Films like The Waitress and Knocked Up make unplanned pregnancies seem like a walk in the park. Any stressors or misgivings the female character may have about the pregnancy are easily resolved in two hours with the joyous birth of a child she happily chooses to parent. Unlike Hollywood films, parenting in real life isn’t always a possibility for some women. Some cannot afford a child, don’t want a child now or ever, are too ill to carry a child to term or have been victimized by sexual assault. Sadly, Hollywood fails to show the complexities of women’s lives. A real women is not a persona with a role to play, a one-dimensional character who supports a fictional story. A real woman is a multi-faceted, thinking, caring human being who deserves support from friends and family and from the community as she makes a super tough decision about an unplanned pregnancy.
In the Hollywood film Juno, adoption is the option the young pregnant teenage character single-handedly orchestrates. In the end, Juno, the character, happily relinquishes her child. The adoptive mother beams with joy. However, in real life, adoption does not always have a happy ending, is not easily handled in the course of a few hours. Hollywood’s faux realities and society’s falsehoods about maternal instinct, about a man’s instinct to protect his “woman” and other popular myths, don’t help women. They only serve to infantilize, marginalize and subjugate women. In real life, adoption is an extremely difficult decision, one that is seldom represented accurately in the media or in claims from the pro-life community. In Juno, after the adoption, we see the young teenager go on her merry way in school and with friends. In the real world, adoptees can experience a lifetime of feeling abandoned or resentful. Birth mothers can have a lifetime of regret especially if forced to adopt. Birth fathers can experience feelings of disenfranchisement from the entire process. While adoption is clearly one very loving option, it’s not always the best for mother or child. Real women with unplanned pregnancies need honest support, accurate information and freedom from judgmental detractors as they face a complex, difficult and often agonizingly emotional situation.
Historian Howard Zinn writes in Stories Hollywood Never Tells, that Hollywood glamorizes stories about war and that these films generally lack the complexities that are inherent in situations that lead up to and are a part of a war.
They never tell the other side of our nation’s near-total extermination of its native peoples, its imperial conquests of countries like Mexico, and its more recent culpability for massacres such as No Gun Ri and My Lai as well as for torture sites like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. I would add that Hollywood never tells stories about the abortion wars either. So, it should be no surprise when Hollywood rolls out silly films about unexpected pregnancies. Even when the film includes anti abortion activists, as in Juno, their benign presence is in stark contrast to the real-world brutish louts who protest abortion and lurk outside clinics. No, abortion is one of those issues that Hollywood never confronts. While a few independent films and networks like HBO have tackled the abortion issue, mainstream programming avoids it. Abortion scares producers because they fear the risk of alienating advertisers who support their programming. Casting an actress in the role of a woman who chooses to abort risks damaging the actress’ image, risks the show’s brand and risks profit losses. I find it particularly hilarious when anti abortion activists lament that mainstream media (MSM) is left leaning. If that were true (which it is not), abortion would factor in television programming and in films. The media giants (like Disney, NBC Universal, News Corporation, Viacom, Time Warner) dominate the U.S. media landscape. They do not have a personal stake in abortion. They do have a huge stake in corporate profits. Any controversial issue (like abortion, corruption, embezzlement, murder, etc) that might negatively impact profits is either ignored or reframed in such a way to reduce offending their stakeholders and advertisers, primarily, and their audiences, secondarily.
Abortion stories are really missed opportunities for Hollywood because abortion is a reality for millions of women and those who share their lives. Media programmers are ordinary human beings like your neighbor, doctor, dentist or Chamber of Commerce member. Those within the industry, like those in the audience, are intimately familiar with abortion. They had one or paid for their girlfriend’s abortion or paid for and accompanied their daughter to her abortion. But try to find advertisers to support programming that tells real stories about abortion? Fat chance. Too controversial. It’s like Zinn said about war. Hollywood can’t tell the truth about the war against women or the war against abortion because their stories would lack the complexities that are inherent in situations that lead up to and are a part of abortion.
.
Like the Hollywood war stories that uphold the Right’s hegemony of the American empire and that celebrate war
mongering, the Hollywood stories of unplanned pregnancies uphold the sanctimonious ideology of the Right, one that glorifies the fetus and fairy tales about motherhood. It’s a practice that reduces every woman to a womb open
for public comment, that diminishes the highly complex nature of a woman’s life, and that severely thwarts public dialogue about the rights of pregnant women and about reproductive rights including abortion.

