Strollerderby : women

Morning News - Saudis Can Slap Their Wives

Brett Singer — Mon, 11 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Let us begin with this sentence from CNN.com: "Husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi judge said recently during a seminar on domestic violence." The judge "also pointed out that women's indecent behavior and use of offensive words against their husbands were some of the reasons for domestic violence in the country," according to Arab News. Not that I agree, but I wasn't terribly surprised to read this, especially after the tale of the 8-year-old girl who had to try three times to get a divorce from a 47-year-old.

The Pope is in Israel. There's a joke there, but I don't know what it is. And if I did, I probably wouldn't make it anyway. Don't want to risk being struck by lightning or something.

Speaking of people who wear funny clothes (oops, sorry), the new Star Trek movie made over $75 million at the box office. Apparently this is the 11th "Trek" movie. Didn't realize that. I saw this latest installment (thanks to my wife who stayed with the children while I geeked it up at the movies) and thought it was great. Definitely things to complain about if you are so inclined, as in this hilarious video from The Onion News Network:

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

But it was a lot of fun. Not sure how it plays for someone who is unfamiliar with the ways of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest. Interestingly, the film made less than "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", despite the fact that Hugh Jackman's Wolvie movie was (a) leaked online a month early, and (b) received far worse reviews than "Star Trek", which almost every critic seemed to love. You probably shouldn't take your kids to see either one, however.

I'll just quote this headline: "Lance Armstrong says Sheryl Crow's biological clock doomed their romance." Then Lance went and got his next girlfriend pregnant. Nice.

Have you been following the story of the preacher who got caught romping with a woman? He's been called "Father Oprah"; his real name is Father Albert Cutié. Here's a 2006 article from BeliefNet that starts out with the now hilarious question "As a celibate Catholic priest, you've probably been asked this before. How can you give advice to married people and people who want to get married?" His answer? "You don't have to be mentally ill to be a good psychiatrist. I don't think you have to be someone who has a real problem in order to relate to people's problems." In other words, you don't need to be having sex to discuss sex with people. Except that he WAS having sex. OOPS! Maybe he's not a psychiatrist, but is mentally ill? The latest news is that Father Cutié (heh heh, his name is cutie) is "in love." He's also been removed from his church, and a rally in support of him turned "violent." A lot of religious folks think that preists should just be able to get married. I don't have a strong opinion about that, but I do think lying about being celibate is kind of a crappy thing to do. Isn't one of the Ten Commandments "don't lie"?

If you'll excuse me, I have to step outside. Hm. That's funny, the sun was out just a moment ago. Where did those clouds come form? AHHH!!!!!!

Images: Lightning - Guy-Sports.com, Star Trek - Amazon

Required Viewing for All Mothers

Classic Mother Songs For Mother's Day

Poll - Portia and Ellen Most Trusted Moms

Mother's Day Music: The Least You Can Do

Home Birth: A Right or a Must?

JeanneSager — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:38:00 GMT

I wasn't surprised to read Melanie Reid's assumption that home birthing moms are all sandal-wearing hippie freaks (OK, I added that last part). It's the way a lot of people look at women who decided to deliver a baby at home. That's not to say I agreed with her.

But even with her narrow description of the type of woman who decides to give birth at home, Reid's piece in the Times of London this week hit upon some pretty shocking numbers: home birthing is on the rise after decades of decline, but so too are the numbers of people pushing to make home birth THE way to give birth.

And that, I have to admit, I'm not kosher with.

Because for all the wonderful things that home birth offers, and all the reasons I think it should be available to any mother who wants to try it, the one thing I have heard from most moms who have actually given birth at home is that what empowered them to do it was knowing the hospital was just a phone call - and an ambulance ride - away should they need it.

I'm not sure if Reid has met your average home birther, to be honest. She calls the countries where home birthing rates are low as the "sensible" ones, and calls hospitals"the only intelligent, progressive, logical place to give birth." Ask your average home birthing advocate, and she will actually tell you hospitals ARE progressive, intelligent, logical places to give birth - if you need them. The truly sensible home birthers decided to make the choice based on medical assessments, which you very well might call progressive - considering back in the day there was no doctor checking for fetal distress before a woman on the prairie gave birth in her house. If the hospital becomes necessary, the sensible homebirthers say OK, and get there . . . pronto.

