Avatar

SPOILERS. SPOILERS. DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS.

To be sure, Avatar in 3D is visually stunning, and sort of amazing.

But it is also... a little bit boring, slowly plotted, trite, and predictable.

The story is pretty basic, a sort of Fern Gully/Pocahontas (myth and Disney, not actual history) for grownups-- backstory is, humans find a new planet with some ridiculous rock substance, they develop work sites, the native population doesn't like them, humans try to establish a school to teach them English and modern things, the natives are like "Um, no. We like our lifestyle, thank you very much. Neurotoxin arrows, anyone?", and things fall apart.

The story, as we join it, is the transformation one "dumb" ex-Marine goes through as he learns of the interconnectivity of life, falls in love with a native woman, and manages to get accepted by a tribe (including, surprise surprise, her aggressive former suitor). It is HORRIBLY predictable. You know they will fall in love, you know that he will be accepted, and you know they will triumph. The foreshadowing over small details is even enough that you end up being able to predict those too. But predictability, in itself, isn't a killing stroke-- after all, men and women are both portrayed well in the movie-- as strong individuals, with rich emotional lives, capable of being scientists or warriors. They actually do a pretty good job on that front, without reducing toooo much to gender stereotypes. Though, of course, they make the military leader of the natives a hereditary male role, and the spiritual leader a hereditary female role. Which, yawn. Whatever. It's to be expected, I guess, even if it is an unconscious nod to the patriarchy. the inclusion of a woman as the lab PI and a woman as the best fighter pilot sort of help to make up for it on the feminism front, at least.

But the movie still has other problems. for a 3D movie, it's villains are awfully 2D. Their motivations are greed and bloodlust, and they have no complexity or moral qualms. While I know there are people like that, if you're going to have a movie as long as Avatar, with as much time spent on slow exposition, you might as well at least invest another ten minutes into making your villains real, into establishing some level of something more than simple disgust for them.

My biggest problem though goes back to the tired and played out trope of the Noble Savage. A quick Google search will show you plenty of people better able to talk about it at length than I am. But still-- it irks me, from the way the lead woman's voice is accented to her clipped stereotypical speech, to the way the native men regard the protagonist, to just-- the trappings of the culture.

I think the reason this all disappoints me so much is that it has the potential to be so much more. Stories about conservation and interconnectivity with nature are important, as are stories that feature strong women as scientists and warriors. But in the end, Avatar doesn't live up to it's promise.

Uuuuuugh

My first exam of this semester is tomorrow.

It is in Corporations.

My class is commonly referred to as "Corps for Commies".

I'm SO hoping there's a policy question I can just go off on, and talk about how corporations should have a duty to the community instead of just to make money for their shareholders.

And now... back to work.

And in a few days, back to posting.

A lot.

Be warned.

Pron

I spent part of the day yesterday hovering in the comments on a Jezebel.com article on porn, reading about how some women view porn and the problems they have with it. The prevailing viewpoint was that porn is harmful, in that it alters the way men view and interact with women-- not in that they expect women to look like porn stars, but in that they expect them to have sex like a porn star, or that watching porn somehow leads to a lack of respect for women in general.

I disagree.

When men lack respect for women, or treat women badly in bed, it isn't the fault of the porn-- it's the fault of the man. I'm not saying porn has no effect on men. I think it could expose them to a wider range of sexual activity, make them more tolerant of kinks, and yes, possibly even lead them to think some behaviors and attitudes are more common than they actually are. But when things go wrong, even if porn does have an influence, the problem is not the porn itself. It is the person, and how the person relates to their influences. People need to be able to treat all others as individuals-- and realize that you can't blame one influence for the result.

I think that porn, overall, can be a valuable thing-- it allows people to experience their kinks on their own, it enhances masturbation (which is valuable for those who can't get sex partners, as well as those in long distance relationships), and it allows them to have a sexual experience without a partner.

But so many people seem to think that watching porn is responsible for sexual attitudes. I'm not going to deny that it has some influence. But really, watching a video cannot be blamed for a romantic partner becoming less intimate with you, or treating you negatively, or.... some other issue.