September 6, 2012 at 3:35 am
Another one of those “life is tough so we gotta keep it legal to kill people” things, but this one goes on and on.
“actress’ image” — I’da written, “actress’s image (I go by the sound)
And I know there’s a “different than” buried somewhere above. It’s “different from.”
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 8:49 am
This coming from a guy who doesn’t do anything to help the young through the “life is tough” part– in fact, doesn’t even want to know how life is tough.
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I do a little, not nearly enough. At least, though, I don’t help kill people. You help kill people, Chuck. Think you’ll get away with it?
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 2:10 pm
You’ve helped one autistic child make it to adulthood, but tried to force thousands of women to raise children without so much as zip from you. Sixty-one women are dead because you weren’t there for Ted Bundy, and you’re not there for the next Ted Bundy either. Thanks a lot for all your help, Mr. Dunkle.
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 5:15 pm
You’re easy, Chuck. It’s just too easy to drive you nuts. Gets boring.
LikeLike
September 8, 2012 at 7:20 am
I will pray for you.
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 4:37 am
I hope your tone of voice is different from that of a few prolifers I’ve known.
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 8:26 pm
Megan Curtis – I loved Pres. Monson’s article too! Sometimes all it takes to chgnae the world are just very simple chgnaes to create in ourselves. I’m gearing up to decorate my whole space. Once we get in our house that is! I love Candice Olsen, too, but I think Genevieve Goyder and David Bromstad are my favorites. This year for us promises much chgnae. Change that I’ve been craving for a very long time. Now that it’s here, I can’t decide what to do first. I have these amazing ideas; grandiose really. I’m hoping that I can pull it all off. On top of new house and new baby, we’re going to have our first official garden. I hope it all is as fabulous as what i dream it will be in my head
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 7:34 am
Sonja – So proud of you for giving up the paper pnenlar! I knew you could do it! Plus there are plenty of apps that will let you color code whatever you want!!
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 5:39 am
No effort will be spared in the drive, mostly by aging, angry white males, to control women. They are particularly obsessed by women’s reproductive lives. Hollywood is only interested in making money, and an intelligent and compassionate treatment of the complexity of making reproductive choices is not what they want to present. Thank you for your comments, bf!
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 4:58 pm
I agree Marty,
these Pro lifers are crazy!
They never are actually Pro- Life . . . ?
Ironic . . .
LikeLike
September 7, 2012 at 7:15 am
You are exactly right, Marty!! I would consider them to be obsessed with women and their reproductive rights…and our “lady bits”..LOL But in a tortureous way!!!
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Here’s a rather quirky argument:
Dunk to Charles: You are a killer’s helper
Charles to Dunk: You are a killer’s helper
How can this be resolved? Will the REAL killer’s helper come forth?
I’m expecting Dunk since he’s all about supporting dudes who support killing doctors and all about asking questions about how folks would like to die.
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 5:19 pm
One of the real killers’ helpers writes like this: “. . . and all about asking questions about how folks who like to die.”
LikeLike
September 7, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Dumb reply.
LikeLike
September 7, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Park fixed it.
LikeLike
September 7, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Some excuse
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 12:04 pm
JB,
Would anyone that helped an Anti Abortion Christian Terrorist convicted of Murder be considered a Killer’s helper?
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 4:28 am
Yes! Yes! I was in the mood for cuteness! LOVE the ptruices ~ and she has changed so much since we last saw her! SO cute! (& chichi, I thought of you too when I saw her hair!)
LikeLike
September 8, 2012 at 7:23 am
“Killer’s helper” is one of the terms Mr. Dunkle is very proud of, since he coined it. It broadens the sweep of the tar brush the so-called “pro-lifers” try to apply to people who care about real babies and real children.
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 4:32 am
When you corner Chuck, he forgets Ted Bundy and dehumanizes his victims. Hitler dehumanized his victims by calling them untermenschlich.
Chuck dehumanizes his here by calling them unreal. No difference except that Hitler’s victims come to about 10% of Chuck’s.
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 8:46 am
Parker, the difference between the two accusations has to be judged by the context in which they are made.
I point out that so-called “pro-lifers” could prevent the next fetus from becoming another Ted Bundy by nurturing the real child rather than simply insisting on the continuation of a pregnancy. They refuse to do this, period.
Mr. Dunkle and his ilk maintain that a fetus is already a fully-informed child and can only be prevented from becoming another Bundy by aborting it, which they hate and fear.
They are no more likely than the rest of the population to adopt children, and a lot less likely to adopt children they don’t want to raise, preferring instead that parents bear children they don’t want to raise. As well as refusing to nurture unwanted children, they also refuse to contemplate what happens to children who grow up in emotional, social and financial poverty. In sum, they screw women, children and families.
So who’s the killer’s helper?
LikeLike
September 8, 2012 at 10:47 am
Some real babies and some real children, those who’ve been alive long enough to more closely resemble yourself. Right Chuck? And it’s not even like in the old days when the differences were more profound, like religion (Judaism) or color (darker). No, the difference now between you and those you’re helping to kill is nothing but age.
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Even life is tough; it is not enough reason to end someone’s life. For me, abortion will always be an immoral and irresponsible act. And I think Hollywood just wants to portray that even how difficult life is, there is always a happy ending.
LikeLike
September 10, 2012 at 7:11 am
So, Guia, we have on this site a famous self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” who agrees with you that abortion is immoral and irresponsible, but who refuses to be saddled with the task of raising the child he doesn’t want to, even when it means he will be preventing that child from becoming the next Ted Bundy.
Bundy grew up to admit to killing at least 35 women, and it’s likely he killed 61. Since nobody really wanted to care for him (just as the so-called “pro-lifer” on this site) in the first place, wouldn’t it have been moral to save the lives of 61 women by aborting him?
The point is that people who call themselves “pro-life” refuse to take the RESPONSIBLE Right To Life ((c)) position and raise to adulthood every “unborn innocent” they want “rescued.” Their response to the Bundy dilemma is always, “So, you think he should have been ABORTED?”
I can see where you personally would be offended at the thought of being aborted, but you then assume a fetus is a cognizant and fully human being just like yourself– only it’s not. In order to become fully human, it needs nurture beyond the womb– and if there’s no one there to provide it, we pay a terrible price,
Happy endings only are guaranteed in scripts, not in life. What often happens in life is the evil done to us we pass on to our children.
LikeLike
September 10, 2012 at 7:34 am
Here’s where Chuck errs, gs, “In order to become fully human, it needs nurture beyond the womb.”
And in Chuck’s definition, you’re not fully human till you’re more like himself. My definition of “fully human” doesn’t include Chuck, or myself! The last fully human person reigns as Queen of Heaven. The only other one died on the cross. Does that give Chuck the right to kill me, or me him?
Of course not! All you have to be is human — “fully,” or “wonderfully,” or “God-fearing,” or “white,” or “nasty” be damned.
LikeLike
September 22, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Who is this dummy?
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 4:25 am
Taking into account where we are, a better question is “Who is this dummy?”
LikeLike
September 13, 2012 at 12:40 pm
What’s interesting to me about how unplanned pregnancy was dealt with in the Waitress is the woman who wrote and driected it, Adrienne Shelley, starred in the film Trust, which is one of the best movies to ever tackle the topic of an unplanned pregnancy. Sadly, it’s now out of print.
LikeLike
September 13, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Tracy,
Thanks for chiming in on this site.
LikeLike
September 22, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Tracy, can you tell us more about that movie if it is out of print?
LikeLike
October 19, 2012 at 1:06 am
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. My laptop has been down for repairs, and um, life stuff. It’s been a very long time since I saw trust, but I’ll do the best I can to answer your question. The movie opens with a teenage girl telling her family that she’s pregnant, and her father then drops dead of a heart attack. When she tells her jock boyfriend, he dumps her. She meets an older guy who is still living with his abusive father. The guy takes her under his wing; she begins reading philosophy, and turns her back on her shallow, cheerleading existance. She brings the guy to live with her, her mother, and sister. The sister tries to seduce him, and the mother is just evil. The guy gets a job in an attempt to build a support system for the girl and her pending pregnancy, but since he likes carrying hand grenades all the time, the whole work thing doesn’t go very well. Upon realizing what a messed up situation she’s in–crazy mother, crazy boyfriend, horny sister, dead father, absent baby daddy–she decides to terminate the pregnancy. We’re left to assume that she and Mr. Hand Grenade go on to live happily ever after.
LikeLike