As the debate over contraception coverage in health insurance plans offered by religious institutions to their employees rages in Washington, one cause for complaint’s been the way the Obama administration’s decision-making process has been covered. Of the 146 guests who have come on cable news shows to discuss the decision between Monday and Thursday, 91 were men. MSNBC’s Morning Joe has come under fire from Democratic congresswomen for not inviting women, other than show co-host Mika Brzezinski, who disapproved of the Obama administration’s initial policy, to appear on the program. And at Politico, Mike Allen’s presented the White House’s decision-making process as a boys-against-girls fight pitting strategy-minded male advisors against women who were tightly focused on the actual issue at hand: making sure women can get insurance-covered access to contraceptives. And since men in media seem to have so much trouble figuring out how to cover women’s health issues, it’s time to help them out with some simple advice:

1. Ask a woman on your show: This should be elementary advice, but apparently for too many cable hosts and cable bookers, it isn’t immediately evident that when women’s issues on the table, women’s experiences and expertise might be relevant. It would be nice if men, from cable pundits to researchers, were truly as invested in women’s health issues, from contraception access to breast cancer research, as women are. But that’s just not the way things are. And if you’ve never tried to decide between oral contraceptives, had an IUD put in, or figured out how to pay for either—much less studied the medical or insurance issues around contraception—it ought to be common sense to you that there are things that you—and your audience—can learn from people who have experience that you don’t.

2. Ask women what their experiences have been with health issues that are specific to their gender: Sure, there’s a fine line between asking creepy questions about women’s sex lives and their health. But if you’re interested in why women are so invested in access to contraception, or breast cancer funding (though breast cancer is not simply a women’s disease), or other women’s health issues, find a tactful way to show genuine curiosity. I’d be willing to bet most male pundits don’t have a good sense of the difference between what brand name and generic contraceptive pills cost, or how much costs to have an IUD in, or what it feels like to use either. And while you’re learning more about the emotions that motivate women in these policy debates, you may also fulfill your mission of delivering new information to your viewers or readers. I had no idea that oral contraceptives could be part of a diabetes maintenance regimen until someone wrote about it in a piece I saw linked on Twitter. New perspectives and new data often come forward hand in hand.

3. Treat women like any other interest group: There’s something very odd about the way women get treated when they’re advocating for the issues that affect them: as parochial and unable to see the strategic damage their needs might pose to the Democratic party. No one would ever suggest that that the National Federation of Independent Business is small-minded and undermining Republicans for lobbying to change IRS reporting requirements. So stop treating women, who are a core Democratic voting bloc, as if they’re short-sighted or selfish for expecting that a party they elect will be responsive to their needs.

4. Question the frameworks you’re given: It’s remarkable how many people who profess to believe that consumer choice and a vibrant marketplace are important, particularly in health insurance, are quick to forget about those preferences when someone suggests that a policy infringes upon religious liberty. Religious organizations that don’t want to have to cover contraceptives are also deeply invested in denying their female employees any information about where they could get competing coverage. That sounds a lot less like protecting religious liberty and a lot more like constricting consumer choice. Whether you agree with either of these frameworks for the debate, it’s not impressive journalism to just accept a narrative that’s handed to you by an interest group. Ask questions. Weigh realistic assessments of the impact a policy change. Then frame your own story.

I suppose it’s nice for New York Giants running back Brandon Jacobs to apologize for telling Gisele Bunchen, the model who is married to New England Patriots’ quarterback Tom Brady, that rather than expressing her upset about the Patriots’ Super Bowl loss that “She just needs to continue to stay cute and shut up.” But I’d rather he apologize to Gisele than to Brady:

“Given the fact that it’s a colleague of mine’s wife, I do apologize for saying that, because I shouldn’t have said that,” Jacobs said of Tom Brady’s spouse in an interview on “The Doug Gottlieb Show.” “It’s his wife and I should respect that just as much as anyone else.”…However, while Jacobs apologized for telling Bundchen to hush up, he refused to express any remorse about calling her cute, saying that Brady should “take that as a compliment.” “If he finds something wrong with that, then that’s his problem.”

Which means he really doesn’t get what he did, and why it was wrong. Jacobs’ comments were obnoxious not because he was impugning Tom Brady’s wife. They were obnoxious because they implied that the role of a woman was to be attractive, rather than to have opinions. The question is not whether Tom Brady has a problem with his wife being reduced to her looks. It’s whether Gisele does.

