A Frosty Review of "Frozen"

I heard the other day that some conservative Christian group is frothing at the mouth over the Disney film Frozen. Apparently, not only does it promote witchcraft (these guys do know that witchcraft isn't real, right?), but also, gasp, lesbianism!! I hadn't yet seen the movie when I heard this but I thought to myself, "a Disney movie incorporated some openly gay characters? Cool!"

I decided to actually buy the DVD/Blu-Ray combo of the movie, since not only had I heard such great things about it from everyone I know, but I also rarely get an opportunity to watch "girly" movies at my house. When you live with 2 sons and a husband, you get a lot of Transformers, cars, and aliens, but not a lot of singing, dancing, or ballgowns. Had you asked me ten years ago (before I had kids), I would have smugly told you that this was a purely social construct, and it's only because we encourage boys and girls to consume different types of media that they have any "preferences" at all.

I've since come to the realization that boys and girls are just different. This doesn't mean that ALL boys like trucks and ALL girls like dolls. It just means that even when you paint your boy's toenails and try so hard to assure them that there are no "boy colors" and "girl colors," they're still probably going to gravitate to Spiderman over Cinderella. Not all, but most.

Anyway, back to Frozen.

I was excited to see this one because I'm a HUGE Broadway fan, and the amazing Idina Menzel (aka "Adele Dazeem") voices one of the main characters. Plus, my brother had told me it was very "Broadway-ey."

So I was severely disappointed to find out that I hated most of the music. Except for the one song that was the big hit of the film, "Let it Go," the rest of the songs kind of sucked. Which my husband enjoyed pointing out again and again throughout the film. Also, I was dismayed to find that there was NO gay plot-line after all! Only a sweet story about two biological sisters performing acts of "true love" for each other.

So that was disappointing. But like any Disney movie for kids, it had a mix of good and bad themes throughout. So without further ado, here is my list of the good, the bad, and the ugly from Frozen:

Good:

• That one song was okay.
• There is a lesson to had about not letting fear rule your life.
• The love story between the sisters trumped the romance between the lead male/female characters. That was nice.
• Josh Gad. I LOVE Josh Gad. And the reindeer. He was funny.
• The lead female character was kind of bad ass and dorky at the same time. That was a nice change for Disney.
• It turns out that deciding to marry someone you just met that day is probably a bad idea. Unless you've known them for like a month, in which case it's probably "true love."

Bad:

• Must EVERY film that is marketed to girls require a romance as one of the main plot points??! Do we need every girl to think that the single most important thing in life is getting married??!! You don't see this same theme in films targeted to boys. Yes, there is an occasional romance thrust at them, but it's not usually such an important part of the story. And we are talking about children here! They have plenty of time to worry about romance when they grow up. Does it have to be the only thing Hollywood keeps throwing at them?
• And on the point of romance, I'm so sick of seeing the idea thrown at kids of any gender that there is "one true love" out there for everyone. This idea is harmful. It keeps people in bad relationships for much too long, and keeps young people from exploring their options when it comes to partners. When kids grow up with the idea that once they find their "soul-mate" then everything will just magically fall into place, we're setting them up for a lifetime of disappointment. The movie does give a slight nod to this idea, but solves the problem with a second "true love."
• Does every female lead character in the world of Disney NEED to be a Princess? What is it with Princess worship? I just don't get it.
• The idea that hearts are more important than brains. Brains are just a changeable feature able to be manipulated, but your heart, well, ALWAYS trust that.
• The "poor little rich girl" theme, again.

Ugly:

• Do I even need to say it? The eyes!!! Ugh! Disney, please stop with the girls having eyes that are 15 times too big for their faces!! We get it. You're trying to make them sexy and more appealing, but it's just creepy and unsettling. 
• And while you're at it, do all of them need a 2 centimeter wide waist and size -2 feet? It's just weird.