As our own home birthing Strollerderby writer Madeline Holler pointed out in her Babble essay on the topic, when she asked her midwife all the what ifs, the dangerous ones pointed to a trip to the hospital - no matter what:

What if the cord slips out before the baby? (We go straight to the hospital.) Bleeding? (Hospital.) Premature labor? (Hospital.)

But, as Reid explains, there's a difference between helping women to realize their dreams of a homebirth and actively advocating we all head in that direction. Wales actually put out a target of having at least ten percent of women give birth at home (this was in 2002, and their target year was 2007 - they're two years past and nowhere near it).

Why?

Because for all its advantages (and there are plenty - read Madeline's essay, she's been there, done that, and can explain them much better than a hospital birther like me), the hospital birth remains its back up because it has something a home can't have: the means to deal with complications. Midwives have modern medical training and are fantastic for your average birth, but outside of a hospital setting, if something DOES go wrong, where do they send you? You got it.

Which means pushing women to have a homebirth, rather than simply accommodating those who want to give it a go, does indeed put us back toward the dark ages. It means putting more women at risk, more babies at risk. The reason a select few women give birth at home in countries like the U.K. and the U.S. is not only because, as Reid claims "We're squeamish. We are hardwired to go to hospital and have our babies there. It's what we do. It's in our modern DNA."

It's because that's a better option for a lot of women. Not all. But a lot. Women like me who had to have pitocin adminstered because my daughter just WOULD NOT come out. Or women like my friend whose son had been improperly measured by her midwife and came out with shoulder distortion because he was just too darn big for her tiny frame. It's better for women with pre-existing conditions, babies with elevated heart rates.

Pushing for the opposite, pushing women to return to their homes, to take away their access to the modern advances of technology heightens the risks for women, gives insurance companies the excuse NOT to cover services and demeans the needs many women experience during labor and delivery. So some women can do just fine in a birthing pool at home. So some women make it through balancing on a ball in their bedroom. Not all of us can.

Very simply: it's one thing to chose a home birth. It's another to get the most out of home birth.

Image: TrueBirth

Breastfeeding Debates: Just a Tempest in a Sippy Cup?

Mattress Ad Features Homebirth

Did Having a Baby Make You Start Thinking About Your Ex?

Homebirthing Advocate's Baby Dies During Homebirth

Also on Babble:

My Illegal Home Birth

What Should A Man Do While A Woman Breastfeeds

Brett Singer — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:00:00 GMT

Scene: a toddler's birthday party. A father is chatting with a woman that he knows from the kids' pre-school. The woman is holding a baby.

The baby stirs. Opens her tiny mouth. Starts... what was the word again?

Oh! Right. Rooting. When they're hungry. That's it.

The woman starts to undo her shirt. Then her bra. She takes out her breast and the baby eagerly starts to eat.

OK dude. Now what?

I'm a fan of breastfeeding in general. I don't think anyone should be pressured into doing it but I believe that it's healthy for the baby, and if the mother is able to do it, that's great. I also believe that women should be able to breastfeed wherever they want. (Maybe not on a Broadway stage while the show is going on, or even in the audience of the theater while the show is going on. But the lower lobby? Sure.) So this isn't about that.

The question is, which is more offensive? Looking? Or looking away?

I don't have an answer, so I'm curious what our readers think. In general it seems rude to head for ze hills as soon as the little one starts her liquid lunch. On the other hand, if I'm standing and the woman is seated, it's difficult to talk to her without seeing her breast. Which in any other situation is considered quite rude. This isn't a sexual thing. I don't think breastfeeding is hot, or inappropriate, or anything of that sort. At the same time I don't know how a woman feels about being on display like that. Or even if they feel on display at all.

So. Help me out here! What's the right thing to do?

(Public) Breastfeeding Now Legal in Massachusetts!

Nursing Mom Calls for Breastpump Ban

Jamie Foxx Jokes Miley Cyrus Should Make A Sex Tape

Did Sarah Palin Know That Bristol Was Sleeping With Levi?