And I’ve honestly been dismayed by the idea that Gisele is obligated by contract or custom not to speak ill of her husband’s teammates or the team’s performance. Tom Brady is her husband, not her keeper. She is an independent woman who makes an income that does not leave her dependent on the Patriots. Whether she speaks publicly about his work is a matter for their marriage, not our judgement.

It’s an attitude that treats women who are married to athletes as if they’re like another set of women who are often treated as if they’re helpmeets first, and individuals second: political wives. No matter how accomplished Gisele or Hillary Clinton are in their own fields, as long as their husbands are or were preeminent figures in their fields, what Tom or Bill were up to was understood to be the priority—no matter what role those men feel comfortable having their wives take on. God forbid Gisele have opinions about football. God forbid Hillary have something to add on health care. I understand that it makes strategic sense, given the persistent and virulent sexism directed at women in politics, particularly those cast as if they’re malevolent powers behind the throne, for political wives to take on anodyne issues that are removed from the substance of the political mainstream. But that norm isn’t something we should be proud of.

Over at NPR’s Monkey See blog, Linda Holmes has a provocative essay up chronicling the decline of Liz Lemon, the harried comedy showrunner who is the star of NBC’s sitcom 30 Rock, from competent if overwhelmed woman to cringing child:

A recent storyline featuring James Marsden as Criss, Liz’s boyfriend who drove a hot-dog truck, was very reminiscent of Dennis the pager salesman. But this time, she didn’t break up with him because Jack gave her the side-eye and forced her to come to terms with the fact that she didn’t want him. She broke up with him because Jack appeared to her as an apparition — her spirit guide, basically — and mocked Criss, mostly for not having any money…Over the course of six seasons, Jack has been fully transformed into a condescending, all-knowing daddy, and Liz has been fully transformed into a needy little girl who is eternally terrified of displeasing him. She’s always had a grudging respect for him, but now she simply reveres him and trusts his judgment more than hers. She was once frazzled but smart, harried but competent, capable of wrangling a bunch of crazy people and then slumping at the end of the day, exhausted but minimally victorious. Now, she’s just dumb, incapable of making her own decisions, and her relationship with Jack is entirely out of balance.

For me, the tipping point with 30 Rock actually came last season when the show decided the next logical place to go in finding ways to be funny about Liz was to utterly sexually humiliate her. Liz was, at the time, dating a commercial pilot with the unfortunate name of Carol and an unfortunate moustache, played by Matt Damon, and they were having bedroom issues. Or, as Liz put it “I freaked out and my junk closed for business. It’s like Fort Knox down there.” The reason? An incident involving a Tom Jones poster, roller skates, the worst haircut anyone could bestow on a child, and a pair of flowered underpants. Liz can’t just have garden-variety intimacy problems: she has to be utterly freakish—and of course, to have Jack help her reach her breakthrough.

The decline of Liz Lemon may be a particular tragedy given how great 30 Rock once was. But when it comes to sex, it’s hardly unprecedented. A number of television comedies have decided to get laughs out of suggesting that their female leads are sexually freakish, and not in a Ludacris-approved kind of way. New Girl‘s done this to Jess twice. First, when she was finally about to sleep with her new boyfriend, the show had Jess overcome her jitters by getting her tangled up in ridiculous lingerie and then had her act out so many exaggerated versions of so many fetishes that she almost scared the poor man to death. More recently, Jess, in an effort to prove that her perennial optimism is always well-founded, ended up almost having a threesome with her creepy landlord. Her inability to read signals in any rational way—and her dancing around her bedroom doing jazz hands after the man proposed a threesome—were not the actions of a rational person.

And Parks and Recreation, which has done an admirable job of making its public servant heroine Leslie Knope into a sex symbol, had a weird slip last season when Leslie’s boss, Ron, discovered that she was dating their immediate superior, Ben. Her big secret was revealed when she accidentally dialed Ron during foreplay with Ben, a leadup that involved the two of them pretending to be historical weird leaders. Ron was disconcerted by the fact that Leslie had kept a secret from him, but the joke was clearly Leslie’s sexual proclivities.

