hey love, so I was wonderingggggg, did jonesy ever have any groupies or like someone he was during the zeppelin years that wasn't mo? I heard something saying he saw one woman quite frequently but besides that nothing really. just thought I should ask bc if anyone knows, it's you! 😘😘😘

Ahhhhhh dreaddreaddread

I have a whole slew of asks to get to, but this one I need to get right on out with so that it's not on my mind or else it will consume me.

So, I only know of two off hand that I can point directly at.

Lovely @johnpauljones made a post referencing a groupie named Mickey for whom, according to Miss Pamela, Jonesy had bought a lil studio apartment for around 1970.

The other account I know of is detailed in Morgana Welch's Hollywood Diaries which I have read snippets of (and have screenshots of, which I am not going to post here but would be happy to PM). She details the experience as being extremely enjoyable which...fantastic, love that for everyone involved. From what I understand, they only had one encounter (much to her disappointment). She's featured in the infamous Rodney's flip-off photo --

-- at the very center of the photo (featuring a slew of familiar characters).

Any other stories, of which I am sure there are many, I don't know of and, frankly, don't want to. I know it's a hazard of the job and the love of the game to come up across stories that present our beloved boys in a less than stellar light (and that's putting it mildly), but the more distant I can keep them from myself, the better. Not that I am willing to be ignorant to truth, but it just doesn't serve me to go digging in to all of that. 🤷‍♀️ It is what it is and I hope Mo had her fun and hit him in the back of the head with a wooden spoon (several times at the very least).

that all being said, I'm planning on tackling the issue briefly in Wildflowers

On a brighter note, I did read about the '77 tour on the Zeppelin forums and this made my heart explode:

Kill me.

It Happened on Fifth Avenue (1947)

When Frank Capra and Samuel J. Briskin founded the independent studio Liberty Films in 1945, It Happened on Fifth Avenue was slated to be the studio’s first motion picture. The story had the Capra hallmarks: a wholesome tale that rewards its characters’ selflessness, yet acknowledging the hardships and frustrations of American life. But Capra found other source material more interesting. He sold the rights to It Happened on Fifth Avenue to his friend, director Roy Del Ruth, and began work on some little movie called It’s a Wonderful Life instead. What became of It Happened on Fifth Avenue? It resulted in a moderate hit for Allied Artists, a newly-formed subsidiary of Monogram Pictures (a Poverty Row studio which was attempting to rid itself of its reputation of making low-budget movies that typically played in rural American theaters, rarely appearing in the nation’s urban centers).

Though it might not be as iconic as It’s a Wonderful Life or fellow 1947 film Miracle on 34th Street, it embraces the charity and altruism associated with Yuletide – fully realizing how difficult it can be for one to embody those characteristics.

A homeless man named Aloysius T. McKeever (Victor Moore) bring himself and his dog to the New York City mansion of Michael J. O’Connor (Charles Ruggles; whose character deals in real estate and is the nation’s second-richest person) every winter. Aloysius is not here to panhandle at the front door, but to enter through the broken back fence and squat in the mansion while O’Connor is reliably away at his Virginia estate from November 3 to March 13. This year is unlike any other year for Aloysius, though. He will invite newly-evicted veteran Jim Bullock (Don DeFore) and eighteen-year-old Trudy “Smith” (Gale Storm; whose character is actually O’Connor’s runaway daughter). And then, to Aloysius’ initial exasperation, Jim will invite his fellow veteran friends Whitey (Alan Hale, Jr.), Hank (Edward Ryan), and their families to reside in the mansion until they can find places for themselves. The fun for the audience begins when Trudy starts falling for Jim, and when Michael J. O’Connor himself returns earlier than scheduled.

A few character actors play those small character parts. Edward Brophy and Arthur Hohl play two patrolmen hired by O’Connor to keep watch of his mansion. Dorothea Kent is Whitey’s wife, Margie – and this time, Kent is not playing her typical dumb blonde charcters.

