thoughts about michael jackson

I was not old enough to remember Michael Jackson’s true heyday – I was born after Thriller and the initial success of songs like “Billie Jean” and “Beat It.” My first MJ memory was in 1991, when he had another hit with “Will You Be There,” the theme song from Free Willy. The VHS tape I had of the movie began with the music video for the song. I pestered my mother into purchasing the Free Willy soundtrack and Dangerous. I liked both, but after those releases, Michael Jackson began his very public downward spiral and stopped making decent music, and I moved on in my evolving music taste.

By the time he died, I was of course well aware of his impact on popular music and a fan of his early work, but Michael Jackson the person honestly seemed to have died a long time ago. Starting in the early 1990s, he gradually devolved into something barely recognizable. His face became totally disfigured by multiple plastic surgeries, he took to speaking in a high-pitched whisper, his public behavior grew more and more absurd, he dangled his infant son from a balcony, and was twice accused of child molestation. The day he died, he was, in the minds of the casual observer, “the unbelievable singer and dancer who changed pop music forever in the 1980s…but is now a creepy batshit-crazy shell of his former self.” I never thought twice about dancing to “Billie Jean” or “The Way You Make Me Feel” at house parties in college, but all I could do when tabloid stories about his latest antics popped up was shudder.

The obituaries in the major media outlets have struggled to balance his undeniably iconic impact on popular culture with the fact that he was a very disturbed man and most likely a pedophile. American popular culture is generally very forgiving – musicians and entertainers who suffer from drug addiction, alcoholism or other self-contained inner demons are pitied, but they are still unflinchingly celebrated as heroes: Elvis Presley, Jim Morrison, John Belushi, Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Marilyn Monroe…the list goes on. Jackson is in a different category because he was not merely abusing his body, but potentially harming children. That’s a lot tougher to reconcile with professional achievement then a fondness for heroin or whiskey.

In the end, perhaps moreso than the others I mentioned, Michael Jackson is a truly tragic figure. A lot of his bizarre behavior and his inappropriateness with young boys can be explained – though not by any means excused – by the abuse he suffered as a child. His incredible fame exacerbated the effects of the abuse, and from there a downward spiral into his own terminal Neverland was imminent without some intervention that never came. How sad that somebody with such talent, who had all the money and power and connections in the world, could not save himself from himself.

when pro-choicers would say no

I’ve always said to people who ask why I’m pro-choice that I believe it’s a decision to be made by the woman in question, in consultation with her doctor and anyone else she seeks to involve (the father, family members, clergy, etc). Which is why this opinion piece by Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, really hit home for me. In it, Kissling posits an uncomfortable question for pro-choice advocates such as myself to consider: say a woman comes to an abortion doctor late in her second trimester of pregnancy. She does not want to continue the pregnancy. However, the fetus is viable and there are no health problems facing either the mother or the fetus, nor are there other tragic circumstances. Performing the abortion may be legal, but does the doctor have a right to say “I’m sorry, but I think you’re doing this for the wrong reasons and I cannot perform this abortion for you”?

It’s a difficult question to consider. After all, one reason why pro-choice advocates support the right to choose is that we believe every woman is best equipped to make the decision for herself. Who is the doctor – or anyone – to deny her the right to do so? But I also believe wholeheartedly in maintaining the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, and that includes the right of the doctor to tell a patient, “I think you’re doing this for the wrong reasons. Let’s figure something else out or I’ll refer you to someone else.”

Honestly, I’m not quite sure where I stand here. Generally speaking, I do think the doctors have a right to refuse to perform a medical procedure if they do not believe it is in the best interest of the patient. If the patient disagrees with the doctor’s assessment, then the doctor is obligated to refer that person to another doctor who would be more willing to perform whatever the procedure will be. And at the end of the day, abortion is a medical procedure, and the government has absolutely no business interfering with the doctor-patient relationship: the right to consult with a medical professional without fear that the government will try to regulate the conversation or the decision ultimately made. That’s why I was aghast at the Supreme Court ruling that banned a certain late-term abortion procedure. In the vast majority of late-term abortion cases, the woman is facing pretty shitty circumstances. Do we really want a group of old lawyers without medical licenses superseding the doctor’s expert opinion, not to mention the patient’s wishes?

Basically, I’m sympathetic to the idea that a doctor can tell a woman, “Look, this procedure is not medically necessary and you don’t have any other extenuating circumstances that would warrant it. I cannot perform this procedure for you. If you think about it and decide this is still what you would like to do, here is the phone number of Dr. So-and-So who will be more likely to perform it for you.” The same discussion could take place if the patient wanted to have drastic plastic surgery or a radical heart procedure. We consult with doctors because they are experts, after all. We may ultimately disagree with their approach and go to somebody else, but I don’t think a doctor should have to perform a procedure s/he believes is wrong or unnecessary.

I do NOT think that the law should get involved at all – no ethics panels for women considering abortion, no blanket ban on procedures after a certain date, no notification laws – except to require a doctor who does not wish to perform the abortion (or, for that matter, any procedure) to give the would-be patient a referral to another doctor who will.