Now, it’s not as if there’s an entirely clear double standard on these shows. On Parks and Recreation, Ron, normally a manly, independent libertarian is reduced to jelly and silliness by the sexual wiles of his ex-wives, to whom he is dangerously susceptible. Jess’s roommates on New Girl are not uniformly romantically successful. But Jack’s sexual quirks are generally treated as evidence of his prowess and manliness. When Liz is shocked that Jack’s girlfriend Avery likes a particular sex act, Jack explains that she appreciates it when it’s well-executed. And during his relationship with liberal Congresswoman C.C. Cunningham, he consistently credits for being sexually adventuresome. It’s too bad that someone like Leslie, who’s otherwise competent, aggressive, smart and attractive couldn’t get credit for sexual creativity rather than becoming the butt of jokes for having specific tastes.

By now, most of you have probably heard the news: after she got black-out drunk at a party and found herself pregnant and unsure of who the father of her baby is, Buffy Summers is getting an abortion in the franchise’s Season 9 comic book extensions of the television show. I’m profoundly relieved that, in keeping with his courage about social issues in general, Buffy The Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon has been firm that Buffy will definitely go through with the procedure, rather than following the lead of so many other pop culture artifacts, which generally have a character consider abortion before deciding to keep the baby. But even more than the fact that Buffy is doing this storyline, I think these comments from Whedon in Entertainment Weekly are important:

I think strongly that teen pregnancy and young people having babies when they are not emotionally, financially, or otherwise equipped to take care of them, is kind of glorified in our media right now. You know, things like Secret Life [of an American Teenager] and Juno and Knocked Up – even if they pretend to deal with abortion, the movies don’t even say the word “abortion.” It’s something that over a third of American women are going to decide to have to do in their lives. But people are so terrified that no one will discuss the reality of it — not no one, but very few popular entertainments, even when they say they’re dealing with this issue, they don’t, and won’t. It’s frustrating to me.

I don’t think Buffy should have a baby. I don’t think Buffy can take care of a baby. I agree with Buffy. It’s a very difficult decision for her, but she made a decision that so many people make and it’s such a hot button issue with Planned Parenthood under constant threat and attack right now. A woman’s right to choose is under attack as much as it’s ever been, and that’s a terrible and dangerous thing for this country. I don’t usually get soap box-y with this, but the thing about Buffy is all she’s going through is what women go through, and what nobody making a speech, holding up a placard, or making a movie is willing to say.

This is honestly one of the messaging issues I struggle most with. I defy anyone to read Adrian Nicole Leblanc’s Random Family and think that we shouldn’t provide more support for teenaged mothers. I may find it inexplicable that a 14-year-old would want to get pregnant or that a 16- or 17-year-old would want to derail their education by having a child and raising it herself, but for the sake of that teenager’s kids, I want her to have access to plenty of WIC, subsidized daycare, and health insurance. And I think it’s repulsive that anyone thinks we should start the process of trying to prevent teenagers from getting pregnant by making it harder for their children to grow up with adequate access to food, clothing, medical care and safe child care.

But that does leave a messaging window that requires a greater precision: it’s not easy to glamorize abstinence for a mass audience, but it is possible to talk up good grades and the opportunities that college, travel, and career bring along with them. We need pop culture to stand up not just for the right to choose, but to emphasize all the adventures you can have if you finish your education and find a fulfilling job. And those adventures don’t only have to include killing vampires.

The bridge is yours.

-Erik Kain talks to The Civil Wars about music and piracy.

-Hollywood takes on the recession phenomenon of adult kids moving back in with their parents.

-Cleverly vandalized Mad Men ads.

-Movie ticket prices hit a high in 2011.

-Morgan Freeman will be the latest celebrity to survive the apocalypse.

Not only is Viola Davis going to be in Ender’s Game, but they’re creating a role that’s not in the books, or at least is split off from Colonel Graff’s duties, for her: “Davis will play a military psychologist who oversees the emotional welfare of young trainees. She also helps design the games that test their skills and resilience.” This sounds terrific to me, honestly. In the novels, the characters that Graff argues with about Ender’s well-being aren’t really fleshed out at all—it’s more a conversation between him and Valentine. So giving Graff a clear adult partner in trying to figure out how to calibrate Ender’s training makes a lot of sense, particularly given that Harrison Ford, who’s playing Graff, has essentially regressed into a single cantankerous emotional range in recent years.

