Abstinence and the Media: Mixed Messages

There are many people who believe that abstinence-only education is the only way to go about teaching sex-ed.  But they are up against a far thicker wall than they may realize.  The Candies Foundation, which is an organization that raises awareness about teen preganancies, recently hired Bristol Palin as a spokeswoman.  This in itself demonstrates just how ridiculous the whole abstinence-only sex-ed movement is in today's world.

First: Bristol Palin has a child - and she lives in a wealthy family that can help her raise the child.  Not only is she living proof that abstinence-only can be unrealistic, but her home life is completely unlike the average teen mother, who would most likely drop out of school, take a job to support herself, and be living in a broken home.

Second - The Candies Foundation is a philanthropic arm of Candie's clothing company.  If you haven't seen what they model as teen clothing, take a look.  It's anything but abstinence.  The clothing is scanty, and the poses are sexy.  Trust me, as a teenage guy, if a girl dresses is those outfits, abstinence is the first thing leaving my mind.  And what kind of self-image would a girl have if she wore those clothes?  Not an abstinent one, that's for sure.

Third - Bristol Palin's advice falls on the wrong ears.  She goes on TV, on talk shows, that only air while school is in session.  The people she is trying to reach can't even see her!  Besides which, I don't know any teens who watch MSNBC or The Today Show all that frequently (or ever, in my case).  Who is going to see her are the parents, who are in all likeliness already trying to keep their kids abstinent.  And we all know how effective the parents are - because Bristol Palin really listened to her mom, right?

Fourth - The mass media in general doesn't seem opposed to teen pregnancies.  Think about popular TV shows, or movies.  For example, Juno.  The main female character gets pregnant,and isn't even in love with the guy she had sex with until the end of the movie.  Then, when she tells her parents, the reaction is something like, "Well, I'm just glad it isn't drugs."  Right, that's an average reaction to a teen pregnancy.  And then, she rejects the idea of an abortion and finds, first try, a couple willing to adopt her baby.  Just like that, and the movie ends happy.  She doesn't drop out of school, doesn't need to get a job to support herself, just has the baby and is done.

OK, so the media does not actually seem to really be working hard in favor of abstinence.  What is realistic?  Maybe teaching other methods of safe sex as well as abstinence?  Yeah, abstinence is the most effective method of preventing disease and pregnancy (duh!), but it can be unrealistic, especially in today's pop culture.  In that case, teens have the right to know how to protect themselves safely.  

That should be enough to satisfy those who seem so concerned about teen pregnancy, but yet, abstinence programs always leave out the crucial information about how to protect yourself if abstinence is unrealistic.  What's worse, is that abstinence programs always demean and lie about other safe sex methods.  One example is when Pope Benedict declared that condom use can make the HIV problem in Africa worse.   What???!!  Condoms, one of the few proven methods of preventing disease transmission and preventing pregnancy to the tune of a 90-95% success rate, is now being dismissed by the Pope?  WTF!  

Abstinence-only sex-ed is unrealistic, but what's worse is not teaching other safe sex methods, and then demeaning them.  That's like teaching someone that the best way to perform CPR is to pray, and that using an AED will only make the heart attack worse.

Just ridiculous.

A rose by any other name...

From the Huffington Post:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/01/mccains-name-nowhere-to-be-seen-at-palin-rally/

It seems that at a recent Palin rally in Florida today, there was apparently no official signage with the actual nominee's name.

Once again, we are confronted with the idea that this race is between Palin and Obama.

Palin the Celebrity

At first, when McCain chose Palin as his running mate, everyone ran around screaming, "he did it because she's a woman!  He's just trying to steal Hillary supporters!"  And it made a lot of sense to think that.  He did get a huge bump right after the convention, and got the base fired up like never before.

But here's a different opinion: he did it because he needed a celebrity to counter Obama's popularity.  In an article in The Huffington Post, Lauren Cahn posits that McCain saw Palin as "a media-ready, photo-friendly moldable piece of political clay" that could be used to counter Obama's celebrity status.  There's no way he could have ever come close, so, why not try Palin?

And he's been successful, past his wildest dreams.  Palin is easily the name most often on people's lips these days, rivaling Obama's and far outstripping McCain's.  Palin and troopergate, Palin and clothing purchases, Palin and the pitbull joke, Palin and the Couric interview, Palin and SNL, Palin and negative attacks, etc.

But now, his celebrity protegé is trying to break away.  She's gone off script to address her clothing issue, and has actually talked to reporters in a setting other than an official news conference, without receiving permission from her handlers -I mean, her press agents first.

Now, she seems to have her eye on the presidency in 2012.  In an article in The New York Times,  there are several unnamed prominent conservatives who are bouncing around Palin's name for 2012.  If McCain wins the election, she'd be in prime position to stay in the spotlight for four years, create more appealing policies, develop political credentials of some kind, and run  for pres.  If Obama wins, she'd have more problems.  Since her nomination, her popularity in Alaska has plummeted - troopergate and her expense reports for her children come to mind as reasons.  Returning to the governor's office might not be such a smooth transition - and she may not last there.

We've had some conversations in class about the convergence of pop culture and politics - especially in the realm of celebrity politicians.  Well, I'd say Obama is the perfect celebrity politician- popular, young, and tech-savvy.  The Republicans needed someone to counter him, so enter Palin.  She's added a popularity and a youth to the McCain ticket that has drawn young conservatives in a way McCain never could have.  In two other articles in The New York Times (see sources), conservative college students have become energized by Palin.  So while this election won't put a celebrity Republican in the Presidency, Palin is seriously being groomed to become the new celebrity face of the party.  What a scary thought.

