So, as I suspected, there was a diversity of thought about my observations about The Kids Are All Right.  My post is currently on the front page of The Huffington Post and the comments are flying.  I have also been getting comments galore on my facebook wall and via email.  So here is a sampling for your reading pleasure.

Lots of them and in no particular order:

Straight man married to a liberal woman who really likes Sarah Palin (I don’t get it either). Just read your article in the Huffingtom Post. All great points. I get it.

College boyfriend.  Yes we are both gay.  He disagrees.I see where you could draw your conclusion, but I don’t agree with it. If anyting the message I got from the film was the opposite from yous. These two women and their children DIDN”T need a man to make them whole. This guy enters their lives, but his presence doesn’t break them up, and it doesn’t provide real fulfillment for any of them.

Lesbian mom with teenage daughter: Misteps are what make a movie a movie but I think that this could have been done differently. How come movies about straight couples and infidelity rarely deal with bisexuality? I felt that the film suggested that sexuality is fluid (whi…ch it can be) and that Jules could have made a choice. There aren’t many lesbians I know who feel that their sexuality is fluid. My bisexual friends yes, my lesbian friends no. There is a difference and portraying it as a choice is just wrong.

I also think that since this is the first movie to deal with the issue of kids’ seeking out their sperm donors (a situation my family will deal with in the very near future) is this really the message we want to get out to our teens?

I’m with Joan on this one.

Gay man with partner and kid. Thank you for your review. We won’t see the film. It will only piss us off. I expected realism from Cholodenko.

Somebody who typically agrees with me. Ultimately, the movie is saying the family does NOT need a man. In fact, it’s interesting that the filmmakers do not give the sperm donor a epilogue/coda at the end…all that remains is the family and their sto…ry. He is, as the Bening character hisses at him, “an interloper.” And since the affair has to be with the stranger in the piece (the Jules character sort of reminds me of the Streep housewife in Bridges of Madison County who does the deed with Eastwood’s photographer-in-town character and for much the same reasons), it therefore has to be a man. And remember ultimately when he tells Jules “I think we can make this work,” she says: “No. I’m gay.” Without a bit of hesitation.

I have to say as I was watching this movie yesterday, I knew it would not go down well with all of the gay community. I certainly could have done without the “gay male porn” part which, together with the above, leads to the perception that lesbians need men.

Quote from the director incoporated into a comment. Director Lisa Cholodenko: “I was much more interested in reaching out to the male population than I was concerned about alienating a sector of the lesbian population.” Hmmmmmm.

Sour grapes from another gay person who points out issues I had similar problem with Brokeback Mountain…in the end, one of the homos was still dead. Hollywood never strays far from the tried and true. Lesbians need a man. Gay men die lonely.

Conflicted. Hmm. I’m torn. I definitely hear your argument. On the other hand, though, I feel that the ultimate message of the movie is that this family does *not* need a man to complete it. Sure, Laser’s flirtation with this idea is what leads his… family into those waters… but, by movie’s end, each family member (including and most especially Laser) (re)learns and (re)realizes that they were indeed “alright” to begin with.

Agreed, Jules’s misstep is a huge one… but that’s often what makes a movie a movie… something that *isn’t* the norm. If all the characters made all the right decisions, there would be nothing there for us to watch and process. And the more dramatic the wrong decision (ie, sleeping with your donor), the more of a drama there is for the audience.

Sticking up for the donor: “thank you Joan. Being straight, married and a mom, the issues you addressed are the ones that really bothered me too. While I did enjoy the movie, you are absolutely right. One other thing really bothered me too, the way the donor was just cast aside at the end. As ridiculous as the situation was, he really did come to care for those kids and I think as educated adults, they could have resolved their stupid mistake much better.”

Captured what I meant about the donor relationship and the parent responsibility.I really appreciated your piece. You made the essential point – missing from the discussion so far – about the parental responsibility in handling the relationship of the donor to the family and the kids. We’re adoptive parents, with a relationship with the birthmothers, and feel the same way very keenly: we’re the custodians of the relationship for our children’s benefit.