Girl Scouts Use Cookie Money For Soldier's Care Package

Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion

JeanneSager — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:27:00 GMT

Why Texas? Why?

Do you really think women who are headed in to have an abortion are all happy-go-lucky sorts who have no idea what they're getting into?

Because leading members of Texas' GOP are sponsoring a bill that would require women to sit through an ultrasound before an abortion, described in detail by the doctor, and (wait for it) require they listen to the fetal heartbeat. Oh, and if that's not enough, they must sit idly while a doctor lectures them with some good old-fashioned anti-abortion literature.

According to the bill, the "pregnant woman may choose not to view the materials or avert her eyes." How sweet. If that's an option, how about just skipping the whole charade and letting women get on with it?

Its supporters have made clear they are looking to reduce abortion numbers, but they're also being careful throw a little "we're helping to cut down on medical malpractice" spin in there.

"I think that this bill will protect women from being at the hands of a doctor who is not performing best practices," study author Republican Sen. Dan Patrick said. But he's certainly sticking with the party line - he goes on to say, "secondly, it may change the thinking of that woman if she decides to look at that ultrasound, to hear that heart beat."

This move is right up there with North Dakota's recent declaration that "personhood" is achieved at conception. Neither directly reverses Roe v. Wade, but they skirt the rights of a woman being trumped by that of an unborn fetus. As my colleague Kate recently pointed out, the right-to-life movement often neglects the idea that there is life AFTER birth.

The legislators who crafted this bill have no knowledge of a woman's mental or physical health when she walks into an abortion clinic. They have no idea whether she's been raped, had a condom break, gotten pregnant the day before her husband took off. But they are cocksure that listening to the heartbeat is going to change her mind; no matter the pain it inflicts.

Did these guys read the much-talked about Glamour piece on women who've gone through an abortion?

"In a perfect world, no woman would ever need to end a pregnancy," Liz Welch said just last month. "But in reality, one in three women will have at least one abortion by the time she is 45, and these women run the gamut of ages, races, backgrounds and beliefs."

So Texas, just to give you an update women might not feel guilty or even wrong for doing it, but it isn't an easy choice. They don't need to hear a heartbeat or be beaten over the head with literature and a detailed ultrasound description to know that.

Image: PatDollard.com

They Say: Girls Made of Sugar and Grit

JeanneSager — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:34:00 GMT

In case you needed another bit of ammunition to send the "girls are more delicate than boys" notion blasting into outer space, I'm happy to oblige.

It turns out girls are significantly more resilient then their male counterparts when growing up in a troubled family.

The small study (just one hundred twenty-five kids) published in this month's Journal of Adolescent Health acknowledges the odds are stacked against kids who grow up in dysfunctional homes. The girls, however, seem to have slightly better odds of triumphing - about four times that of the boys.

The conclusion of the study is one of those "duh" findings that come from a lot of social studies: "early intervention with families with opiate-dependent parents to prevent and reduce internalizing and externalizing problems in their children holds the most promise of supporting resilient adaptation in early adulthood."

In other words, help the kids when they're younger, and you'll make more of a difference. Obvious, I'd say, but then a lot of these social studies seem to be geared toward convincing those of us with a lack of common sense of the right path.

I was disappointed not to find more information that would explain why the girls fared better. As a woman, and the mother of a girl, I'd love to say that is a "no duh," conclusion too - but I'm not writing off the boys out there! So I can only posit a few conclusions from my own experience:

1. Sisters are often called on to be the "responsible" sibling in a family. Not every sister, of course, and there are often brothers who end up shouldering a much heftier burden. But in almost every case I know of adult siblings splitting familial responsibilities, the brunt of the work falls to the sister. Sisters are often expected to take up the bulk of caregiving for older parents, even if that means moving across the country while a brother lives in the same town as the parents. Perhaps this relates to the traditional role of mother (female) as caregiver?

2. Sisters tend to "mother" their brothers. Again this isn't true for every family, but in an overwhelming number of families when the going gets rough, the females tend to turn outward rather than inward. That focus on the well-being of the other family members can be a huge source of stress, and not particularly healthy for her emotionally. But it's a form of strength that powers them through - and isn't that just another way of saying they're resilient?