The years during and after World War II saw a significant housing shortage in the United States’ largest metropolitan areas – most visibly New York City, Los Angeles, and especially Washington, D.C. (see: 1943’s The More the Merrier). Americans flocked to the industrial and military-adjacent jobs that were located in these places. These hubs of materiel production could not construct housing fast enough to accommodate the demand – a situation worsened when WWII servicemembers returned from their overseas postings. Jobs may have been plentiful during wartime, but the housing shortage gripping the nation’s urban centers was widespread enough for Hollywood to make several films about or circuitous to the subject. This facet of history might be lost to younger viewers, as the housing crunch of WWII and the immediate post-War years are fading from living memory. But this development informs the attitudes found in It Happened on Fifth Avenue, implied and otherwise.

In the 1940s and even today, moviegoers infrequently experience a film headlined by character actors. It Happened on Fifth Avenue’s two central characters are among the finest in Victor Moore and Charles Ruggles. Moore and Ruggles play diametrically opposed characters. The former’s chronic homelessness has nothing to do with his humility and gentle humor; the latter’s uptight, business-first mindset will recall Dickensian misanthropes and misers transported to mid-twentieth century America. Their performances are splendid, even as Moore’s Aloysius begins to cede the spotlight to the younger actors and Ruggles by the film’s midpoint.

Moore represents the film’s moral conscience. He moralizes without lecturing; he teaches human decency incidentally, without ever being pedagogical. As Aloysius, he appears to have made some semblance of peace with his material poverty, sometimes appearing as if the material wealth splashed about the O’Connor residence is absurdly gauche. Moore channels some of that aged wisdom and plaintive contentedness he displayed in Make Way for Tomorrow (1937) – it defines the first half of the film, so a pity it is sidelined somewhat for the second half. Ruggles, as the nominal antagonist in Michael O’Connor, nevertheless allows the audience to empathize with his character. In Michael O’Connor there is a father who, gradually, understands that his daughter should find her own happiness, and wants to be careful not to interfere in that aspect of her life. Ruggles displays that father-daughter awkwardness with comedic, at times poignant, brilliance.

Herbert Clyde Lewis’ screenplay relies mostly on O’Connor’s silent outrage to propel the film. Juxtaposed with his daughter’s intentions to prove Jim’s suitability as a potential husband and a real estate deal that Jim and his military buddies are considering, O’Connor would be forgiven for having a Yuletide migraine. The film’s subplots are numerous, but they are sufficiently – if predictably – resolved by the conclusion. Light-hearted situational humor defines Lewis’ screenplay. And the film’s acting ensemble ably empowers the dramatic and comedic elements on-screen, despite the film running longer than it should.

One wishes, however, that Lewis and Roy Del Ruth were more interested in the film’s side characters. The focus on O’Connor, the real estate magnate, means It Happened on Fifth Avenue views the societal ills it presents from the top down. Why not provide more screentime for the families of Jim’s friends? This could be explained away by noting that American audiences in 1947 already knew enough about the nation’s housing crisis, and that such suffering need not be outlined. Yet the suffering – physical, psychological – is almost entirely laid at the feet of people like Jim, Aloysius, and the others. The film never loses this focus on the plight of the homeless, but it makes this decision to focus on O’Connor for the sake of amplifying its comedic misunderstandings and ironies.

Gale Storm, a Monogram Pictures mainstay who also maintained a successful music career on the radio, has three songs in It Happened on Fifth Avenue. None of them are particularly memorable, but “That’s What Christmas Means to Me” (music and lyrics by Harry Revel… 1942’s The Mayor of 44th Street and 1944’s Minstrel Man) was, in the 1940s, briefly a radio standard. This Christmas song has no relation to Stevie Wonder’s single of the same name.

As part of television syndication deals in the United States, the film garnered a following until around 1990, when December airings abruptly halted. It Happened On Fifth Avenue resurfaced on Turner Classic Movies (TCM) in 2009 after years of requests (and a dedicated fansite), and has been a regular feature of TCM’s December schedule since. This comedy, ideal for the holiday season, is in the midst of renewing its reputation. It may be lighter entertainment and its dramatic stakes might not be as tremendous as other Christmas/New Year’s films, but it is well worth seeking this former obscurity among fans of Golden Age Hollywood. The film will be a balm for those who might not see the cheeriness and goodwill of the holidays – from the onset of the movie’s conflict to its expectant final line.

