about the blog

arrow

About one-third of teen girls become pregnant at least once by age 20 and fully half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned.  Not too good

Read more...

about the bloggers

arrow

Our cabal of bloggers represent a group of talented individuals (self-identified)

Read more...

stuff we like

arrow

Apr 14 2008

starsJuno Redux Part I

When it comes to teen and unplanned pregnancy, 2007 was in many ways the perfect storm.  After all, 2007 saw the release of the movies Knocked Up,  Waitress, and Juno.  It was the year that brought the first increase in the teen birth rate in 15 years.  And it was the year of breathless, 24/7, coverage of 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears' baby bump to be. 

 

Cultural warriors and pop culture devotees have taken to their respective corners in interpreting the meaning of all this mishegoss.  We revisit all this due to the DVD release tomorrow of the Academy Award winning, indie-licious Juno. 

 

Generally speaking, the cultural warriors have been quick to pounce on the happily-ever-after nature of the movie--less than 3% of teen moms actually put their baby up for adoption, and exactly how many boys actually hang around in real life, critics wonder. As Laura Sessions Stepp of the Washington Post noted in a recent column, "Hollywood's attitude these days toward being young, single and pregnant by mistake: It's no big deal."

 

Pop culture devotees have been more sanguine.  This review from the Rotten Tomatoes website is typical: "Coming-of-age meets coming-to-term, in a film that is refreshingly frank about sex and love, pokes fun at the clashes between age and class, and, even more subversively...celebrates the pregnant possibilities of the non-nuclear family."

 

So, are both sides right?  Is this movie item number one on the teachable moments list or movie bad example?  Or are both sides missing the entertainment forest for the life lesson trees?   Your thoughts?

1 Comments


I love when commentators talk about the "possibilities of the non-nuclear family" without considering what that actually means for the well being of children. It seems we have become comfortable "experimenting" with family structure at the expense of what kids need (i.e., a mother and a father who are committed to each other). It reminds me of a line from that great philosopher, Chris Rock, who said something like, "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD!!" Sure, we CAN have lots of non-nuclear families raising children, but SHOULD we? I think the research is pretty clear that we should definitely take a "pregnant pause" before entering that dangerous territory even more than we already have.


Leave a comment