Of course, none of this means boys aren't "as good" or "as responsible." But then again, they're not necessarily all that strong!

Via: Los Angeles Times

Image:NC Medical Insurance

Family of Man: Birth Photos Shows Everyone But Mom

JeanneSager — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:30:00 GMT

It's one of the most celebrated photos of a child being born - the baby's body is stretched out with the umbilical cord stretched across his glistening body, the black and white making his scrunched up screaming face that much more vibrant.

Yet, nowhere in the picture, is the little boy's mother. Not even Joan Miller's legs are seen in the most famous photo of her life - the moment she gave birth to son David.

The defining shot in Wayne Miller's Family of Man exhibition of 1955 has gained new attention of late thanks to the publication of a book, Wayne F. Miller: Photographs 1942-1958, published late last year, and an article next month's Smithsonian Magazine. Shot on September 19, 1946 (the baby in the picture is now sixty-two), it's no surprise Mrs. Miller was hidden from view. It's surprising that she allowed her husband to be in the room at all, not to mention with a camera in hand. Although most fathers have cameras and sometimes videocameras at the ready for today's labor and delivery (and we expect photos of our friends' newborn, fresh from the womb, to be sent to our phones immediately . . . if not sooner), ours were the first dads to be allowed - or ask to be - into the delivery rooms as common practice.

Making this photo - which was chosen to be sent into space aboard the two Voyager spacecraft - all the more special is the man seen holding newborn David Miller by the leg. It's his grandfather - Wayne Miller's father, and Joan's father-in-law. I can't imagine allowing my father-in-law to be my OB/GYN (eeek), but then, to know the person helping bring your child into the world has almost as much concern for his wellbeing as you do . . . that could do wonders in putting a new mother at ease!

For a shutterbug like me, the piece was an interesting read; but for a Mom, it was even better. Check it out - and see more photos - here.

Images: Wayne Miller, via Smithsonian Magazine

Let's Do the Twist, Baby

Kids Around the Globe Weigh in on Obama

Kids Explain How Babies Are Made

What's Wrong with "Women and Children First?"

JeanneSager — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:02:00 GMT

The crash of Flight 1549 came just when the nation needed it - a crisis averted, a hero in our midst, nearly two hundred people saved. Next to the inaguration, it's the brightest spot what's been an otherwise bleak American horizon of late.

But we're a country that thrives on some sort of scandal - so it's no surprise the heroism of Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger has quickly turned to criticism of the age-old (at least one hundred and fifty-some year-old) standard of evacuating people in case of tragedy: "women and children first."

To be fair, I'm biased. I am, after all, a woman. I'm also a mother. So women and children rank pretty high on my list. By all accounts, I should be rushing to the defense of the mandate Jezebel aptly dubbed "strangely quaint" and "old fashioned."

A lot of what Jezebel's Sadie said made sense - there has to be some organizational basis for getting people moved from here to there, and few would argue with a child's right to be cut the line in light of a tragedy. Children first, at least, is almost irrefutable. They still have a chance at a life. They still have time left to make a difference.

But Sadie makes one very salient point - kids need caregivers when they're rescued. And last I checked, caregivers come in all forms - daddies too. So what happens when we stick to "women and children first?" If a child is traveling with their Dad in tow, is the screaming tot ripped from his arms and thrust into those of a stranger, wriggling and crying? Add a toddler torquing his body in frustration to an already stressful situation, and you've just lost precious moments.The organizaton you're striving for can be dealt that fatal blow with the moments lost calming them down.

Yes, I would want to get off a sinking plane as quickly as possible - and with my daughter in my arms. But as important as I would hope someone thinks I am in my daughter's life, so too is my husband, my father, my brother . . . I am not a he-man hating feminist (yes, some of them still exist). If one of them were there with my child, I would hope that an able-bodied adult would be willing to let child and "male relative caregiver" take the place of "mother/woman."

Perhaps the more appropriate choice is children - with appropriate caregiver - first, to be followed by whomever the pilot and his crew thinks can be gotten to next in the most organized fashion?

