Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Movie Mix

The Penguin Wars

By Sheerly Avni, AlterNet. Posted September 17, 2005.


From multiple mates to gay tolerance to untraditional marriage roles, these birds are not at all the role models the Christian Right would make them out to be.  
Advertisement

We live in a world where Bill O'Reilly can use footage of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as a lesson to the nation's schoolchildren: "If you don't get educated, if you don't develop a skill, and force yourself to work hard, you'll most likely be poor."

So, it should come as no surprise that members of the religious right have found a way to co-opt the hit documentary, March of the Penguins, claiming it as an argument for, among other things, intelligent design and family values. The New York Times reported earlier this week that Christian groups are jumping to claim the movie's "message" as their own. Michael Medved even went so far as to call it an endorsement of "traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child-rearing."

Monogamy? As Scott Lamb pointed out in Salon, these penguins get around. They switch mates with each new mating season, which makes for some pretty slutty birds -- and change the operative question from "What Would Jesus Do?" to "Who would Jesus Do?" (And an earlier Salon article, which tells the incredible true story of two male penguins in love, adds another twist.)

This is the most cynical misappropriation of someone else's messages since the Republicans started pumping their fists in the air to Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA." (Or, for that matter, since Reagan decided to name his space program Star Wars, a move George Lucas resents to this day.) In all, conservatives' embrace of March of the Penguins is pretty ironic, coming from a nexus of religious groups that justify backburnering environmental issues because with the Rapture at hand, we don't need to worry about the next generation's planet anyway.

As long as we're looking to the animal kingdom for inspiring visions of God's plan, may we suggest a few more documentary topics: dolphins who go for gang rape; bonobo monkeys who exchange sexual favors for food; dry humping gay cows; and orally fixated male guppies. And when all else fails, we could always use a few more shots of those perpetually onanistic chimpanzees. A real exploration of animal sex puts the "wild" back in Wild Kingdom, and would knock nature programming off the family rotation for good.

Still, it's not fair to base our argument on all that nature porn on Discovery Channel. What about the tuxedo-clad charmers themselves?

What can we take from those penguins -- that is, if global warming and erosion of their natural habitat aren't taking enough? From the movie, we know that nature makes sure they don't give birth to more offspring than they can feed. Mostly we know -- from this supposedly family-values oriented documentary -- that male and female penguins split responsibility for child-rearing right down the middle: The male becomes a stay-at-home dad, warming the egg and being ready on hand with a tiny bit of food he stores in his beak; he waits to the point of starvation for his mate to return from her arduous trek to the waters edge to bring food. When mom comes back, they switch places, with no time to spend together.

It's the ultimate commuter marriage. Probably not the kind of family values Those Who Speak Directly to God had in mind, unless we missed the part where fighting for paid paternity leave moved up a few items on the right-wing agenda.

So we have sex with up to 20 partners in a lifetime, tolerance toward gay couplings, and males who take "Go ahead and work late, honey, I'll watch the kids" to a whole a new level. Again, we'd bet these aren't the family values the Christian Right had in mind. But paid paternity leave? We'll take it.

Digg!

Sheerly Avni is a San Francisco-based writer.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
March of the Godless
Posted by: decembrist on Sep 17, 2005 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know what's so refreshing about penguins?

They don't have a God!

They just carry on, marching.

Poor Medved and his confused human mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: March of the Godless Posted by: owleyes
» RE: March of the Godless Posted by: eosinglemum
» the above comment is for owleyes Posted by: eosinglemum
Gandalf is coming back!
Posted by: Ahimsa on Sep 17, 2005 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had a dream in which The Lord of The Rings was a sacred text that had a massive amount of followers.
Gandalf had died in the hands of Sauron but he had assured he'd come back to lead us to eternal light (for some reason, Frodo, his boyfriend Sam and his uncle Dildo, were not in the picture)
So the Gandalfians (Led by a very strange creature that spoke funny, walked in four legs, wore a suit or a white shirt in summer and went knocking from dood to door bringing the good news) were trying to convince me that he'd come back, that I had to learn to use magic and wear a long white beard to lead others and that we'd all go back to live in the Shire when that happened. We'd all have affectionate boyfriends and funny uncles, we'd all live in gingerbread houses.
I walked on the streets of a desolated city, were only businesses existed, businesses that sold nothing, but that charged you in exchange for offering promises of wonderful things you could have. The streets were always wet, the sun was always golden and eerie, there was a strange buzz in the air. There were two kinds of people on these streets: Gandalfians (all wearing long beards and carrying staffs; when they were young or female, they would wear fake long white beards and all died their hair to seem old) and faceless drones that were the targets of the Gandalfian proselytism.
At that point I woke up, spooked out, not knowing if I should laugh hysterically or go get some kind of mind-numbing, "normalizing" pills.
I wonder what causes people to agree with and follow nonsensical fantasies of imminent raptures and supernatural messiahs. What makes us so gullible, is it hope for a better life? Are we a desperate species willing to believe literally in all sorts of fairy tales that make no sense in the reality of our lives? How do fundamentalist christians (and other creatures) get away with making so many believe in these stories? How come do we believe them at all??!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gandalf is coming back! Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Gandalf is coming back! Posted by: Ahimsa
» RE: Gandalf is coming back! Posted by: rinthy
Grow up.
Posted by: allenthecowboy on Sep 17, 2005 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Immature article. What does march of the penguins have to do with the christian right? It ignores global warming.

It's nonsense to talk about penguins in terms of sluttiness and sleeping around. These birds sacrifice for their family, they are true to their mate in their mating cycle and make sacrifices together for their offspring. To talk about the penguin's sexual reproduction in terms of sluttiness is extremely immature and ignorant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grow up. Posted by: Ahimsa
» RE: Grow up: and look up, too. Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Grow up. Posted by: Celia
» RE: Grow up. Posted by: jstmane
Everyone seems to over look Jesus and the money changers
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Sep 17, 2005 12:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If people really paid attention to what the Bible says about Jesus' life and the message he truly preached, they would see at how the Church uses a false message to over lay the true one of love, tolerance and sacrificing for the good of them many, instead of the good of a few. Jesus would take one look at our temple of Washington and "the Church" and he would get angry and toss the whole lot out, as he did the Temple with its money changers.

I am not a Christian and I have read the books of the bible that deal with Jesus' life. Paul was misanthrope before he became a Christian and he was even worse afterwards. God gave us a sex drive to give us a way to raise the Kudalini energies so we could find enlightenment. Too bad the first man to find enlightenment was by himself. Tantra Yoga works, if you have the time and patience to work with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Reproduce Posted by: eosinglemum
» never mind Posted by: eosinglemum
» Hey BORNXEYED Posted by: LMNOP
» Thank you for the scriptures Posted by: Olympiada
» Christian thought Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Christian thought Posted by: mim
» RE: Christian thought Posted by: mim
» Actually I didn't Posted by: Olympiada
» Lewis Is Boring? Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» The Problem of Pain Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: Lewis Is Boring? Posted by: eosinglemum
» Paul the homosexual Posted by: stompintom
» Spong? Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Spong? Posted by: stompintom
» Spong is radical! Posted by: Olympiada
» And I am not endorsing him Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: Spong is radical! Posted by: nadezhda
It's the ultimate commuter marriage.
Posted by: Olympiada on Sep 17, 2005 1:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah Sheerly thank you so much for talking about marriage in terms I could understand. Perhaps there is hope after all. I had begun to lose all hope and faith in the institution of marriage as a whole. Not to hard to do, considering my father's beliefs on the whole affair.

I like your writing. You keep me grounded, and girl, do I need that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Penguins
Posted by: mim on Sep 18, 2005 8:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who cares? They're only birds.

