executive order putting an end to the Global Gag Rule after eight arduous years. Yesterday, on the thirty-sixth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama put out the following statement:

“On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.”

The Global Gag Rule was first implemented by Reagan and banned tax-payer money from going to international family planning groups. Clinton ended it, Bush reinstated it, and now Obama has ended it again. Let’s hope it’s gone for good.

CBS News reports also on how an anti-choice group has used Obama’s image once again in an ad, just as his image was used in the Prop 8 battle, despite his opposition to their cause.

Image Credit.

While I was disappointed by Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration, and felt it was a double slap in the face to those fighting for gay rights after Prop 8, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the choice. It seemed that it spelled the beginnings of a new era where the many faces of America were recognized, no matter which administration was in power and even if that meant recognizing those who refuse to do the same for their fellow citizens. It also just seemed like a symbolic, if potentially politically beneficial move for Obama, and one not to lose too much breath over given more substantive battles ahead. A New York Times article reported the following on how the invocation choice was received in Oklahoma:

The church’s pastor and founder, Billy Joe Daugherty, said that the selection of the Rev. Rick Warren, a prominent evangelical minister from California, to give the inaugural invocation went a long way to easing fears in Mr. Daugherty’s mostly conservative congregation about a liberal social agenda. Mr. Obama’s selection of Mr. Warren has been denounced by many gay rights advocates and other liberal groups.

And as Bishop Gene Robinson wrote, the inaugural committee’s request that Bishop Robinson, the only openly gay pastor of a major Christian denomination, give the invocation at the opening We Are One event was “an indication of the new president’s commitment to being the President of ALL the people.”

As long as Obama’s administration still pursues that liberal social agenda (getting rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, shoring up abortion rights, getting rid of Bush’s 11th hour health provider “conscience” rule), I’m fine with him extending the symbolic olive branch.

But speaking of facts on the ground, in reality Rick Warren’s speech was extremely disappointing, a piece exclusionary buffoonery. First, it felt generally uninspired, an ordinary speech for an extraordinary moment. Second, while some felt it gave inclusive nods to various American religious populations, I found his invocation of Jesus and full inclusion and leading of the “Our Father” prayer as unsettling, and I was raised with both in my religious background. I can’t imagine how it felt to those for whom such prayers and invocations have no religious meaning.

But it was the contrast between Rick Warren’s invocation on Tuesday, and Gene Robinson’s on Sunday, that was the most stark. Bishop Robinson began with a explosively inclusive tone: “O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…” and continued on:

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

You should also read Gwen and Tonni’s awesome GWP post about feminism and faith from this morning.

Update:

I like this description from the New York Times of the national prayer service this morning attended by the Obamas and Bidens at the National Cathedral:

Some new traditions were also being made. The service featured no fewer than 20 interfaith clergy, including woman leaders of the Muslim and Hindu faiths. And for the first time, the preacher was a woman, the Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins, general minister and president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), a mainline Protestant denomination.

Last night I went to see a screening of Last Chance Harvey, a new film starring the ever-classy Emma Thompson as Kate and the inimitable Dustin Hoffman as Harvey in a mature romance about a Brit and American who meet and fall in love over one whirlwind weekend in London.

During the film, I found myself trying to count the number of other Hollywood movies that involve a man and a woman falling in love when they’re middle-aged. I don’t mean a second-love romance occurring after both have already been through their first loves, nor a film about late-life, sustained love, such as On Golden Pond, but a romance that portrays two people finding each other and love, as if for the first time, when they’ve already crossed the 40-year mark. In today’s society, it’s not unusual to see an independent, smart, and attractive 50-ish woman finding love for the first time–look at the New York Times Wedding section on any given weekend–but it is astounding to find it at your local movie theater.

The characters Thompson and Hoffman play are flawed. So used to the filmy, bubbly romantic comedies of our day, which elicit guffaws and chuckles and knowing smirks, I was surprised to find myself cringing at various moments: at Harvey standing to give an unexpected speech at his daughter’s wedding, at Harvey’s first attempts to hit on Kate at the airport bar, at Kate sitting and waiting for a Harvey that failed to show. At a certain point I realized I was cringing because of how close it felt to home. “Don’t hit on her!” I thought, because I’d seen men hit on women in the exact same way before, and sometimes failing to elicit such happy results. “Careful with your hope,” I mouthed, because who hasn’t been disappointed in love?

It’s refreshing to see such a film come out of Hollywood. While European movies often portray men and women who haven’t been airbrushed and readjusted to spectacular, non-human qualities, it’s rare to see this in a mainstream American movie. Thompson has a muffin top, Hoffman is wracked with wrinkles, yet they are (surprise!) still able to fall in love and stage a sweetly romantic kiss just like any other Hollywood star and starlet.