From a straight woman who took her 78 year old mother: I think your response makes total sense.  I didn’t get the porn thing.  I thought it was really weird that she had an affair with the sperm donor- it just seemed too tangled up and so unlikely. More a plot device to sell tickets, instead of making a family drama that’s real.  But I didn’t take away the thought that lesbian couples and their families need men to be complete- not at all.  I actually thought the way the moms worked through it  (in spite of how contrived it was) and included the kids with such honesty was very powerful and positive.  That’s more what I took away.  My 78 year old mother didn’t take anything away except she thought there was too much sex.  So, while you understandably have problems with the movie,  I don’t think the lasting impression it leaves is as negative as you fear.

From a very smart gay male friend of mine. I saw The Kids Are All Right last Saturday. I didn’t understand the rave reviews. But I really had big problems with Julianne Moore having sex with a man. More problematic was that she saw his “man meat” for the first time and said “hello!” — as if she was now, for the first time, having real sex with “the real thing”. And then it was further inflamed by the fact that she couldn’t stop! And never stopped until she got busted.

Interesting observations from a straight man. Those quirks you point out appear to imply a subliminal message (look kids – mommy was just play acting the whole time and all women really want to be with a man). Perhaps this was injected to appeal to a broader viewing audience. This hetero male gets that. But lets not forget the forest for the trees. We all strive for perfection the eyes of our children, and those interpersonal gives and takes in light of those errors makes our relationships stronger (we hope). That message, not the subliminal, I think, rings clear.

Another perspective: Each person brings their own perspective on the thematic heart of the film. The director, Lisa Cholodenko, must be amused, because I think this is what she intended. The film is not about lesbians, sperm donors, porn preferences or the need for a man in families. Rather, it simultaneously examines five complex individuals each in a state of personal transition and how this disrupts the roles and relationships in the family. The lesbian couple confronted with the sperm donor is just a vehicle that precipitates and accelerates the rate of the transition of these roles. But all families go through a similar process, albeit more serialized than the film has imagined for dramatic (and comic) effect. Using this perspective, the film succeeds spectacularly. The only sad individual is the initial catalytic force, the selfish donor who begins to yearn for a family, and who, in the end, is literally left outside looking in. The women and their kids are alright because they have and care for each other. That’s my perspective.

Try this one: “I’m upset because I believe the takeaway from this film will be that lesbians and the families they create need men to be complete.”

Then you saw a different movie than I (straight guy, 30′s, lives with girlfriend, no kids) did. Nic steps up and defends her family from the outsider. Jules begs her family for forgiveness. We never see Paul again. The ending is ambiguous but hopeful. We don’t know what happens to the characters, but my interpretation is that it’s strongly implied they could stay together and make it work. From all I’ve been reading about the controversy surrounding this story point, I get that it’s taboo in your culture to even entertain the notion that a lesbian in a stable relationship would sleep with a man, but it makes for good drama. And if they can overcome THAT Everest-like hurdle, they can overcome anything, no?

Sounds a little like the Fox News Sherrod controversy. She overcame racism. Families can overcome intruders.

To me, the takeaway is that it’s actually a family values movie. Love/stability/responsibility/routine conquers all (even hugely ungraceful moments of acting out sexually in a culturally taboo unresolved issues kind of way…) Am I wrong? Just because you disagree with choices the characters make (which you probably should by the way) does not mean the filmmakers sold anyone (esp. the lesbian community, who Lisa Cholodenko is in no way beholden to) out. If anything, I’d argue just the opposite.

A comment from someone recognizing the challenge of trail blazing. Haven’t seen the film, but taking your interpretation at face value (I have no reason to do otherwise), there is a silver lining within your cloud. There’s going to be a second one, and a third one, and they will have to avoid this kind of nonsense to avoid being “derivative.” They won’t be perfect either, but they’ll push things along to the point where maybe we all get taken as individuals

So I posted this essay on The Huffington Post late this morning.  I saw the movie a few weeks back but waited to post until the movie had broader distribution.  This past Friday the film’s reach expanded to over 200 screens, from urban centers where it was selling out to the suburbs where it has continued to have a very good run.  $5 million in 2 weeks.  And rave reviews.

Here’s what I wrote about the film.  Before I cut and paste, let me say this.  Not everyone agreed with me.  I have more comments at HuffPo than I’ve had about many topics.  And my next post will offer you excerpts (positive and negative and both) of the comments people have made.  I’m fascinated.  Hope you are too.