So there you have it. One person's opinion. As of this writing, my 4-year-old son is on his 4th viewing of Frozen, so I guess it does have some cross-over appeal. But if I woke up tomorrow and saw that Disney was making a movie with some honest-to-god gay characters, I'd be pleased as punch.

More than 50 Shades of Gray

I think I may have finally figured out what it is. That thing. The thing that separates liberals from conservatives. The thing that, when you peel back all of the arguments and rhetoric about everything, is at the heart of the disagreement between the left and the right.

Are you ready?

Here it is.

Uncertainty. Ambivalence. Complexity. Ambiguity. Skepticism. In short, shades of gray.

This may be common knowledge to many of you, but it really feels like an epiphany to me. The reason that I hold so many of the opinions I do is not that I'm so sure of the rightness of my own thinking; it's the fact that I know I don't know everything.

It's the reason so many liberals like to cite scientific studies and focus on "evidence-based practices." We know that our own knowledge on any given subject is limited, and therefore we look to experts who spend more time studying the topic than we do.

We are comfortable with moral ambiguity because we know that morality isn't always necessarily black and white. We know that the idea of "good guys and bad guys" is misleading.

Life is complex. People are complex. And the world is messy. We know that not everyone thinks and acts exactly like us, and so we try to reserve judgement for when we know more about a situation, and make allowances for diversity and variation.

When I wrote my last post about abortion, I had someone arguing with me about when I think "life" begins. I told him that I don't know, which is why I don't think it should be up to me to make that decision for someone else. He kept pressing me for an answer and seemed very perplexed at why I could not make an absolute decision. The fact is, I don't know when a person starts becoming a true "person." I know that a cluster of cells is different than a newborn baby. But is there a moment between month 3 and 4 when a fetus becomes more "human" than it was before? Maybe. But since that is a philosophical question, it seems to me that the best course of action is to leave the decision up to the woman involved, because I don't know what's going on in her life.

I've also been arguing about voter ID laws over the past day on Facebook (yes, I enjoy arguing).  So many people think that since voter ID makes sense to them, and since it wouldn't affect them at all, then we should do it. I mean, who needs "research" or the opinion of professionals who actually specialize in voter fraud when we have some stories we heard one time about someone voting in place of their dead uncle? People don't seem to want to look outside their own bubble and find out more about what is actually going on in any given situation for someone else.  They'd rather have the certainty of knowing they're right.

I've been trying to watch "The House I Live In" for the past day or two (I've gotten about halfway through it at this point) which is a film about America's "war on drugs." It's a fascinating topic, but most conservatives won't give a second thought to what's going on in the lives of prisoners. They're drug dealers, they belong in jail, that's it. Any attempt to explain the background of someone who's in jail is just "making excuses for their crime."  They don't worry too much about the death penalty because the person being executed "deserves it."  They don't give a second thought to all of the complexity of situation and room for human error that exists in any human-based undertaking such as our criminal justice system.

Here's what I think it all basically boils down to: liberals don't want people to suffer needlessly when we can do something about it, and we don't want people to be dicks about everything. Beyond that, the conversation is wide open and we're willing to change our minds if the circumstances change or the situation becomes clearer.

So, if you want to be a liberal, keep an open mind and don't be a dick. Now go about your business.

Bodily Autonomy

Abortion.

It’s a thorny topic. Just saying the word out loud makes most people squirm. And there are passionate people on all sides of the debate that feel equally strongly about their positions.

I was just challenged by a conservative Christian friend of mine to read a post from the “The Matt Walsh Blog” on the “bodily autonomy” argument for abortion. I read it, and now I’m responding. This post will make a lot more sense to you if you first read the original article, which you can find here. Read that first and then come back here.


Are you back? Okay, let’s get started.

First I need to point out that whoever wrote the original letter to Matt was very misguided in their use of language. Calling names and berating people does not strengthen your argument, nor does it help the person you’re having a discussion with see your point of view and take it seriously. So there’s that. I wouldn’t have written the letter in quite the same way.