My rating: 7.5/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. Half-points are always rounded down. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog (as of July 1, 2020, tumblr is not permitting certain posts with links to appear on tag pages, so I cannot provide the URL).

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

Alexander Sullivan

COMM-261 001

Mike Delnero

29 April 2021

Class Within An Unforgiving and Relentless System

           Bong Joon Ho is a South Korean director born during the latter half of The Cold War into a well educated in prominent family he actively participated in protests in his college years defying the then Unitary State in favor of a democratic system. His upbringing and socioeconomic background is often the basis and inspiration for many of his films and cinematography. Bong displays these influences in both his films Snowpiercer (2013) and Parasite (2019). Even though these films were released nearly six years apart and deal with two very different fictional settings I believe they share the same common theme and subject matter that is greatly influenced by Bong’s background.

             To start let’s begin with talking about South Korea Bong Joon Ho’s homeland. In South Korea there is a stark class divide with little to know class mobility. Nikkei Asia’s Hiroshi Minegishi explains, “The top 20% earns the equivalent of around $8,400 a month on average” and “The bottom 20% only makes about $1,100 a month”. In the same article Minegishi explains much of South Korean society is based around familial ties and status. To put it simply you can not progress through society and the workforce unless you have connections even regarding schooling there is a strict bias towards the wealthy and their families. Though he was born into a middle-class family who could afford to send him to school and live comfortably the environment and stark divide around him greatly influenced Bong Joon-ho’s creative style and films. Born youngest of four to a designer/ professor at Yeungnam University he was surrounded by artistic people and influences while also being subject to the rapidly changing South Korean socioeconomic environment that came as a result of the Korean war the country has been riddled with political scandal for years with the rich and affluent seeming suppressing the lower castes and abusing their privilege in order to benefit them and their families. Bong channeled these scandals and immoralities into his films as seen in Snowpiercer and Parasite.

             Snowpiercer released in 2013 is a film depicting a dystopian future where in an attempt to, reverse global warming scientist unintentionally created an ice age that is inhospitable to humans. The remnants of humanity live on board a futuristic train that is nearly self-sufficient that is circling the globe. The passengers of said train are divided into cars depending on their class with the richest being farther forward and enjoying on the luxuries and pleasures of the train and the poorest being in the rearmost cars subject to processed scraps and crowded living conditions. Fed up with their subjugation and poor treatment the people of the rear cars attempt a coup by violently making their way from the rear of the train to the front in order to eradicate the hierarchal society oppressing them. Losing many along the way when they final come face to face with the pinnacle of the whole system the inventor/ conductor of the train Wilford the main character and leader of the resistance Curtis realizes the futility of the situation. Wilford explains that their resistance was an anticipated event that he orchestrated in order to cull the population and keep it at a maintainable level and that in the end those who Curtis sought to liberate were killed or would have no real gain in terms of class or status. That is when another character denotates a bomb and derails the train bringing the entire system to its end and presumably killing all if not most of the passengers.

           Parasite is also a fictional film but, it is set in modern day South Korea, It follows the Kim family which consists the mother, father and their adult two children a daughter and son. The Kim family is very poor and all work odd jobs in order to get by dwelling in a slum like area in a semi underground basement with a plethora of issues and nuisances. Through lucky circumstances and deception, the son of the Kim family comes into a position of employment for a rich and affluent upper-class family as a tutor this is the Park family. The Park’s are very kind and wealthy people who keep a small staff to help them with their daily activities. The son of the Kim family uses his position and cunning on order to deceive the Parks and get them to fire their staff one by one and replace them with his family masquerading as people who have never met each other. Though this deception comes back to haunt them when the old house keeper returns to the Park home while the Kim’s are housesitting and discovers their secret a scuffle ensues resulting in the death of the housekeeper and the hiding of her body in the basement. Through a series of more unfortunate events the former housekeepers husband avenges her by killing the daughter of the Kim family at a Park family birthday party. This murder is witnessed by all the affluent friends of the Park family as well as, the Kim’s. Fed up with the lack of Apathy shown by Mr. Park’s for the death of his daughter Mr. Kim murders him in cold blood Infront of everyone and flees. This results in the ousting of their lies and the eventual return of the Kim family back to their original situation this time worsened by the loss of their daughter and the financial situation they’ve been but in. In the end all their efforts got them nowhere.