I was beyond excited. A major motion picture. Two big celebs. We would finally have cultural shorthand during introductions. Like this past weekend when we dropped our fifteen year old son Ben off at camp. “Hi I’m Joan and….. I tell you what — let me make this easier for you. Have you seen The Kids Are All Right? I’m kinda like Annette Benning — you know, the one with the short hair. But I’m not a doctor. I’m actually terribly squeamish. And this is my partner Eileen — she was a hippie in college just like the Julianne Moore character but she is not at all flaky like her. And this is our son — he’s Laser!”

A cultural touchstone. We’d never had one before.

Our daughter Scout saw a trailer online just after all the buzz at Sundance. When she sent the link to me, she wrote an email that indicated that she had not just watched it a few times. She had swallowed it whole. She, at age 20, is Joni.

Kit, on the cusp of 16, was beyond excited. “OMG! I am souped! When can we see it?”

Our very own family on the big screen! For the very first time.

So I went to see it. And unlike the many who raved about this film, I have a real problem with it.

Did I just see you roll your eyes? You’re wondering how a lesbian mom and gay rights activist who has three kids through donor insemination can possibly have any issues with the first mainstream feature film with box office stars as lesbians who have been together forever who create and raise a family together. As someone who teaches about the intersection of media and social change, why can’t I simply celebrate this film? Do I have to be so damned picky?

Yes, I do.

Because it is the first. Because of the star power. Because it has gotten rave reviews. Because the film has grossed $5 million in two weeks in limited release. Because this past weekend, the film moved from cities to suburbs. Because these images will shape how gay families are perceived. How lesbian moms are perceived. Perhaps more importantly, this movie will also be important for kids of gay and lesbian parents. Director LIsa Cholodenko says it herself “it’s a brave new world” and millions (yes, millions) of donor insemination kids are coming of age. How will these images speak to them?

I wanted the movie to be perfect. I get that this is unrealistic. But it was imperfect a very important way.

The trailer teases it but I thought, no. It couldn’t be. Then I saw the film.

Spoiler alert!!

One of the moms has an affair (okay, this happens). Not with another woman. With another man (okay, this happens, too, but knowing their moms all these years, it would totally and completely rock their kids’ world as they knew it). But not just any man. With the kids’ sperm donor (I barely know where to even start).

What were the writers thinking? I’m okay with one of the lesbian moms crossing a line, but that line? Let’s be clear. The relationship between a sperm donor, known or unknown, with the family he helps to create is blurry and complicated. If that donor then enters the life of your family, parents have a special obligation and responsibility to behave like grownups — to lead the family carefully through those unchartered waters — not to exponentially increase the complications by taking the donor from the kids in a flagrantly irresponsible way.

I’m here to tell you that after a move like that the kids would definitely not be all right.

Combine this plot twist with the scene in which Jules and Nic watch gay male porn. Male porn. Male. After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I wondered: Did I miss a memo? I started asking around (actually I asked two people, I was way to embarrassed to ask more than two). One woman told me it is more common than I might think. It would have to be more common than I think because I have never thought of it. Another woman told me that lesbians watch gay male porn because lesbian porn isn’t very good. This response didn’t satisfy me in the slightest (no pun intended).

It boils down to this: I’m upset because I believe the takeaway from this film will be that lesbians and the families they create need men to be complete. I’m upset because any parent who has created a family through donor insemination understands just how devastating Jules’ choice would be for her children. There is nothing funny about this. Nothing. And lastly, I’m upset that a film that offers the first mainstream glimpse of what Cholodenko herself calls “unchartered territory” sends messages like these.

One last point. Regardless of the circumstances, if I am ever introduced to the men who made our family possible, I know the very first thing Eileen (the hippie one) and I (the one with short hair) would say: Thank you. As flustered as Nic and Jules are upon meeting him, it is the one message many of us wish we could communicate to the men who helped to make our dreams come true. It would have been oh so easy to add these two words to the script.

One reviewer made mention of the controversial nature of the film. “It’s certainly possible that the unconventional makeup of this family will turn off one segment of the audience.”

How ironic that I find myself in that club.