Image: AP

Fire Starts While Toddler has Mom Locked in the Basement

Zimbabwe Releases Jailed Toddler

Mom Says Hospital Fouled Childbirth - Twice

Survey Time: How Will Becoming a Mother Change You?

Study Finds Girls "Prefer Chatting" to Being Physically Active

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:00:00 GMT

New research has found that women of all ages are less active than men. Observing schoolchildren at play, researchers have concluded that girls would rather socialize than play sports.

While I don't doubt the study’s findings that men are more physically active than women, I have some reservations about the explanation that girls simply like to sit around chatting, while boys like to run around and get dirty.

Until I graduated high school, I considered myself the least athletic person I knew. It was a big joke among my friends that any activity requiring physical exertion was off bounds for me. But once I realized that being active did not have to mean doing Indian sprints at Varsity field hockey practice, I became very athletic. I now bike everywhere, do yoga, dance, hike, surf, and run.

I certainly didn’t shun sports because I “prefer to chat.” But a casual observer could easily have drawn this conclusion from watching me on the sidelines during gym class, laughing with a girlfriend instead of trying to get in on the athletic action. The truth is, I was too intimidated to participate in traditional team sports, since I seem to have inherited a gene which makes me physically incapable of throwing and catching a ball. Even the sports that I did enjoy—gymnastics and track—were unappealing to me because I had no interest in competing. I just wanted to move around and have fun.

Perhaps it’s not girls’ natural inclinations that make them less active than their male counterparts, but rather the way sports are taught in school.

Photo: The Telegraph

What's the Sexiest Age for Women?

Kelly Mills — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:32:00 GMT

Hmm, how can you not read an article that starts with the line, "Being sexy is often perceived to be a key essence of femininity." What is that? Yo, you are blowin' my mind on a Thursday morning. Anyhow, it's just a run-down of a survey of 1,000 women: How much sex they have now versus when they were younger, how much they enjoy it, and so on. Turns out middle-aged women have less sex but 56 percent feel they enjoy it more now that they are older and wiser. I guess going for quality is better than quantity.

Anyhow, they asked the women what age they felt the sexiest. I took note. So what was the magic number? The majority felt sexiest at age 34. Whoa now, that's my age. I guess if I am like the majority of women (and we could speculate on that one for days) I have one more month of feeling the sexiest of my life. Actually, the article says, "it was at the age of 34 when they had felt more sexy." Can I get a side of sexy with that? I'm upping my sexy intake right now. Can you ask Justin to bring my sexy back, I only loaned it to him for a short time. (Don't ask why I'm nitpicking the copy here, I guess it's just that I'm seeing my sexy clock run out soon and it's making me critical.)

So how does this information help us women? Um...I'll have to get back to you on that. If you would like to share the age you had the biggest stockpile of sexy in your (hee hee) arsenal, I'm all ears.

Indiana Planned Parenthood Sells Gift Certificates

Brett Singer — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:00:00 GMT

From the Chicago Tribune:

"What do you get the person who has everything—except adequate health insurance? If you live in Indiana, consider this offering from the state's Planned Parenthood affiliate: gift certificates in $25 increments."

In news even less surprising than Clay Aiken coming out of the closet, anti-choice groups are not happy. The Tribune quotes Jim Sedlak, who is with both the American Life League and Stop Planned Parenthood (where DOES he find the time?) as saying that the gift cards are just PP's "annual [attack] on the Christian community at Christmastime...[Planned Parenthood] could easily have said, 'these certificates are not to be used for abortions.' But they intentionally chose not to do that." Because I'm sure that Planned Parenthood spends most of their time thinking about how they can ruin Christmas for Christians everywhere.

Now my initial reaction was a great big ol' "Huh?" Luckily my mother was present when I heard this news (on The Daily Show). She pointed out, as does president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana Betty Cockrum, that most of what PP does is "provide basic health care." In fact, Cockrum says that's 95 percent of what they do. Still, "a pap smear in a Pear Tree" doesn't sound very appealing.

All joking aside (you can see Jon Stewart's slightly reluctant mirth-making on this topic in the video below), I guess this isn't as weird as it sounds. It's not weirder than a doctor's office selling gift cards. Well, that would be weird too. The underlying message of providing health care is a good one. But who do you buy one of these cards for? The Duggar family? Jon and Kate? Kevin Federline? (I know, it's about health care, not just birth control. The jokes are almost too easy. If Jon Stewart can apologize, so can I!) I guess in theory you could pick one up for someone you know who doesn't have health care. But isn't that incredibly awkward? "Hi, I know you're uninsured, so I thought you could use one of these. Happy holidays!" I would love to know how many cards Planned Parenthood Indiana (who have the unfortunate acronym PPIN – say it out loud and then make a Beavis and Butthead chuckling noise) actually sells. So far, they say they've sold about twelve. This isn't Vegas, but I'm putting the over-under at 25. Anyone want to take that action?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Planned Parenthood Gift Cards

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Source: The Daily Show, Chicago Tribune

Image: PPIN

Things You Should Never Say To A Nursing Mother

Babble's Ultimate Holiday Gift Guide

Girly Gift Guide

Make Your Own Religious Doll

The Birth of the Duggar’s 18th Child Will be Televised

White House Sends Chanukah Card With Christmas Tree On It

Kevin Federline Answers To One Name: Daddy

Rite Aid Says They Will Stop Selling Expired Baby Products

Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

JeanneSager — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:56:00 GMT

You're about to give birth to your second child. Your contractions are three minutes apart and holding steady. Oh yeah, and your car is stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic. What are you going to do now?

According to a blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy, you call an ambulance and meet them at the next exit because, well, he doesn't consider this a "true emergency." Excuse me, David Bernstein, do you want to deliver a baby in the middle of the Mass Turnpike? Methinks you'd be yelling "help, emergency," about then.

I hate to take anything into the "man" vs. "woman" range, but this is one of those examples of a guy climbing on his high horse to tell us how a pregnant woman's body is going to work. Hate to tell you buddy, even WE don't know how the whole birth process is going to go. Bernstein's prime evidence for why he thinks Jennifer and John Davis were reckless and refused to just call an ambulance? The baby didn't come for another five hours.

Think of that. A baby that came in its own darn good time. No wonder they call the site the Volokh CONSPIRACY.

Alright, maybe I'm taking this a little hard. I actually have never had the frantic drive to the hospital. My labor had to be induced to encourage my daughter to come out of her comfy little cave. I agonized about the possibilities because of the area where I live and the timing of my due date: we're nearly a half hour from the hospital, and I was set to deliver right around the Memorial Day holiday in a highly trafficked tourist area.

I also dealt with a highly put out male co-worker who wanted to plan a vacation, and couldn't believe that our editor couldn't pin down a date when I'd begin my maternity leave. I was still working the day before I went into the hospital to have a nurse begin my pitocin drip. Trust me, I tried my darndest to get her moving earlier. She had the same stubborn streak then that makes for such pleasant morning interactions now.

Or maybe it's simply being a parent that made me feel for the Davises. In the Boston Herald article Bernstein took to task for its pro-parent tone, Jennifer Davis says her husband maneuvered into the breakdown lane to continue the rush to the hospital. Two state troopers gave them the go-ahead to keep going. A third, however, detained the couple and went back to his cruiser to look up John Davis' driving record (six traffic infractions in twenty years, by the way), and made them wait until he was done writing out another motorist's ticket. He then quizzed the contracting Jennifer, making her unzip her jacket to prove she really had a pregnant belly under there. He finally issued a citation before letting the couple go - the $100 bill arrived in the mail the other day.

The Davises, by the way, had actually pulled over to ask the trooper if they could continue in the lane to the exit where they'd get off and choose another route to the hospital. This was hardly the case of a trooper pulling over a speeding driver in the breakdown lane and diligently investigating suspicious activity. This was a police officer forgetting his mission is to protect AND serve.

Yes, I'm taking the side of the parents in this one too. Now what do you want to bet David Bernstein will find a conspiracy here?

Image: Boston Herald

They Say: Prenatal Folic Acid Not So Good After All

Christian Parents Opt for Religious Circumcision . . . Even if It's Jewish

Say Hi To Grandma Through the Screen

No, the Vagina Doesn't 'Heal Up and Close' from Disuse

Nebraska Butt Bandit Caught

Brett Singer — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:00:00 GMT

OK everyone. News flash. Pay attention. Are you ready? Here we go:

Men are weird.