The real outrage is implying that only rt-wingers care about monogamy or parental devotion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Polygamy Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: Polygamy Posted by: myopicgaze
» Polyamory Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: Polyamory Posted by: myopicgaze
» Lifestyle Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: Lifestyle Posted by: myopicgaze
» Luck Posted by: eosinglemum
» Christian Values Posted by: paulaH
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: mim
» Sources Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: Basenjis
» Wrong Basenjis Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Wrong Basenjis Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Holy Foodies Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: Holy Foodies Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: paulaH
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: paulaH
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: eosinglemum
» I am not Catholic. I am Orthodox. Posted by: eosinglemum
» to eosinglemum Posted by: paulaH
» RE: to eosinglemum Posted by: eosinglemum
» Truth Posted by: nadezhda
» Christian Apologetics Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: paulaH
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: Christian Values Posted by: eosinglemum
A Most Un-intelligent Design
Posted by: attilatheone on Sep 19, 2005 12:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I watched March of the Penguins and marveled at their resilience, I kept thinking, "This is probably the most unintelligent design of anything that ever was."

Every year, these penguins return to absolute desolation and darkness, look for a partner, hope to find one, nearly freeze to death, nearly starve to death, huddle in masses to stay warm, hold an egg ON THEIR TOES for weeks, and then try not to accidentally *boop* drop the egg and kill the baby--all after risking life and limb just to get to this point! Yeah, *that's* intelligent.

Seriously, give God a little frickin' credit here. After all, He is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-knowing. He would've seen this coming and *probably* pre-empted this design.

Instead, the penguin life is a perfect example of survival of the fittest: Be strong and survive; Be weak and die. There is no room for error on Antarctica. If you can tell me how that's intelligent design, please do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Most Un-intelligent Design Posted by: canuckistani
» Convincing Counter Argument Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: Convincing Counter Argument Posted by: eosinglemum
» Was this appropriate ? Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: Was this appropriate ? Posted by: eosinglemum
» It's not MY problem. Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: It's not MY problem. Posted by: eosinglemum
» Time for Truth Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: Time for Truth Posted by: eosinglemum
» It's politics ... follow the money Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» The Case of Dover PA Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: A Most Un-intelligent Design Posted by: attilatheone
» RE: A Most Un-intelligent Design Posted by: attilatheone
» RE: A Most Un-intelligent Design Posted by: eosinglemum
Grasping for Popularity
Posted by: owlbear1 on Sep 19, 2005 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THAT is what this Delusion of "identifying with the Penguins" is all about. It has nothing to do with the subject matter and everything to do with STEALING the popularity of the movie.

It also plays well to many of the "suffering is an end to itself" crowd.
No, not the BDSM types, the "I'm NOT alive unless I'm feeling miserable" types.

They feel a 'kindred spirit' with the Penguins as they SUFFER to make it through life...



Its just that for MANY of them, the most suffering they've done is waiting in line to get into the movie. (and that nearly brought them to their knees)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grasping for Popularity Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: BDSM vs Whining Posted by: AdamSelene11726
agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Sep 19, 2005 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Science has documented over 600 animal species that engage in homosexual sex.

The Bible contains not one word from Christ about homosexuality, but he said plenty about the poor and oppressed and never hesitated in confronting the hypocricy in the temple.


There are Christians who believe what really is immoral is:WAR-no matter who wears the uniform!
The destruction of Mother Nature and the murder of innocent people is the most immoral act of the 21st century, for war is the ultimate form of terrorism.

People dying of thirst and starvation in a land of plenty is also immoral.
Abject poverty and children dying of treatable diseases is immoral.

How anyone gives and receives love is nobody's business but it certainly keeps the 'Christian'-Right busy chasing their perception of 'demons' while they neglect the real moral issues of the day.


www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: bornxeyed
complex life
Posted by: karyse on Sep 19, 2005 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I often marvel at the faulty thinking of those who claim that life is so complex that it must be intelligent design when it actually points to the opposite. Only nature needed "complicated," god could have created animated clay "children."

Nature gave us eye sockets, optical nerves, retinas, and a gazillion other biological gadgets in order to see -- god could have used buttons. Nature made birth look like (and sometimes actually cause) death. Nature made everything either predator or prey, made everything "edible," made one thing survive on the death of the other -- a "life through death" reality. God wouldn't find that at all necessary -- unless, of course he was some kind of sadist, but even then, a Gumby could have been made to feel excruciating pain by fiat, simple life form or not.