So, yes.  Eileen and I marched in the NYC LGBT Pride Parade yesterday.  We hadn’t marched in a couple of years.  Some of you may be thinking “Gee, Joan! I didn’t think you two were those kinds of lesbians.

Which kind would those be?

We are the “white picket fence, suburban lesbians who have been together nearly 30 years and sometimes are too tired to schlepp into the city who care a great deal about gay and lesbian civil rights and have done more than our fair share about it who decided that this year, we would march”  lesbians.

We had a great time.  We marched awhile.  We stood on Christopher Street for most of the parade and watch folks go by.  I took alot of pictures.  I took pictures that I wish the New York Times had used in its coverage this morning.

But they didn’t.  They went with the pole dancer instead.

This slideshow makes an effort to show people who have never been to a pride parade what they are missing. Literally and in terms of media coverage.

I hope you enjoy it.

Let’s talk about Seattle for a minute.  Love Seattle.  Especially with the rainbow flag flying from the Space Needle this weekend.  First time ever.

Thanks to Patrick from Seattle for sending me the link to the video above.   I liked it alot because it captured all that the Seattle Pride Parade is about.  See what you think.

And here are a few more pix that readers sent me.   These next two are from my friend BrenBren.  That’s not his real name.  It’s a nickname.

Maybe you are just too tired.  Maybe you have a schedule conflict.  Maybe you want to spend time with your family.  No wrong answers.

Last year (you’ll know it’s last year because I reference the death of the OxyClean guy),  we did not march.  And we were still very proud.   Have a read. cA Gay Family Celebrates At Home.

I just love a good play on words.  MORE-ON gay pride media coverage.  And this picture.

Actually I would like to be clear.  I don’t think Bill O’Reilly is a moron.  I’ve been on his show a few times and he’s smart and oddly respectful in his own way.  He actually wants you to get your points across.  (unlike folks like Hannity where you simply serve the role of punching bag)  With O’Reilly,  you just have to play the game.  You have to spar.

Here’s a past piece I wrote about O’Reilly, me and gay pride coverage.  It’s called “Tell All The Drag Queens To Stay Home.”

So yesterday, I wrote about media coverage of gay pride marches.  I asked readers to send my their pix of pride.  I woke up this morning to an inbox with some good ones.

This picture comes from Boston.  Taken just down the street from where my daughter goes to college (I know.  I don’t look old enough to have a daughter in college).  I bet she has run like hell past this building on many an occasion to get to class at Emerson College.  Maybe for her senior year I should get her one of these.

I absolutely love this picture.

Here’s another one that you probably won’t see in the NY Times on Monday.

This one comes courtesy of my pal Eric Marcus.  He’s a writer and he clearly knows that photos tell stories too.

Keep sending em.  I’ll keep posting them.

I was curious.  I was actually looking for an image for a post on a different subject.   I wanted a huge crowd of gay people to make a point about straight allies.  You’ll understand when you read the post I write tomorrow.  I’ll leave you in suspense (albeit a modest amount) until tomorrow on that.

So I googled “gay pride march.”  I was looking for an image of a gay pride march that gave a sense of the magnitude of the march, the hundreds of thousands who march on 5th Avenue every June (hundreds of thousands is the truth unlike the tens of thousands you will read about on Monday in every NYC paper.  Including the papers NOT owned by Rupert Murdoch).

Here’s what I found.

Page 1.  No crowds.  No women.  At least none of the biological variety.

Page 2.  More men.  Many seemed to have forgotten to bring most of their clothing.  Wait. At last.  A big crowd scene.   Not in the US.  Thank you Ontario.

I gave up after page 5.  Just Ontario and this fantastic picture above.  Look closely and you’ll see that they had a massive crowd despite inclement weather.

Not a single photo from a gay pride parade in the US.

Then I realized I was a professor.  I mean. I knew that.  But what I realized is that I have access to a huge AP photo library.  So off I went.    It took me until page 5 of those to find at least one photograph that told a different kind of story

I double checked that this was not a photo taken by my friends at GLSEN.  Nope.  The AP as part of a story they were writing during the marriage equality battle last year.