Sources: 

On Campuses, McCain Supporters Are Running on a Shoestring and Conviction

Young, Republican and Inspired by Palin

What did he just say?

A recent post on Politico yesterday highlights elitism and its relativity to the campaign and its voters. In the interview between Brian Williams and Palin/ McCain, the Republican ticket gives interesting insight into their definition of the American elite.

Sarah Palin describes the elite as those "who think they are better than everyone else", apparently without regard to education, political power, or wealth, terms which are the characteristics of ALL American social elites. So, according to Palin, you don't have to be wealthy or educated, or politicians, to be part of the elite network of American culture, a notion completely untrue and manipulative in that it positions the Republican ticket as serving the interests of the middle class. She has clearly been taught how to be ignorantly vague in hypocritical subjects. These remarks further lead to the candidates using the media to denounce elitist "outsiders",  surely of which they aren't a part. 

Later, they directly contradict each other, Palin defining the term itself instead of its application, while John McCain claiming those arrogant elites (who?) have fundamental centralized locations in DC and NYC. What might that imply, Mr. McCain? I find it hard to understand how McCain claims not to be part of the elite if he has friends among them, and runs a campaign that spends 150K at Neiman Markus and Saks for the VP. Yes, those scummy elitist snobs who "think that they can dictate what they believe to America rather than let Americans decide for themselves". 

Palin Misquotes

According to an article in The Huffington Post today, Palin grossly misquoted former Secretary of State (under Clinton) and UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright when she quoted her at a rally, saying "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women".  Actually, what Albright said was, "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't HELP other women".  One word, but it makes a world of difference.  The way Palin said it, she sounded like she was accusing women that would vote for Obama over her of being evil.  The way Albright said it, she was accusing of women who turn their backs on a woman in need as being evil.  By, say, charging them for the use of rape kits, or by taking a stance that refused to let women get abortions, even in occasions of rape or incest.  Just to clarify, that's my interpretation; Albright didn't say that.  But she did respond, to the misquote, by saying, 

"Though I am flattered that Governor Palin has chosen to cite me as a source of wisdom, what I said had nothing to do with politics.  This is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth, and all the more reason to remember that this campaign is not about gender, it is about which candidate has an agenda that will improve the lives of all Americans, including women.  The truth is, if you care about the status of women in out society and in our troubled economy, the best choice by far is Obama-Biden."

I find it pretty disgusting that Palin would resort to "the gender card" - like the race card, but in this case, it's over her sex.  I can only hope that the American Public will see through the ridiculousness of her misquote, and make a decision in November based on real issues - like foreign policy, the economy, energy policy, etc. - and not on race or gender.  Oh, and do you remember when during her debate with Biden, she accused the Mainstream Media of constantly filtering her words, especially after her interview with Couric?  Well, after her misquote, she said, "...let's see what a comment like I just made, how that is turned into whatever it'll be turned into tomorrow with the newspaper."  Two things: One, did she knowingly and purposefully misquote Albright?  Because when she immediately defended herself, it sounded fishy to me.  Two, what can you expect, when you misquote someone?  The story will invariably be that she misquoted Albright, who supports Obama and Biden.  There's really not a whole lot of wiggle room for the newspapers to "filter" Palin's remark.  The whole thing is just ridiculous. 

Palin - She Sure Looks Good!

According to an article in The New York Times today, Sarah Palin spent yesterday meeting with foreign leaders, in an effort to gain some foreign policy experience (besides that of her geographic proximity to Russia).  However, it doesn't seem like she got much real work done.  She mainly chatted with the leaders and their wives about New York City, and, what worries me most, about her looks.  Really, is that what we want?  The president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, hit on her when they met.  "You are even more gorgeous than you are on the (inaudible)...If he's insisting, I might hug".  Even the Pakistani information minister, Sherry Rehman, couldn't resist Palin's charms.  "How does one keep looking that good?"

Okay, I think everyone wants the U.S. to be a respected force in the world, instead of a hated imperialist occupier, like we are under the Idiot-In-Chief.  But I think we can all agree that we would want to be respected because of our ideals and government policies, rather than because our vice-president is a hot hockey-mom.

And They Say Obama Flip-Flops...

I can understand why candidates "flip-flop" in most cases. Opinions change as time goes on. Let's be honest, who didn't support the War in Iraq when it first began? But a lot changed between then and now, and it's unfair to condemn someone who previously supported the war but no longer does. But I digress...

Anyways, this interesting article written by Jennifer Harper of the Washington Times caught my attention. The story is mostly about how many feminist organizations such as EMILY's List are urging women not to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket (EMILY'S List newest slogan proclaims, "Read my lipstick: I am voting Democrat"). However, there is a tiny tidbit of information in this article that really says a lot about the Republican party:

The transformation of Republicans into energized Palin fans was quick. Shortly before Mr. McCain announced that Mrs. Palin was his running mate, the Pew Research Center surveyed 2,300 voters, asking, "Do mommies or daddies make better candidates?"

At that time, only one in five Republican respondents said they would support a candidate who was the mother of school-aged children; 53 percent of Republicans said working mothers were a "bad thing for society." Among Democrats, a third supported mother-politicians, while 38 percent did not favor working mothers.

You really can't get much more hypocritical than that. You can't go from saying that working women are bad for America one day and then the day after say that a working woman should be the next Vice President of the United States. If a "Hypocrite of the Century" award existing, there would be a clear winner in the Flip-flopublican Party.

Really, how do they sleep at night?