Thompson (God, how I adore her) wrote a blog post about the movie, which I think sums up better than anything the uniqueness of the movie, despite following a typical cute-meet-fall-in-love storyline, and the power of it, despite its quiet and contemplation:

If you see the picture, and I hope you will because I love it very much and am moved by it every time I see it, you’ll notice I am decidedly unglamorous and at least size 16. I really wanted to look like a “normal” woman, I mean in terms of body size.

Actresses seem to be getting tinier and tinier and I do wonder how we think we can present really powerful women, matriarchs and the like, when we seem to insist upon having such attenuated physiques.

So Kate is solid – probably worries a bit about her muffin-top (mine is more like a desk-top these days if you must know) but can’t find the energy to worry enough to go to the gym and can’t find the time either.

She’s a real sort of person, someone I could relate to entirely and I hope you enjoy her. If you do, tell your friends because the more we can get films like this well distributed the more films we can make about (for want of a better epithet) real women as opposed to (let’s face it) pretend ones.

The film opens up around the country this weekend. The trailer is available here: http://www.lastchanceharvey.com/.

The Obama InauguralBlog has released the lineup for the WE ARE ONE: THE OBAMA INAUGURAL CELEBRATION AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL, which will take place on January 18th (so soon!). Included in the lineup, besides a huge number of celebs and music artists, is the Rt. Reverend V. Gene Robinson giving the invocation. The press release also emphasizes again and again how “inclusive” the event will be. To wit:

The 56th Inauguration promises to be the most inclusive in history, and the Opening Celebration is one of a series of inaugural events that reflect that commitment.

Reverend V. Gene Robinson of course is the first openly gay, non-celibate priest in a major Christian denomination (Episcopalian). Is this an olive branch to the gay community after Rick Warren?

I just had to put up a quick post highlighting some of the great articles coming out of RH Reality Check discussing what Obama’s administration will mean for reproductive rights. Over a year ago, RH Reality Check published a questionnaire filled out by Obama’s campaign staff outlining his nuanced, but firm view on reproductive rights.

Now that President Bush is doing his best to undermine reproductive rights in the last days of his presidency, how sure can we be that a President Obama will live up to the promises seen in Obama the candidate? As with much of the future Obama administration, right now we can only react and predict as his nominations and appointments unfold. So, the good, the bad, and the ugly?

The (very) good: Obama nominated Dawn Johnsen this week to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. Johnsen is a fierce, pro-choice advocate who served as Legal Director for NARAL Pro-Choice America from 1988-1993.

The, well, not bad, just unknown: Obama’s office announced the nomination of CNN’s Sanjay Gupta for surgeon general. Gupta’s CNN show, “House Call,” has avoided the topic of reproductive health and when talking about AIDS has never really touched on the topic of sex. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/01/08/but-can-he-talk-about-sex

Still, reproductive issues specifically rarely grace the screen. An entire episode devoted to “women’s health issues” covered only the topics of breast cancer, smoking, and heart disease. In a 2004 special on multiple births, he headed up the top of the news program with the news that pregnancies among girls ages 10-14 were on the decline, which he attributed to “abstinence programs and birth control,” a fairly ambiguous and tentative statement.

And the Ugly: Well, this may actually be a good. It seems that right-wing, anti-choice extremists are already plotting their opposition marches and rallies and false information spreading. While this is something pro-choice organizations will have to focus on combating, it is a good sign that the opposition is scared of what an Obama administration will mean for reproductive rights.

Fallout from Prop 8 continues as various organizations, who have pro-gay rights missions or are dedicated to upholding their non-discrimination policies, decide how to approach businesses and other organizations (the Mormon Church of course being a primary target) in California that gave money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.

Working in the world of scholarly organizations myself, I found Inside Higher Ed’s article on the American Historical Association (AHA)’s decision to go ahead with their conference at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego as planned especially interesting. The Manchester Hyatt’s owner, Doug Manchester, funneled a great deal of money to the campaign. Instead of backing out of their contract, which would still drop hundreds of thousands of dollars into Doug Manchester’s hands plus allow him to book the space for another function, the AHA has voted on an alternative proposal to pack their program with sessions dealing with gay rights issues. Given how much the AHA has already invested and that Manchester would get much of the money either way, I actually very much like this alternative plan. Other scholarly organizations, which have not yet signed contracts, are planning to boycott the hotel.

I am still amazed by stories of business owners in California who gave a great deal to Proposition 8 and didn’t think that their businesses would be affected by their support for a law that discriminates against many of their clients.

I hope everyone’s gone out to see the phenomenal Milk, and I also hope that everyone’s going to have a fabulous time tonight with their friends and loved ones. But if you do get a chance, I recommend that you take a break and see the 1984 documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk, which sheds further light on the trial of his killer, Dan White, on the work and outreach efforts of San Francisco’s mayor George Moscone (also murdered by White), and provides loads of profound, moving archival footage, some of which Gus Van Sant used in his movie. Happily, the documentary is now up on Hulu: