“Juno” shows how, even in the absolutely ideal circumstances–the girl is reasonably well-adjusted, the parents are supportive, they find a wholesome upper-middle-class family to adopt the baby, there are no medical complications–pregnancy is difficult, and not just because you have to pee every two hours and everyone at school calls you “The Cautionary Whale.” Once Juno decides to bring the fetus to term, she feels responsible for it and worries about being able to provide it with good, supportive parents. When the couple she has lined up to adopt turns out to be less reliable than she thought, she’s devastated. It’s not necessarily a matter of just popping out a baby and cheerfully handing it over to whoever wants one. And, yeah, that’s even true in the “fairy tale” scenario where everything turns out all right.

Of course, Flanagan seems to be upset that things aren’t even more difficult and traumatic, that there are teen moms (not to mention teens who had abortions) who have the audacity to walk around not being scarred for life, but, well, that’s Caitlin Flanagan all over.

Chicks can’t do anything right.

I’m reminded of the theory which points out that your average English matron never sees one murder in her lifetime, let alone one a week, and deduces that Miss Marple is a very very clever serial killer with a talent for framing others…

My brother indulged in extreme sports and the attitude was “BWBB”. My like-minded cousin (F) was chided, derided, and threatened with psychological testing if she continued.

Anyone else out there who has been pregnant who can comment on this?

Um, no. Again I say…ABORTION WAS NOT TRAUMATIC. Find that hard to wrap your head around?

See the Hindi movie actresses Kajol or Juhi Chawla in their romantic comedy hits - their humor comes from sharp wit.

This is exactly the Lawrence Summers argument about women’s inherent lesser abilities in science. Men take risks, he would say, more so than women, or men are more represented in the extremes of IQ or ability or whatever distribution, and so more Darwin awards, but also more Nobel Prizes will go to men. The extreme lows and highs of ability are with men, and so that is why men run the world. etc. etc.

We, too, have a deep commitment to girls, and ours centers not on protecting their chastity, but on supporting their ability to compete with boys, to be free — perhaps for the first time in history — from the restraints that kept women from achieving on the same level. Now we have to ask ourselves this question: Does the full enfranchisement of girls depend on their being sexually liberated? And if it does, can we somehow change or diminish among the very young the trauma of pregnancy, the occasional result of even safe sex?

The answer our ancestors should have arrived at:
Does the full enfranchisement of girls depend on their being sexually liberated? is “No”.

They arrived at “Yes”, and so no sexual liberation meant no enfranchisement.

Trish — While I see what you’re saying about Gilmore Girls, in defense of one of my favorite shows, let me just point out that the character of Lorelei is completely horrified at the idea of other teen girls making the choice she did, and every time the subject comes up, she tries to discourage them.