But anyway, here is my point-by-point rebuttal of the rebuttal to the argument. Again, if you haven’t read the original post, or at least skimmed it, you’re going to be completely lost. So read it and follow along.


1. Matt is correct that the relationship between mother and child is different than the relationship between you and a random stranger. Of course it is. There is nothing quite so meaningful as the bond between a mother and her child. As a mother, I’m astutely aware of this. But I think the fundamental misunderstanding comes from the fact that the bodily autonomy argument isn’t necessarily meant to be an argument about morality; it’s about legality.

What we are saying when we say that a woman should have the sole right to determine what goes on inside their own body is that the government should not have a say in what you do or do not use your body for. Whether you think having an abortion is “moral” or not isn’t really the question. The question is who gets to make that decision for you? You, or the government?

A better analogy would have been this: if your child needs a kidney transplant, should the government compel you to give them your kidney? Again, keep in mind that I’m NOT asking whether or not you would do it (I think we all would if we could). The questions is, “should the government compel you to do it?” And if they should, should it only be for biological children, or adopted children as well? I cannot stress this enough: this is not about morality or what you would do in a specific situation; it’s about what the law would compel you to do, and who gets to make that law, enforce it, and carry out the punishment for it.

And before you ask, yes, I am also in favor of legalized prostitution, drugs, piercing, and pretty much whatever else you want to do with your own body.

2. How a person gets pregnant is irrelevant. Pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting should not be a punishment for having sex. It’s easy to say that everyone who has ever had sex was making a mature decision and they should live with the consequences, but that’s just not the case. Have you met a teenager recently (or ever been one)? How a person gets into the condition they’re in shouldn’t be relevant to the treatment they receive or their ability to control their own body. If I am injured while snowboarding, should I just deal with the broken leg?

3. Again, this goes back to point number 1. It’s not about the morality of the situation or what we think a “good parent” should do. It’s about whether or not they should be forced to do it by the government, or thrown in jail for it.

4. I don’t even know how to comment on the whole “natural order” thing. It assumes that there is a god that created a natural order that we always have to stick by no matter what. If that’s the case, then I guess we also can’t ever use birth control, or shave our legs, or eat Hot Pockets®. It sounds like Matt thinks we shouldn’t ever go against the “natural order,” so does that mean we should eschew dentistry too? I’m just leaving that one alone.

5. The first problem I have with this one is his terminology. The use of the term “abortionist” is specifically meant to make a doctor sound like a criminal, which I guess is his point, but it really bothers me. I’ve met abortion doctors, and they are anything but creepy, trench coat wearing butchers (although, when we make abortion illegal, we will see many more of those types around). They are doctors trying to do what is best for their patients. They are not doing it to make money (or else they would be charging a helluva lot more). I have the same problem with the term “abortion industry.” There is no abortion “industry.”

But I digress. Matt claims that abortion involves an embryo or fetus being “crushed, dismembered, poisoned, or torn apart,” which leads me to believe that he doesn’t actually know how an abortion is done. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, there are different methods, and the later the pregnancy is, the harsher the method becomes. I won’t lie; it does make me uncomfortable. But I keep coming back to the same question: “Is it the government’s job to tell another woman what she can do with her body?”

I don’t know the circumstances of every pregnancy. What I do know is that if you’re seeking a late-term abortion, you probably aren’t there because you just didn’t feel like being pregnant anymore. Often times there is a fetal defect, or a life-threatening condition for the mother. Since I don’t know what’s going on in every case, I shouldn’t be the one making the decision. And neither should my congressman. I know that it’s easy for some people to look at women who are having abortions as “careless,” and “selfish,” but keep in mind that you do not, and cannot possibly know what is going on in every situation. That’s what it comes down to.