OK, so what’s my point?  Every year at this time I am reminded of a battle I had with Bill O’Reilly.  His argument was that the gay pride marches are “shooting the gays in the foot.”  A strategy that backfires, he claimed.  My argument was that photos of parents with strollers or gay alums from Yale don’t make for very interesting photographs.  And that media bias is at the heart of the problem.

I further argued that a gay pride march is alot like Mardi Gras – this one day to celebrate difference in all its fun, campy, sexual, outrageous ways.   And in ways that are not campy sexual and outrageous.

What did my search reveal?  Nobody seems to take pictures of gay pride marches that tell a story of magnitude – the sheer volume of participants.  Nobody seems to take pictures of gay pride marches that tell a compelling, emotional story.

Not even our own peeps with our digital cameras.

So here’s what I am going to do.  I am going to go to the NYC Gay Pride March on Sunday and I am going to take the kind of pictures I want to see of the march.  I will post some of them on Monday.

If you are going to any march this weekend and would like to join me in taking pix that tell more of the story of gay pride, I would love that.  Email me the photos at joan@joangarry.com.   Tell me the story you think your photos tell.

I for one would really like to see them.

Father’s Day in a house with lesbian moms is admittedly odd.   When my own dad was still living,  it had more of a focus.  And when the kids were little, school focused on the creation of special little Father’s Day gifts made by each of the children (our school, by the way, was always very respectful of different families and came up with very elegant solutions for all the kids for whom Father’s Day presented some kind of challenge)

I totally forgot that yesterday was Father’s Day.

What’s funny about this is that nearly everything I did yesterday was for and about my kids.  My partner is away and it’s finals week at Montclair High.  The hardest final (Biology) is this morning and so I coached, I cracked the whip and I even made a delicious dinner for them (be impressed – I learned how to flatten a chicken for them!)

So here I am studying the human body and talking through the reproductive system with my 15 year old twins and I forgot it was Father’s Day.

Not that I think of our donors as fathers mind you.   But strictly speaking they are the men responsible for our kids.  So technically, I suppose they fit into the ‘father-ish’ category.

This leads me to the picture above.  It’s a promotional photo from an upcoming film,  The Kids Are All Right.  Set to release on July 9, it tells the story of a lesbian couple (Annette Benning and Julianne Moore) who have two sperm donor teenagers.  The kids go a-hunting for their donor and he becomes a part of their lives.

To say that I was dying to see this film was an understatement.  A mainstream feature film with A list celebs representing a family like mine.  Wow.

I am afraid I must keep you in suspense until July 9 when I plan to write about this film in some detail.   But I want to share something that feels highly relevant as it relates to Father’s Day.

When the donor (Mark Ruffalo) enters their lives, the moms are caught off guard.  They are anxious, emotional and threatened.  The two women are just a complete mess of emotions.  And the operative word for the balance of the film is “mess.”

But at no point in the film, from any of the members of this family, is there a single ounce of appreciation pointed in the direction of this man who gave these women the single most important gift of their lives.  A family.

I do not know if my future holds an encounter with our donors.  I wouldn’t even attempt to guess.  Our kids will make choices on this subject and Eileen and I will support those choices.  (I wrote that down so it has to be true).

But there is one thing I know for sure.  If I ever do have the chance to meet them, I know exactly what I will say.

Thank you.

So John Edwards made it official today.  Although not directly.  He had someone tell the press that Quinn is his daughter.  You remember.  The woman he had an affair with had a baby.  He denied it was his child.  We all knew it was his child but he said it wasn’t.  Now he’s said she is his child.  Actually he didn’t say it.  He had someone say it for him.  Another fine upstanding high road move from John Edwards.

I just cant get it out of my head.  The image of John Edwards’ daughter Quinn looking back at all the media coverage surrounding her origins.  I get it.  People have affairs and kids are born of those affairs.  It happens way too often.  But when it happens in the public eye, it feels different.  And when your biological father goes on national television or is quoted in the national press denying that you are his daughter?   When his wife Elizabeth goes on record saying that she can tell by looking at you that you are not his?

It just feels so awful and despicable.

So I kept thinking about Quinn at age 15 and the next thing I knew I had blogged about it on The Huffington Post.  Featured on the Politics page  -  It’s called Quinn “Edwards” – 2025.  Have a read.