             Both these films share a lot of aspects both visually and thematically. For instance, the establishing shot of both movies serves to hammer in just how disparaged the main character and his compatriots /family are allowing the viewer to empathize/ pity them. Similarly, both of these films show systemic oppression of lower classes/ castes who start life at a disadvantage due to their lineage. While Parasite is a direct depiction of South Korean socioeconomic environment Snowpiercer also takes many key issues from the South Korean plights and depicts them all be it in a less direct way than Parasite. One film shows people trying to attain freedom and equality via direct violence and rebellion while the other shows it in a more roundabout way with the Park family using cunning and their wits to try to gain power wealth and luxuries. Yet both films end up in the same way with the main characters right back where they started without gaining anything and sacrificing so much they did not change class or gain anything socially or economically. Both of these films directed by Bong nearly six years apart show the impossibility of class mobility that is so prevalent in modern South Korea all be it in two very different scenarios. This is how Bong chose to channel his environment directly into his films using themes and important influences form his own life and environment to make critical and prevalent points on society and inequalities within class based systems. Both Parasite and Snowpiercer also share many visual similarities. When comparing setting like the interior/ rear cars of the train to the Kim family home and the areas where that represent the lower castes in Parasite you see a lot of cramped dilapidated places with colorful characters who are struggling to survive and monotone colors. Lastly, you can see the similarities in Parasite and Snowpiercer when looking at the final scenes in Snowpiercer it ends with the entire train and system along with it being destroyed and a young girl and a child looking out  into the seemingly inhabitable artic wasteland displaying a sense of hope for the future. Parasite ends with Kim Ki-Wu (The Kim family son) dreaming of and explaining a plan that will regain the status and lifestyle that he briefly tasted through legitimate and organic means again providing a sense of hope for the future and their chances of climbing out of their socio-economic class. That is how Bong Joon-Ho commented on class and the lack of mobility between classes within his films and how the similarities between these two films specifically emphasize his themes and messages.

             All in all it is clear that Bong Joon-Ho’s environment and upbringing greatly influenced the subject matter of his filmography. As seen with my synopsis of the two aforementioned films there are a lot of similarities both thematically and visually even though they were released nearly six years apart and when taken at face value are based on two entirely different subject matters. They both expertly explain a problem specifically the inequalities and difficulties of a heavily corrupted and bias class based system without being to on the nose. Bong greatly shows hos expertise and feelings for the theme through in both films in the similarities that he draws to modern day South Korea in the world of Snowpiercer as well as his fictional version of South Korea.  That is how I believe Bong Joon-ho’s films specifically Snowpiercer (2013) and Parasite (2019) expertly display a deeper meaning in the form of Bong Joon ho’s depiction of corrupt class based societies that discourage and don’t allow for ascension through the classes or equal opportunities as well as, how these thematical choices were greatly influenced by his background and upbringing within post Korean War South Korea and its political and economic system which are a direct example of the aforementioned flaws and discrepancies.

      Work Cited

Baum, Seth D. “Film Review: Snowpiercer.” SethBaum.com, Journal of Sustainability Education, 7 Dec. 2014, sethbaum.com/ac/2014_Snowpiercer.pdf.

Bong, Joon-ho, director. Parasite, Barunson E&A, 30 May 2019.

Bong, Joon-ho, director. Snowpiercer, Moho Film Opus Pictures Union Investment Partners Stillking Films, 29 July 2013.

Film Is Just Moving Pictures, director. Understanding Classism in Parasite. YouTube, YouTube, 11 Sept. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGy2vRrLjps&ab_channel=FilmisjustMovingPictures.

FilmAgent, director. Parasite 2019 Ending Scene - Dad Today I Made a Plan - Sad. YouTube, YouTube, 1 May 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU7nz8f0_00&ab_channel=FilmAgent.

