Sort of Off-Topic, But Also Sort of Not

I was thinking about an icky narrative convention seen in many works of fiction where a female character is punished for having sex. This is very common in horror movies (as we learned in Scream, "virgins never die"). But sadly it shows up in much sneakier ways all over the place. Watch for it - a woman who has sex outside of marriage is almost always headed for a downfall.

And so this got me thinking about things like abortion and rape. That's right. This post is about women's rights. Continue at your own risk.

I don't think the abortion debate is really about women's rights. I think it's about fetus rights. And I can respect either side of the argument. If you're pro-life, you believe a fetus has rights of some kind. If you're pro-choice, you don't believe a fetus has any rights. (Because surely life is the most basic right we can grant.) Although I have my own beliefs, I can respect either of these two viewpoints as valid.

What I cannot respect is the belief that there is some sort of moral grey area surrounding pregnancies that are a product of rape. If you believe that abortions should only be allowed for rape victims, you have some pretty screwed up ideas about pregnancy.

Here's my attempt at objectively summarizing this point of view: A pregnant woman has already made her choice, and should now have to deal with the consequences. An exception can be made for rape victims, because that choice was taken from them.

And not so objectively: Pregnancy is a punishment for doing something wrong. Women are punished for having sex by being forced to bear children. But rape victims didn't do it on purpose, so they can have abortions.

People with this belief are not anti-abortion because they believe in the rights of the fetus. They are anti-abortion because, if women are allowed to terminate pregnancies, how will they be punished for having sex?

The widespread popularity of this belief means our young female who is murdered after losing her virginity is sort of art-imitating-life.

Just like pregnancy, this guy makes sure
lusty young gals get what's coming to them.

Ripped from the Headlines: the Lynn Redgrave Story

Headlines are an interesting thing. They're not the title of the article. They're more like a movie trailer. They tell a whole story in a condensed form, but leave out some of the juicy bits so you are compelled to read the whole article (or see the whole movie).

Lynn Redgrave passed away last night after a seven-year battle with breast cancer. Today I want to look at how internet news sources are covering the story.

This article from New York Magazine says, "Lynn Redgrave Dies at 67". The headline gives the main idea. Including her age is a nice hook - the reader wonders how she died so young.

Film.com uses this variation: "Actress Lynn Redgrave Dies At 67". Similar, but it also includes some exposition for those who aren't familiar with the story's main character, Lynn Redgrave.

The folks over at London Theatre Guide Online took this approach: "Lynn Redgrave dies of breast cancer at the age of 67". Well, see, now you've just spilled all the beans up front. There's nothing that makes me want to read the article. You've already told me the whole story.

And then there's this gem from the New York Times blog: "Lynn Redgrave, 67, is dead". There are so many things wrong with this short headline. I love it.

First of all, saying "is dead" is not very specific with respect to time. "Dies" or "has died" or even the overly-sensitive "passes away" all indicate that this event just happened. "Is dead" sounds like "Newsflash: Napoleon is dead".

It even sounds a little like we should be happy about it, as in "The Wicked Witch is dead". "Lynn Redgrave is dead - finally".

Also, inserting her age in there like that? It's like they're setting us up. Dead people no longer have ages. That's just accepted. We can talk about the age they were when they died, but only in the past tense ("He was 83"). The first part of the headline makes me expect this: "Lynn Redgrave, 67, climbs Mt. Everest". The real headline has a twist ending. It's like at the end of The Sixth Sense. We find out that Lynn Redgrave was dead all along.

The whole thing seems conceived to make us believe Lynn Redgrave is a zombie.

Dead or undead?