It all comes down, as far as I'm concerned, to the lack of communication, and a lack of involvement. If your partner is asking for new things, or things you consider strange-- ask why! If your partner is treating you with less respect-- talk about it! It your partner seems unsatisfied with your sex life-- talk about it. I guarantee that adding a healthy does of communication will do more to fix relationships--and attitudes towards sexuality and women-- than eliminating porn would.

Adventure ad!

I just saw a commercial for Disney Princess Bikes, where two girls are riding around on their princess-emblazoned pink bikes, when one says-- they have to go rescue the prince from the castle! They ride to a tree, "rescue" a teddy bear prince, and then ride off to their next adventure-- even saying that they're headed to their next adventure, not just implying it!

This is advertising I can get behind-- depicting girls as smart, creative, and active. Disney may have a lot of flaws in the messages they send to girls, but this one they've got dead on.

No Thanks

I usually save my anger for things in society that are insulting to women, but this time I'm pissed because of something that's insulting to men.

Wedding websites.

Even though JD and I aren't truly ready to get into planning our wedding yet, what with not yet knowing what state we'll be in or what jobs we'll be working, I've started poking around on wedding websites. And... it seems that most of them, at least, are aimed at brides. Plus, since my relationship status changed on facebook, I've been bombarded with a series of incredibly similar incredibly offensive ads for even more wedding planning sites.

They all seem to assume that grooms are not invested in their wedding. The sites and ads paint this picture of a lazy groom who doesn't care about anything, and who won't help the bride out in planning unless he's forced. I find that depiction to be just... insulting to men. As insulting as the Bridezilla depiction is to women. Sure, a guy may not care that much about centerpieces, or menus, or... whatever. But a chick might not care that much either! In my case, I think that while we do care about the look of things, neither of us are going to care too much about the aesthetics-- we just want to be married! But JD and I will be equal partners in the planning.

I just dislike the assumption that men will be lazy, careless, thoughtless, avoidant. It seems like so much of the pop culture idea of a marriage is two wildly unsuited for each other individuals, him reluctantly committing, and her gleefully committing more because she wants a wedding than because she wants to spend her life with him. It almost seems as if the ads and sites assume that, to some extent, we're all like that-- and it is just so. offensive. Why would anyone marry a man who doesn't want to spend his life with his partner? And why would anyone marry a woman who cares more about a dress and some flowers than she does her partner? And why oh why does gendered advertising have to be so blatant and insulting-- to both your market, and the ones they love?

Divorce

I am the product of divorce. Not of my parents-- my parents have been married for around 40 years, but if it weren't for the availability of divorce in America, they wouldn't be. My mother is my father's second wife, and while his first marriage produced a couple of pretty cool women (my older sisters), the woman he married just didn't work with him.

So I totally think divorce should be available.

I just think it's treated way too casually today. Divorce should totally be available to anyone he is abused in any form, and anyone who really can not make things work with their partner. But.

But.

But, I think the availability of divorce today makes people take less seriously the promises they make when they marry. We have a divorce rate that is popularly said to be around 50%, short lived celebrity marriages, and the idea that a prenup is more than a precaution, it's a necessity.

That all disturbs me.

I think marriage is awesome! I also think it's a serious thing, and not something to be entered into lightly. I know some people think I'm too young to be making this decision, but I really don't-- I'm confident that JD and I will get married, it will be awesome, and we will not get divorced. But I think for a lot of people, marriage is seen more as a... thing that could be awesome ,but if it doesn't work out, there's always divorce, and they always have a second shot.

Second chances are good, and I don't think there should be a stigma that attaches to people when they get a divorce, but I do think that if divorces weren't treated so casually, maybe, just maybe, we would treat marriage more seriously. As far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't get married unless you've thought about it a lot, are planning to stay together, and are prepared for things to suck at times, and ready to work through them. Do I think things will always be smooth when I get married, that JD and I will always agree, that everything will be easy?

No.

I might be starry eyed, but please, I'm not that naive.

There will be times when things suck, and when things are hard, but we'll stick it out, because what we have is real-- and we're willing to work for it.