FLORESMIRANDA, Author ANGEL. “The Social Class Analysis of Snow Piercer and Its Deeper Political Messages.” English 2100 x 90 Fall 2020, Baruch College, 7 Oct. 2020, blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/writing210090/?p=450.

Gabilondo, Joseba. “Bong Joon Ho's Parasite and Post-2008 Revolts: From the Discourses of the Master to the Destituent Power of the Real.” International Journal of Žižek Studies, 1 Nov. 2020, zizekstudies.org/index.php/IJZS/article/view/1158.

MINEGISHI, HIROSHI. “'Parasite' Offers Glimpse of South Korea's Class Divide.” Nikkei Asia, Nikkei Asia, 18 Feb. 2020, asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Parasite-offers-glimpse-of-South-Korea-s-class-divide.

“Parasite.” IMDb, IMDb.com, 30 May 2019, www.imdb.com/title/tt6751668/.

Raup, Jordan. Bong Joon Ho on Family and Class IN Parasite, Collecting Films, and Memories of Murder. 19 Nov. 2019, www.filmlinc.org/daily/bong-joon-ho-on-family-and-class-in-parasite-collecting-films-and-memories-of-murder/.

“Snowpiercer.” IMDb, IMDb.com, 1 Aug. 2013, www.imdb.com/title/tt1706620/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_3.

Walsong Contents, director. 🔥🔥🔥Snowpiercer Final Scene 🔥🔥🔥. YouTube, YouTube, 23 Jan. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeSXj5dpOaA&ab_channel=WalsongContents.

Panda thoughts

We’re now in a Quantum state with the characterization of Panda on We Bare Bears. You could very easily change it so that he’s learning about his sexuality or gender identity or something. This is the type pf character and time/situation that tends to attract people to lionize a character in a form of identity. Sometimes this can be good, after all I’m promoting the comic that basically recast and frames the Fryman family as a combination of both stand-in and actual trans Folk or as bisexual or homosexual. When a character ultimately speaks to a group reinterpreting them for that purpose is another form of enjoying art 

However part and parcel of the entire slash phenomenon is in many ways a kind of sexism.As soon as someone is a man and they in any way leave the check list of traits that we very rigidly and commonly defined as heterosexual or masculine than they must be gay or queer in some way Now interpretation is always going to be differing line for some people. For me when a work has aspect that does it seem as if gay characters exist or even being considered. Because by defining that boundary you can indicate that you understand how each is supposed to work. We bare Bears is definitely a show where gay people could exist. We often see same sex pairings which may be friends or may actually be dates. Of course it’s set in San Francisco and I think everybody knows that bear is often slang for a type of gay man by now.  OK KO is the same with two subtle but rather explicit male/male relationships (Lord Boxman and Professor Venomous, Nick Army and Joff, possibly Brandon and Real Magic Skeleton)  As such though I’d have put money on Gar being gay he really seems into Carol/KO’s mom.  No need to reinterpret characters being gay if speculation or be open to the idea. Panda in particular has always given off two contrary aspects which works for a comedy character. He’s incredibly thirsty for female companionship and romance and even has some retrograde and selfish ideas about what it is to be a woman and wanting to have one for his very own. . At the same time he often shows interest and is very very often put in scenarios in which he’s more or less easily inferred as being sexually gratifying or romantically pursued or entangled with a male character. At first this was Grizz later this was Charlie.

The overall idea of Charlie and Panda getting together as a couple definitely has some appeal. In the fact that a lot of the things that we associate with a romance, namely attaining emotional maturity, interaction, and learning to cross boundaries are very much a part of pandas experience when he’s interacting with Charlie. However at the exact same time I feel in order to make this subtext happen people are often ignoring the full context of it. Would we really be comfortable with the idea- if we’re all being gender-blind or not being limited by gender assumptions- with a romantic pursuer that constantly violate someone’s personal space keeps on insisting on intimate forms of address at the person’s constant denial who often never wants to be intimate or physically near the person? Panda has a lot of anxieties that Charlie attacks. This is fun to see because it creates drama and Conflict for us as well comedy. But does this necessarily mean that the best person for panda is Charlie?  

In some ways I much prefer the idea that Charlie is certainly someone who’s helping Panda expand but he’s not necessarily going to be his romantic love interest. I like the idea ultimately that Panda’s Journey has been about becoming a full-fledged full rounded person. Someone who can appreciate a romantic partner and all that that entails as well as being seen fulfilling someone else’s needs. More importantly a lot of the Romantic elements that people Champion as being indicative of Panda’s deep down attraction to Charlie kind of bother me in the context in which they are presented in the show and then taken out in order to share among the fans

In Charlie’s Foot Panda does not want to be associated with Charlie at all. The only time he starts to reciprocate is when he’s been drugged out of his mind and been forced by his brothers in order to do so. It’s kind of off-putting because it’s implied that someone can be effectively harassing the person physically and emotionally they have to break down and eventually accept what’s happened. If Panda was a girl and Charlie was doing this I imagine that a great deal of fans would feel deeply uncomfortable by the subtext implied 

I’m uncomfortable with the subtext implied by fan interpretations of Charlie effectively getting through to Panda as a romantic interest. Panda is straight. It’s as simple as that so far. Maybe he is bisexual or gay or maybe his sexuality is fluid. All of these are things that I can advocate and if they end up going there in the show I’m going to be interested. But I feel as if in fan presentation there’s this overall belief that there only way that Panda can actually Advance is if he’s ultimately going to turn out to be gay and especially gay for Charlie

This feels off-putting because Panda shows not just a disinterest in male contact but repulsion towards male contact outside of very specific areas. More importantly I think we kind of crossed this kind of subject matter several times in the show with the encounter of Tom and the number of times he’s had to interact with Charlie, Grizz, or be seen as “Cute.” He started to get out of his shell, yes, but it seems weird to say that the only way that he can ultimately grow up is if he decides to date dudes. He effectively ended up dating with Tom and that didn’t solve any of his problems his relationship with him in fact that highlighted a lot of the problems he already had

Effectively Charlie is fulfilling the role that often a love interest or pseudo love interest does in stories. He’s effectively affecting pandas character growth helping him become more empathic and see the world in a different light.   

The one time he accepted Charlie’s advances sober was preceded by “ I’m just too tired to fight you off anymore.” Does that seem really all that romantic or respectful or a positive message? That said, the idea in fan circles is given a lot of good use. I love how one fan artist has had kids for them and their characterization

 and they have this really great comic where they have both kids talk to buy both parents and they explain how they ultimately ended up together.

(reference)

That all said I often feel as if people re-characterize Charlie so he’s just a manic pixie dream girl there to enable male loves male scenarios. He’s missing a lot of his full characterization just so that that way he can be romantic love interest and given the changes that this demands of Panda’s core characterization, motives, goals, and progress that also bothers me I really do like some of the effort that’s been put into Panlie idea. So I’m in this weird place where I really like the fan idea but I’m not sure if I ever wanted to become Canon because it feels off to validate or say that that’s appropriate behavior. A lot of this came to head for me and some of the on Tumblr reaction to Summer Love. Panda’s actually been advancing in terms of his lovelorn character traits. For one he’s can actually seem to expand Beyond just Manga and Anime. If anything his relationship with Amanda felt more appropriate. Yes he did a lot of the Romantic pining and projecting but in some ways a lot of this was based on him putting in actual effort and other things. The fact that he’s able to finally get it and the conclusion of how things are supposed to be and appreciate that someone else has their own aims in life to live shows genuine maturity on his part. More importantly compared to most of his other attempts where it was like, “pretty girl I want to have her” here he saw someone whom he had potential connection with and connected her plights with his.

 He often didn’t seem to want to do something for someone he acted to do something to get someone. By contrast and comparison hei returning of Amanda’s phone, while of course involving some selfishness, is ultimately about fulfilling her. it’s why he doesn’t try to push any further when he realizes that she’s going her separate way. Unlike the manga who he’s been imitating he actually doesn’t force her to stay or choose him. So overall this is just me thinking out loud about characterization and reception. What are your thoughts?

The War On Women: as reported by a man on the front-lines. by Joe Spit

Recently I was reading an article about how a woman threw her newborn baby out of a window. Now this woman had not told anyone she was pregnant and when people found out about it she told them it was a still-born and threw it out her 9th story apartment window with its umbilical cord still attached because she didn't know what to do with it. However coroner's found that the baby did indeed die of blunt force trauma from the aforementioned throwing it out a window. That monster how could she do that of all things, is what I'm sure you're thinking because it's what i was thinking, and us, presumably, not being monsters would empathize with the baby, who had hurt no one in its short life.

I'm a father of a beautiful boy who is about to turn two years old in the coming weeks, he is a ray of sunshine in my life and I would do anything for him. He was conceived on accidental circumstances, atop a volcano to a woman I barely knew at the time. but even with the obvious awkwardness of the situation, he was born and he is loved. However his mother and I are not a pair nor did we or will we ever have the feelings for eachother that a stable family would require, but he is alive and he is loved.

More recently, my girlfriend who I've been deeply in love with for the past two years, and who I should mention is on birth control, came home early from a gig she was doing to tell me that she was pregnant. We were overjoyed at first but sooner than we expected all the rational factors of reality set in. How are we going to afford it? if we have this baby I will probably not be able to see my current baby boy for a long while as he lives 2000+ miles away. My girlfriend and I would have to quit pursuing our careers and perhaps have move out of our 2 bedroom apartment as we would not be able to afford it with increased financial stress. I would probably have to work as a burger cook to ensure the steady payment that our lives as artists does not provide. It being 2015 we thought it over rationally and decided to not go through with seeing this embryo to term.

Now this was not an easy decision to make as anyone who has been in this position would know. My girlfriend and I do love each other enormously and what made matters worse is we have talked about having kids in the future together. Time makes fools of us all, however, after much self conflict and many hours of crying our decision resulted in only termination, which is fine it's 2015. That option is readily available and especially in a progressive city like New York City not demonized. Holy shit were we wrong.

My girlfriends general doctor was very unbiased and understanding to our plight and maybe even accepting of our decision, mentioning "you're not killing a baby, at this point it is only cells that have barely multiplied a few times and hasn't entered the uterus". Apparently your doctor cannot prescribe the pill to force a termination. She gave us all the information about it and recommended us two places we could go to to obtain it. One in Jamaica and one in Brooklyn. This was very different from the independant research my girlfriend and I did on our own but, she's a doctor what do we know.

We left the doctor's office at 1pm with the knowledge if we leave now we can get to the 1st recommendation in Jamaica before they close at 2pm, already this was slightly odd but, what do I know I've never even played a doctor on T.V. We zoom over there and the gods of transportation smiled upon us and opened up the traffic like the red sea. We get there in under 35 minutes, well before the 2pm out time. The moment we walk in the people greet us to "no youre looking for labcorp down the street" we think nothing of it and it's a simple mistake because apparently a lot of people go there thinking it's labcorp. after we adamantly show them we are in the right place and looking for our prescribed termination, they tell us "oh, that lady leaves at noon everyday". At this point were flustered but mistakes happen, so off to Brooklyn, and to make sure someone is there we google the address and google tells us it's a planned parenthood and that they're open until 8pm.

On the train ride over we are alight with thought. I start to think this is all a part of a subversive plot, like in Texas where some women have to drive over 200 miles to get to a clinic, hoping they'll reconsider over a long arduous drive. We arrive in Court Square just under an hour later. Inside it says it is a pregnancy center, and they as my girlfriend to fill out a form. It's a fairly standard form but this one has two things that perk our ears. They ask what religion we are, which we are none, but there is no box to heck for that. They also ask how did you hear about us, but it only lists in varying degrees ways in which we googled the place. No mention of a doctor recommendation or anything other than search engines.