Not all men, of course. But I just don't see a woman doing something like this:

Ten misdemeanor counts have been filed against a man Cherry County authorities believe is the vandal some townspeople have dubbed the "Butt Bandit."
...
Larvie is suspected of leaving greasy, graphic imprints of his naked behind, and sometimes his groin, on the windows of stores, churches and schools in Valentine since the spring of 2007.
The marks were made with lotion or petroleum jelly.

Before you say, "oh, that must have been a high school kid, or some frat boy moron doing a pledge prank" allow me to inform you that the accused, Tom Larvie, is 35 years old.

He's 35 and put "greasy, graphic imprints of his naked behind" on windows. And "sometimes his groin." You know, if the mood struck him. And he's been doing this since 2007. Allegedly, of course.

"Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be weirdos..." C'mon! Sing it with me now!

Source: Newsday/AP
Image: hecklerspray

Smokers No Longer Allowed Foster Children

Guy Changes Name to Captain Fantastic

Mississippi Students, Postal Worker, Punished For Wearing Obama Shirts

Eliot Spitzer Cleared of Prostitution Charges

Daughter's Homework Assignment Leads to Presidential Pardon for Dad

Teacher Has Affair With Student, Parents Say Keep The Door Open

Chicago Woman Lived With Dead Siblings For 20 Years

Woman Swings Crowbar At Trick Or Treaters

GPS Lingerie Upsets Some, Entices Others

Brett Singer — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Parents everywhere worry about how to keep track of their daughters.

Brazilian lingerie maker Lucia Lorio has the answer to your prayers – GPS lingerie!

OK, any parent who would buy something like this for their daughter (or son for that matter) should receive a visit from Child Services. But The Daily Mail says that "feminists around the world have reacted with horror" to the location-aware undies. They think it feels too much like a, "modern-day, high-tech chastity belt."

You may not be surprised to learn that the manufacturer feels differently. "This collection... is a wink to women and a challenge to men because, even if she gives him the password to her GPS, she can always turn it off," says the designer. He thinks these dopey undergarments are for the "modern, techno-savvy woman."

Ladies, would you ever wear something like this? And guys, would you buy this for your woman?

Source/Image: Daily Mail

Read more:

Why Are The Grown Up Costumes For Women So Slutty?

Republican Candidate Uses Porn-esque Robocall

Cheetah Girls Banned From Macys Thanksgiving Parade

Babble's Ultimate Holiday Gift Guide

Will Black Friday Deals Be Good This Year?

Guy Changes Name to Captain Fantastic

Things You Should Never Say To A Nursing Mother

Brett Singer — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:30:00 GMT

For most of these, we'll assume that you are speaking to your significant other, unless otherwise indicated.

- “Can I get a squirt of that?” The answer is no. If you're desperately curious about the taste of breast milk, try some that the mother of your children has expressed into a bottle.
- Two words that should never go together: “Tittie milk.” Not funny. Trust me.
- “How far can you squirt that stuff? Can you hit this cup on the shelf? How about if I move it closer? Honey? What are you doing with that hammer? OW!”
- “You and the baby are being really loud. Can you do that someplace else? I'm watching TV.”

And here are a few things not to say to a woman you don't know if you see nursing in a public place:

- “Ew! Gross!”
- “Niiice.”
- "Hey baby. Get it? Hey... baby...?" (It's not funny. I know you think its funny. But it's not.)
- A blank stare.
- A lascivious stare.
- Any sort of stare at all.

Anything to add? Remember – it takes a village.

image: Flickr

Unusual toddler gifts

Mom blackmails daughters ex with nude photos

Woman leaves toddler in car while she goes to a bar

Santa Claus says: Smoke More

Is a happy ending massage cheating?

Woman changes her name to Cutout Dissection.com

Have you ever told your kids to shut up?

Post-Election, Women Hate Sexism Almost as Much as Feminism

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:34:00 GMT

A recent survey on post-election attitudes to sexism reveals that a majority of Americans live in La La Land. For starters: While most men don’t believe there is gender bias in the media or at home, almost half (4 in 10) “freely admit to having sexist attitudes towards a female president.”