I feel like, regardless of how easy or difficult it actually is to get a divorce, if it weren't seen as such an easy option, that other people might be willing to wait to take on marriage until they find someone they're happy to struggle with, not just have easy times with. Settling in marriage is not just harmful to your relationship, it's harmful to you-- because you're sending the message that you don't deserve someone right, just someone ok, that you're willing to run away when things get tough, and that the long haul isn't as important to you.

It's super important that divorce remains available-- and affordable-- for people who do end up in unworkable marriages. But I think we also need a more realistic view of marriage-- so that people don't go into it thinking it's all a fairy-tale-- and ultimately, so that there are less divorces, and more happy marriages and happy singles-- and I totally think this issue is related to people not being happy single, which they should be, but--

In short, life is hard. It sucks sometimes. No one is perfect. So don't settle.

Marry the one who is right for you, so that you don't need to be another statistic in America's divorce game.

Sex Ed

I've been meeting a lot of new people lately (as a result of travelling out of town for three weddings this month) and quite a few of them have asked me what areas of law I'm interested in. When I tell them copyright and reproductive rights, several of them have them said, in a questioning tone, "Reproductive right?". I'm guessing that either having it chase copyright confuses, or that people simply aren't used to hearing the term itself. So them I explain-- and I explain that, while I'm a big fan of Planned Parenthood's mantra of "safe, legal, and rare", my main interest is working on the rare element.

I am definitely a big fan of easy, cheap abortion access. I think anyone who wants one, for any reason, should be able to get one. And I do mean any reason-- including even sex-selection of children.

But even though I'm in full support of abortions, I recognize that getting one sucks. Both kinds sound pretty awful-- induced miscarriage or surgical, either way your insides are getting twisty and the end result sounds like PMS times 100. Plus, in many states, it's hard to get an abortion-- either it's hard to physically get to a facility, it's hard to come up with the money, or it's there are laws regarding the age of the woman seeking one, or other conditions she has to jump through. And I know there are other women out there who hate, hate, hate the "rare" part of PP's motto, but by wanting to make abortion rare, I'm not suggesting we should attatch any judgement to women who get abortions, or that we should make it harder for them to do so-- I actually think we should make it a lot easier to get an abortion than it currently is.

But I still think that, instead of going through the understandably unpleasant experience of getting an abortion, it might be better if more women can prevent unwanted pregnancies from ever occuring in the first place. When I say I want to make abortions more rare, I want to give women more agency, not less. I want every child-- and every pregnancy-- to be a wanted one.

And so I want to work with a reproductive rights group on legislation to get better, comprehensive sex education in school, and better, less expensive contraceptives. I want girls to be educated about the pros-- and the cons-- of different forms of birth control, and I want health care to provide them with regular, affordable visits to a gynecologist-- preferably an awesome, non judging one like mine-- to discuss sex and their options. I don't want sex ed to consist of scare tactics and horrifying pictures of late-stage, untreated stds-- that's not going to convince limbic-system thinkers of anything. I'd rather they get presented with actual facts, statistics, and information-- including about STDs, but also about the way sex can mess with your chemicals to make you feel emotions that have no basis in reality, and also the fact that sex is normal, and can lead to other health benefits due to some of the same chemical reactions.

I do definitely think teens should be discouraged from having sex-- but I don't think they should be lied to, or misled through omission. And no matter what is said, at least some of them are going to have sex anyway. So condoms, birth control, diaphrams, shots-- all should be discussed in class, along with their rates of success. And then, the class should make sure to mention that certain kinds of lube will degrade certain kinds of condoms. And teach kids how to properly use a condom, and that antibiotics and grapefruit juice will cancel out certain types of birth control, and that yes, it does matter what time you take your pill. In addition, I think that they should go through basic cycle charting with girls, so that they can at least understand what's happening with their bodies when, and how the whole fertilization and pregnancy process actually works.

The last step, of course, is making sure kids have access to the birth control-- and again, my hippie self is all in favor of subsidizing it for them, through free condoms at school, and reduced price visits to a gynecologist and birth control.

If anyone is serious about reducing teen pregnancy-- or reducing abortion-- I'd hope they'd be on board for increased sex ed and contraceptive access. But somehow, I think that a lot of people who think I'm wrong in wanting safe and legal abortions to be easy to obtain will also think i'm wrong in wanting to give people the materials to avoid the pregnancy in the first place.