Of course, even as I type this, I’m having second thoughts. What if the doctor in question is a total jerk and judges the woman’s circumstances unfairly? What if the woman is unable to travel to the office of the doctor to whom she is referred? So no, I’m not totally convinced that Kissling is right. But it’s something worth considering.

wow, bacardi.

When I saw Bacardi’s new ad campaign targeting women, I noticed that Jezebel asked “why advertisers thought showing pictures of women they deem hideous along with degrading comments would make ladies line up for Bacardi.” Isn’t it obvious, girls? An advertiser has finally understood that we all live in utter fear of running into women who are hotter than ourselves! Therefore, we must only feel comfortable going out in public with friends that are obviously less hot! Don’t forget that personality never plays a role for us ladies, whether its our own, our friends, or a prospective man. What matters most when we head out with a friend is whether a guy we run into can give me the once-over and decide he’d totally love to bang me as opposed to my friend. (That’s why we ladies bother going out in public at all, mind you – so that more men can see us, thereby increasing the likelihood that at least one of them will start drooling.)

But the only way to ensure that any man even looks at me is to make sure that nobody near me looks better than I do. You see, when I’m not thinking about whether a man might find me attractive, I am thinking about how to make myself hot by any means necessary. And as we all know, the only physical attributes that are ever attractive are being a size 4 or less, a golden tan, and skin that resembles a baby’s freshly-cleaned bottom. And really, all women are simply imperfect incarnations of this goal. (Thankfully, society has finally made it attainable by inventing Botox and concealer. How did women even survive beforehand, I wonder?)

This is why I only leave my house with female friends that I have carefully scrutinized and found to be less likely to make a guy all hot and bothered than myself. I don’t ever go anywhere with my friends who share common interests with me, or make me laugh, or let me cry into whatever they happen to be wearing that day, or have the party platter scene from Clone High memorized word for word, or have admirable commitments to their passions. No, I prowl through the local Starbucks on Saturdays, hunting for women who have more physical imperfections than myself (because everything that deviates from the aforementioned description is obviously a flaw). Then, I fake my way through conversation to get them to believe I value them as people (HAHAHA!), and then take them out with me on a rotating basis so that I can get men to think about me naked (need I remind you once again that this is all I want?).

It’s so funny how Bacardi was the first company to realize that this is how female friendship really works. Normally liquor companies only feature women in ads when they’re the targets of drunk guys in one way or another. It’s so refreshing for a brand of alcohol to encourage the deep insecurity and breathtaking shallowness that defines all womankind (because we’re innately this way, you see, and none of our insecurities come from the barrage of advertising we get showing how women are supposed to look) from our own perspective and not just that of men.

Thanks, Bacardi. I didn’t know you had it in you.

a few news stories…

A handful of headlines on Hump Day…

- Is Lady Gaga a feminist? Slate explores the woman they call “something of an anomaly: a pretentious pop starlet. To hear her tell it, she isn’t the anonymous hookup facilitator you might assume from her robotically decadent techno hits but, rather, a savvy media manipulator engaged in an elaborate, Warholian pop-art project.”

- Jon Stewart expertly calls out CNN on their crappy Iran coverage.

- Also, CNN, I know you love your social media and all, but part of social media’s importance comes from the ability to speak truth to power. For instance, when you air an hour-long interview with vapid reality show famewhores and all of the live tweeting is about how they are both annoying and unrelated to Iran. For those keeping track, Larry King will be interviewing the Jonas Brothers tonight.

- It’s nice to know that even if the world seems to be going crazy around you, Sesame Street is still awesome.

obama making a move on gay rights?

Tonight at 5:45, President Obama is going to sign an executive order extending benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees. I’m getting conflicting reports on what this means for health benefits – hopefully that gets clarified before the signing ceremony.

I’m glad Obama is finally making a move on gay rights, but I’m still disappointed that DADT and DOMA action are being punted who-knows-how-far down the field. Giving same-sex couples the basic right to be open about who they are and have their relationships legally recognized has always seemed like a no-brainer to me. Having said that, the fact that DADT and DOMA still exist is not what really bothers me at the end of the day; the president might be capable of multitasking, but the practical side of me knows that if Obama tried to get rid of them right this second, he could pay for it dearly by having the homophobes in Congress drag their heels on health care or economic reform.

What does actually bother me is that we don’t really know when he’s going to take action. If he were to get up and say, for instance, “Listen, we’ve got to get health care reform done, and then I can fix this,” I think that would go a long way to tamping down some of the anger in the gay rights community. On The Rachel Maddow Show a few weeks ago, Ana Marie Cox (in a video whose link eludes me at the moment) noted that from her conversations with White House officials, they are sincere in their desire to get rid of DADT, but they’re doing a shitty job of articulating their strategy. That got underscored this morning when Sen. Harry Reid gave a press conference whose subtext was “we don’t really know who is in charge of repealing DADT – the White House or Congress.”

Well…they should probably get that straightened out ASAP.