Obsession

It seems that most teenagers are obsessed with something. I suppose as parents the best we can hope for is that the obsession is harmless. I have been thinking about this for a while, ever since my youngest daughter became a bona fide GLEEK, that is, a fan of the TV series Glee, about a high school show choir consisting of geeks and freaks and various other "uncool" types in the American high school culture. (Honestly - these programmes, and the various high school movies, make me soooo thankful we live in NZ.)

Currently the other major obsession I know of is everything vampire, focused mostly on Twilight and its various sequels. I have read the Twilight books and enjoyed the first one as I enjoy most romance novels - it was like candy floss, nice but not good for me and not much to it. But I must confess I do not think vampire obsession is healthy.

Twilight is about adolescent love - a love that is obsessive and juvenile, a manipulative boy who controls the actions of his so-called beloved and a masochistic girl who laps up the danger and is willing to literally die for love. Her willingness to embrace eternal death for his sake is chilling. (On an unwittingly telling note, he is freezing cold to the touch and hard like marble.) She is in constant danger, not least from him, and is seriously damaged many times, until, in the most gruesome birth scene I have ever read ... anyway suffice to say she gets her desire and becomes one of the undead to be dead with him for ever. Shudder.

And some grown women say this story has spoilt them for their husbands. Eh? What is this teaching our girls about real love and relationships? That a cold, manipulative dangerous man is worth dying for? Has anyone considered how totally boring being a vampire would really be?

OK. So back to Glee. Is that really as bad? No - I can't bring myself to say so. It is very affirming of geeks and freaks and has some really fantastic music - my kids are now familiar with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and show tunes from ages past. However, it is preoccupied with the sex lives of its characters, a recent episode was all about whether certain characters should lose their virginity or not (is sex really the most important thing in life? Really?) Also, while it is just possible stories about teen pregnancy and coming to terms with being gay are relevant for teenagers, the break up of a teacher's marriage and his subsequent (almost) relationship with another staff member are not. I think this story line introduces something far too adult into the mix.

BTW - Sue Sylvester, the cheer coach, is one of the best comic characters to appear on TV in ages.

As usual, parental guidance recommended.

The new Who

It's time to commit to some opinions about the new Dr Who, although I haven't quite made up my mind. Also, we don't get terrific reception on Prime, so I haven't had a proper look at him yet. But he seems young and angular and awkward enough to be geeky and still be attractive. Kind of perfect for a very young Doctor.

He is, however, quite cranky. He is often wrong (tonight he made an error in leaving Amy alone in the dark) and he was critical of River Song when in the end she saved the day. He lies as well, when it suits him, and is brutally honest when that suits him. He loses his temper and shouts a lot. But we've only seen four episodes (sadly missing the first one about the stone angels) so he could grow on me.

However, I've decided I don't like Amy. Or perhaps I don't like what the writers are choosing to do with her character, because on the whole she's the usual perky help mate the Doctor usually requires.

However, whoever is in charge of Dr Who REALLY doesn't like matrimony or any sort of committed relationship. Rose's relationship with her boyfriend was completely despised by both Rose and the script; Donna's putative marriage was a fraud; and this Amy person has taken off with the Doctor on the eve of her wedding. Furthermore tonight she tried to jump the Doctor's bones, which wasn't only wrong because I don't approve of it, but was also wrong because the Doctor's relationship with his companion is always based on love - usually deep affection and respect, sometimes (as with Rose) romantic love, sometimes merely affectionate irritation - but always some sort of care. What Amy was proposing was the opposite of love - sex for sex's sake is a complete affront to love, and to the affection that Amy and the Doctor have already shown to each other. Of course the Doctor declined (basically protesting he was far too old for her "I'm 907!"). He had to. Dr Who is first and foremost a family show. Meaningless sex between two main characters would be completely contrary to the spirit of the thing.

But why include it at all? And why have a girl about to get married propose such a thing?

The creators of this show really hate matrimony.

Objectification of Women

A few years ago, while watching the sci fi classic "Forbidden Planet" made in the early 50's, I noticed something I hadn't noticed before. In the movie a young girl had been raised by her father alone on a distant planet. She had no experience of men, so when a bunch of spacemen turned up their leader (our hero) saw fit to tell her to dress more appropriately (she was in the habit of wearing skimpy short things - much like you see every day in the street these days). What struck me was not how patronising and sexist this was, but how, if the movie were made today, no one in it would mention the girl's wardrobe and the hero would, no doubt, have managed to shag her by the end.

What I noticed was how women are still being objectified by our culture, despite the intervening years seeing the rise of the women's movement, one of its aims being the elimination of the objectification of women.

In the 50's and 60's women were babied. For example, they were not allowed to compete in endurance sports and they found borrowing money difficult. Many professions and pasttimes were completely barred to them. There were powerful and successful women in many fields but they were the exception rather than the rule. The women's movement succeeded in changing all that but ...

In those dim dark ages there was sexual objectification of women, but it only involved certain "types" of women (a sexist concept in itself) and was kept very firmly behind closed doors. Nowadays it's in your face 24/7 - on television, in all modes of advertising (banks are advertised as extra-marital affairs, sanitary products are advertised with "cute" little furry creatures, cattle "do it" in Toyotas) and in the general culture (Boobs on Bikes anyone?). Now I know the owners of these boobs believe they have been liberated to flash their assets, but I believe they are deceived. The men who line the streets are not there to celebrate their liberation. They're there to oggle boobs.

Women have been liberated to be objectified sexually. Now men expect every woman they meet to be sexually available, because that is what the culture tells them. I recently read two magazine articles from radically different points of view. The conservative writer lamented that women who engage in casual sex have trouble forming intimate relationships (maybe that's been men's problem all along?) and the liberal writer lamented that sexually predatory women are as bad as sexually predatory men (and this surprises you how?). It's been a jolly good win for men though. They might have to compete with women for jobs and what not, but they've gained a whole lot of "liberated" sexual playthings.