All that is needed for god's desire for "prayer and worship without cease" would be a bunch of uncomplicated, Gumby-type life forms. If he wanted pain and suffering to occur he could still have limbs fall off randomly.

No. The way a stem cell works is ridiculously complicated and fails at a rate that would embarass any creator that used that design. If a human created a macnine with a failure rate as great as only 1 out of 5 successes (I think that is the rate of natural miscarriage or abortion because of flaws in the fetus) we would throw out the design and start from scratch.

Since a fetus' failure to implant is not noticed at all by the "mother," nor is early rejection because of serious flaws in the fetus, it serves no "god purpose" at all, though it serves nature well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: complex life Posted by: jwg
» RE: complex life Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: complex life Posted by: bornxeyed
» Discovery Institute Posted by: AdamSelene11726
Human Arrogance
Posted by: rusrus on Sep 19, 2005 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As we are humans, and as humans are arrogant, of course we would create a myth of our existence:

Creationists: God (an elderly bearded white man) created us in his own image a few thousand years ago
Intelligent Designers: The Designer (code word for God) set in motion a series of events to have us created through evolution

Both explanations have "humans" as the end result. Is that the case? Are WE the pinnacle of organic development? Are humans so flawless that "God" would have stopped there? I'll admit, I love humans - there is nothing more beautiful than the sound of children laughing or the agapic love between us. But, on the other hand, there is nothing more disgusting than our human wars, our petty crimes against one another, and our whimsical betrayals of trust. God might have intended to create the Earth for Humans v3.0, sadly we're Humans v0.5.

So, for me, the reason we're all here on Earth is chance.

People who see "God" in a movie about penguins will also see "God" in a movie about auto-racing. They see what they want to see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Human Arrogance Posted by: memonkeyman
Hypocrisy, sarcasm, and the like
Posted by: mim on Sep 19, 2005 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Olympiada, sorry for the confusion, but I was responding to jstmane, who posted:

***
Hey Mim,

ShaSpirit was paraphrasing the bible not quoting it. You on the other had decided you need to quote the bible to get your “Christian” view across. I’m so sick and tired of Christians and there slant, morally bankrupt view on the world. About 99% of you so called “christians” I meet are hypocrites. The other 1 percent are doing it ‘cause their mama told them to do it... Get off your high horse you hypocrite!!!
***

I notice that you too are swimming against the tide as a Christian. But I have no taste for John Spong. I don't believe one has to abandon Christian orthodoxy in order to oppose the fundamentalists. I consider myself theologically conservative and politically progressive, and I see no contradiction between the two, only the need to fight on two fronts. That is difficult, but the effort is not worth abandoning for the sake of a false consistency.

Anyone is welcome to learn my political views from my other posts on Alternet or on any blog where they see a post from "mim."

"Mim" is from a bit of friendly joshing I remember from my childhood. It's the alias I use to post to all the progressive blogs--all those to which I post, that is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» John Spong's Posted by: eosinglemum
» watch out for eossinglemum Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» Point taken ... Points made Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» No Posted by: eosinglemum
» Fascinating, Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» That was a low blow Adam Posted by: eosinglemum
» Low ? Perhaps. But was it accurate ? Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» Aha! Caught you Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: Fascinating, but Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: watch out for eossinglemum Posted by: eosinglemum
» Hojo Jitsu Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: Hojo Jitsu Posted by: eosinglemum
» RE: watch out for eossinglemum Posted by: eosinglemum
» Thanks for the attaboy ... Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: Thanks for the attaboy ... Posted by: eosinglemum
» Rude to ignore -- cruel to reply -- Posted by: AdamSelene11726
"Bonobo monkeys"?!
Posted by: moonwatcher on Jan 19, 2006 2:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I completely agree with the rest of the article, but I feel compelled to point out that bonobos are not monkeys. They are chimps, in the same genus as the common chimp. Since chimps are more closely related to humans than to monkeys, it is just as silly to call them monkeys as to call us monkeys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]