When she fills out the form I notice on the coffee table there are strange magazines titled "Girls" and the other "Boys" both with photographic stereotypes about both genders on the covers Girls applying makeup and Boys playing basketball. The headline stories in each magazine is "What girls are really thinking" and the other "What boys are really thinking". It would seem to me if you really want t know the inside scoop just pick up the other magazine. Also on the wall there is a poster with a, let's say unique, arithmetic to count how many people you have actually had sex with. where if you have had one partner then you just slept with one person. it varys its arithmetic until at the bottom is says if you've have sex with 12 people you've actually had sex with 4,029 people. I recognize it as a scare tactic poster and very flawed, because if the person you have sex with is wearing a condom, then you’re having sex with 0 people? But before I can think about what is this doing in a doctor's office, they call my partner for a urine sample and give her a plastic ziploc bag and a dixie cup. I see that and at the very same moment the water cup I am sipping from has the same exact design on it. Even though my partner has all her medical paperwork stating her current health they need us to go through the motions of their very unsanitary medical faux procedure. I know dixie cups aren't sterile, and after she pisses in the Dixie cup, is she supposed to put the unsealable paper cup back in the plastic bag, leaving you with a bag of piss and trash? I've seen homeless people treat their piss better. Now we start to realise this too, like the first recommendation in Jamaica, isn't a doctor's office. but we are trying to go through with our difficult decision so whatever, let's just try and get it over with.

In a moment my partner comes storming out of the back office with a look of angry grief over her face. They were going to force her to watch a video and they were stating that at 4 weeks the embryo already has a heart and head. Us not being retarded knew that isn't right but they insisted, "nope look at the picture", which was a drawing of some kind of chicken lizard with a smile. Little did we know this was a christian run faux planned parenthood. Where they give false hopes and misinformation, while pushing their agenda and not offering the unbiased help you wold expect from any medical professional. In the elevator she tells me how they said they could only give the prescription for termination,which we already had from our doctor, after she watched the video, I doubt they ever help with termination. How my partner didn't smash everything in that place is beyond me. She told me they offered her a job to afford the baby. My partner has a career, and their job would be one of minimum wage somewhere, which as we all know can barely support a single person nonetheless a family. I would stand to bet that the jobs in question don't even offer maternity benefits. The entire staff there were 25 year old and under girls who have never been pregnant. I can only imagine for someone who goes there thinking it's actually planned parenthood and is uneducated and unready for a baby. They kept saying how they would discuss options for you, but it was clear that the only option was their agenda, seeing the embryo to term.

At this point we go to an actual planned parenthood. where we have to go through a metal detector and the guard explicitly ask if we have pepper spray. After talking with the guard and staff we find out that people come there often and try to inflict pain on the people working there. those good christians that just wanna save the lives  of the poor unborn babies, will harm people with no problem. We tell them of the Christian faux planned parenthood and they say "Oh the one across the street?"

This all brings me back to that monster of a mother who threw her baby out a window moments after it was born. She is in jail and will remain there for the next two years, minimum. My partner and i are both college educated and while we were both raised with religion, we have broken away from it entirely as far as doctrines or agendas are concerned, but this monster mom from the Bronx, over the events of the day became so much more human in our eyes. She merely couldn't afford to get an abortion, and while there are 2 actual planned parenthoods in nyc there are over 10 of the pseudo christian run planned parenthoods, where they don't offer options nor even condoms in the one we went to. Only misinformation and guilt trip videos, making a hard decision even harder And this is happening everywhere.

I, as a white male, would never expect that the war on women was going to not only come to my doorstep, but affect me in such a harmful way. The war on women is strong and subversive, so much so, that it has even invaded a bastion of liberalism that is New York City. I don't know if my partner's doctor was in on it. I'm sure they just googled where to go and got caught in phishing net, like so many people who rely on the internet for solid information. It's ludicrous that there only appear to be 2 places serving the entire population of NYC, where a woman can get valuable with out her personal integrity being called into question.  The war on women pushes on far after the baby is born, since there are no state run maternity benefits, no health care for the baby, and the places of business are rare to offer that as well. In my partner's case she is a dancer so she is out of work and her career could very easily be over..

So while the decision was the hardest one we have ever had to make, we made it, but because abortion has become so demonized it is nearly impossible to find the right information to obtain it. Some mothers not knowing what to do throw their babies out the window. While i can't agree with anyone doing that, I can see how a person can be driven to it. Making murders out of women who just wanted not to be in this situation, and offering nothing but deceit and shame, by the grace of God.