And even as someone who didn’t grow up playing video games, the Fantasy Game in the novel has always been one of the literary devices from that period of my reading life that stuck with me most strongly. In the novel, it’s a computer that keeps expanding the game for Ender after he beats what should have been its highest-level, overcoming a no-win scenario through a burst of unexpected violence. In the world of the novel, particularly given the way artificial intelligence evolves and the roles it plays in the subsequent books, it makes sense that an AI would be able to create a detailed psychological response to Ender’s pain. But I think in the movie it makes more sense to give us a person who’s designing the game, to personify that exploration of Ender’s psyche and the creative process that leads to its most stunning revelations.

It also makes the ending of the novel, in which the aliens Ender’s exterminated build a replica of the game to communicate with him after they’re gone, even more poignant. In the novel, Ender and the Hive Queen have learned their way towards reconciliation and forgiveness, and Ender takes on the task of making up for his crime after he’s reached that place of understanding. But by putting a person behind the fantasy game, Ender becomes a point of convergence for humanity as a whole and the Buggers: he’s someone they both need to understand, and he becomes them the first thing they truly have in common. In the novels, Ender’s xenocide set the stage for regret and a too-late desire for reconciliation, and he provided the intellectual framework for those emotions. But personifying the Fantasy Game plants the seed of that framework even earlier. Now, if only the movie or a sequel will give us a sense of the Hive Queen.

The war isn’t over. But Deadline reports that the Paradise Lost movie that was in the works is dead, at least for now:

The big-budget film Paradise Lost, which was slated to start shooting in January but was pushed till early summer, has been scrapped, I’m told. The epic-sized Alex Proyas-directed film about the battle between good and evil inspired by the John Milton poem was to star Bradley Cooper as Lucifer, Benjamin Walker as the archangel Michael, Diego Boneta playing Adam and Camilla Belle Eve, with a host of other actors lined up for the action epic.

Legendary made the decision after trying to bring the cost of the movie down to $120 million, tops. The producer/financier spent low eight figures to get this far but had never green lit the film and therefore should not be on the hook for pay or play talent deals. It is possible that the film could return down the line, as Best Picture nominee Moneyball, American Gangster and some other pictures have done after being scrapped just short of a production start. But Paradise Lost might be halted for a while, until technological advancements in visual effects bring to a reasonable cost the task of creating a believable depiction of the celestial battles that are at the heart of this film. It was too rich for Legendary’s blood even though the company scoured every way possible to find a way to be grand but disciplined.

Now, obviously that “let’s just wait for better special effects thing” means they fundamentally don’t get Milton’s epic. But anything that staves off the day when Bradley Cooper gives us his smug prepster Satan is good news.

I’m almost done with Season 4 of Sons of Anarchy, so keep your eyes peeled for a lot of blogging on the subject. But I noticed today that the show’s creator, Kurt Sutter, tweeted that “i’ve talked to [FX President John] landgraf about the 1st nine. he digs it, but thinks it might be best to put some time between SOA and a prequel. i agree.” I’d like to see that. I am, perhaps more than the average Sons of Anarchy viewer, in the questions of governance the show raises, whether we’re hearing about SAMCRO founder John Teller’s anarchist theorizing or seeing how the MC interacts with Charming’s law enforcement officials. But it would be neat to see how that synergy developed in the first place. Most of the big governance shows on television give us, in Rhett Butler’s parlance, empire building (Deadwood) or empire wrecking (The Wire). It’d be neat to see a single coherent story about a rise and fall.

This sounds pretty fantastic:

Christopher Plummer, who could walk away with the first Oscar of his long career in just a few weeks, has closed a deal to star in HBO Films’ Muhammad Ali’s Greatest Fight, which is being directed by Stephen Frears. Frank Langella also is coming on board the movie, which details the legal fight between Ali and the U.S. government when the fighter became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. Ali was drafted into the Army in 1966 but declined to serve, citing his belief that the war was against the teachings of the Koran. When he appeared at an armed services induction in 1967 and refused to step forward when his name was called, he was arrested. After being found guilty, a series of appeals were fought and the case wound its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 (Clay v United States). Ali persevered, mainly due to the prevailing anti-Vietnam winds, and also managed to throw out provocative lines into the mainstream such as “I ain’t got no quarrel with the Vietcong. No Vietcong ever called me N—–.”

Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan are obviously not perfectly parallel wars, whether it’s the way and the reasons we got into each conflict or the abolition of the draft. But finding an alternate way to discuss the question of Muslim loyalty to the United States and the role of Islam in public life is a really smart thing to do right now. I’ll be fascinated to see how it turns out.