6. He’s right. The argument does put me in the precarious position of allowing for a woman to do harmful things while she’s pregnant. I really hate it, but I don’t think it should be illegal for a woman to do reckless things while she’s pregnant. I think she should be encouraged not to do them, and assuming she wants to have a baby, she won’t do them, but at the end of the day, I don’t think she should be thrown in jail for them. Because again, it puts the government in control of what she does with her body.

7. Please refer to point number 5. Here’s where I have a problem. He uses the word “moral” again. This is not a discussion about morality, it is a discussion about legality. You may be surprised to know that I am a lot more bothered by late term abortion than by first-trimester abortion. But my solution to this is not to outlaw ALL abortion. It’s to make first trimester abortion more accessible to women who are seeking it. Unlike a lot of pro-lifers (who equate an embryo with an infant), I DO think there is a difference between a 2-day-old zygote and a 35-week-old fetus. However, since the question of “when life begins” can be a muddy one, depending on what you consider to be “life” and what your specific religion (or lack thereof) tells you, I think the most reasonable course of action in the law is to make life begin at birth. Again, we are talking about legality, not morality.

8. This one gets into the semantics of the word “body.” The bodily autonomy argument only addresses the use of your body and its parts. What Matt is talking about here is really a philosophical argument that I don’t think applies. Pregnancy requires more or less the same thing of every female body it is affecting. Parenthood does not.

For example, I could have chosen to breastfeed my children, but I didn’t. Did I get thrown in jail for it? No, because there are alternate means of feeding a child and the government doesn’t require me to use my body to nourish another person, even if I gave birth to them. It would be easy for someone to make a moral pronouncement about what a “bad mother” I am, if they didn’t know I did it for medical reasons. I was on a medication that was unsafe to take while breastfeeding. Fortunately, the government did not step in and make that decision for me. I made it with the help of my doctor, the way medical decisions should be made. And you know what? Even if I just “didn’t feel like” breastfeeding, I shouldn’t have been thrown in jail for not doing it, because it’s my body.

9. Come on. Just, come on. Really? Doing what you want with your body is not the same as doing what you want anywhere with your body.

10. See point number 8.


The crux of the issue here is that pro-lifers seem to think this is as easy as making a decision about what you would do or what a “good person” should do. But it’s not. It’s a thorny issue precisely because it has to do with pregnancy and motherhood, which are profoundly important things. But being pro-choice does not mean “I think abortions are great and I think everyone should have at least one.” Nor does it mean “every unplanned pregnancy should end in an abortion.” All we are saying is “abortion should remain legal.” At the core, that’s really it. We’re not “pro-aborts” as Matt so callously refers to us. We are people who think that the government has no place in telling us what should or should not go on in our uterus, and that our lives are complex enough that we are in the best position to make decisions for ourselves. At its heart, it’s really a Libertarian ideal, which is why I find it perplexing that Libertarians such as Ron Paul are anti-choice.

It’s hard to be in agreement on this issue because we are starting from different points. The pro-life community generally starts with the premise that every fertilized egg is a “soul” that God has sent to Earth for a specific purpose. When you’re an atheist, as I am, you don’t see it that way. You see that embryo as a potential person, but not one that is equal to the living, breathing woman that is currently pregnant. In my view, that is probably the single biggest reason that we’ll never agree on this issue. 

There are many, many other issues that cause division when it comes to abortion, but this post has already gotten extraordinarily long, and it is supposed to be focused on the bodily autonomy argument, so maybe I’ll tackle the other arguments and issues another day. You can read more about my views on abortion here.

But let me end with this statement. I really wish the pro-life community would do less judging of the women who have abortions, and work harder to prevent the need for them in the first place. Birth control, comprehensive sex-ed, assistance for people living in poverty; all of these things reduce the need for abortion in the first place, but the pro-life community in general seems so determined to NOT provide these things either. There is SO MUCH we could do together to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but when you spend all of your time trying to outlaw something that will still happen if it’s illegal, you miss the opportunity to really make a difference. And that makes me sad.