Espousing similarly mind-boggling contradictions, the vast majority of women believe that Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were treated unfairly by the media—but would be mortified to call themselves “feminists.” Only 20 percent of women identify as feminist, and even fewer (17 percent) would be supportive of their daughters’ using the label.

Merriam Webster defines feminism as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” In other words, most women are embarrassed to label themselves as people who believe in gender equality, but are outraged over the media’s coverage of Palin’s hair. Only 48 percent of women believe that the media treated Clinton fairly, and far fewer female respondents (29 percent) believe that Palin got fair treatment. (Perhaps Palin seemed to get harsher gender-based media coverage because Clinton wasn’t, say, buying $150,000 worth of clothes on the GOP’s dime?)

Sure, some high-profile activists may have given the term “feminist” a more extremist connotation than many women would like it to have, but that doesn’t necessitate rejecting the whole theory. I don’t agree with many of PETA’s over-the-top tactics, but that doesn’t mean I stop calling myself a vegetarian.

Ready for more oblivious sexism? 39 percent of men feel that the role of president is more “naturally suited” to a man than to a woman. I guess that explains why so many more men than women (two-thirds to less than half) believe there is gender equality in the home—the wife just does all the housework because she is more “naturally suited” to it.

On the upside, the poll was relatively small, with 1,000 respondents.

Photo: Jezebel

Dudes for Palin: Vote for the Hot Chick!

Magazines Make Men Feel Insecure, Too

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:30:00 GMT

It's official: airbrushed images of stick thin women with large breasts make everyone feel bad, even dudes. A recent study has found that men feel more insecure about their bodies after reading men's magazines like Maxim and Stuff, just as women's self-esteem suffers from reading such journalistic treasures as Cosmo and Allure.

The problem is not, as you may have guessed, that men long to have the perfect six-packs and toned legs of male celebrities. (Let's be honest: the only magazines that have sexy pictures of men's bodies are not being read by either women or straight men.) Rather, the standard of impossible beauty portrayed in most mainstream magazines makes men feel insecure because they're worried they won't be able to get laid. How can I ever get a girl like that?, they wonder.

Answer: you can't. Just as we women will never get a body like that. So, as Salon's Kate Harding suggests, what we need to do is fill magazines with images of absurdly attractive men, since hot men don't make anyone feel bad about themselves. "Seriously,y'all," she writes. "Think of the children."

Photo: Many Bells Down

10 Things You May Not Know About Pregnancy (and might shock you)

Cole Gamble — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:00:00 GMT

I’m gonna take a leap and assume many of your readers out there have been pregnant, or at least has a pregnant partner. In your pregnancy, was there anything that surprised you, that you didn’t see coming. We have a list here of the top ten things that may surprise you about your pregnancy. If you’re one who hasn’t been with kiddo yet, you’ll especially want to read.

Your hair is going to grow faster (around your nipples)

Many women experience changes in hair texture and growth during pregnancy. The hormones secreted by your body will cause your hair to grow faster and fall out less. But these hair changes usually aren't permanent; most women lose a significant amount of hair in the postpartum period or after they stop breastfeeding.

Some women find that they grow hair in unwanted places, such as on the face or belly or around the nipples. Others experience changes in hair texture that make hair drier or oilier. Some women even find their hair changing color.

All Your Private Bits Are Gonna Turn Black

Some women develop brownish or yellowish patches called chloasma, or the "mask of pregnancy," on their faces. And some will notice a dark line on the midline of the lower abdomen, known as the linea nigra (or linea negra), as well as hyperpigmentation (darkening of the skin) of the nipples, external genitalia, and anal region. These are the result of pregnancy hormones, which cause the body to produce more pigment. The body may not produce this increased pigment evenly, however, so the darkened skin may appear as splotches of color. Unfortunately, chloasma can't be prevented, but wearing sunscreen and avoiding UV light can minimize its effects.

For more of the list, check here.

More by this author:

10 WORST. BABY. PRODUCTS. EVER! (Part 1)

The 26 Most Disturbing Kids Movies Ever

blah

Men with Baby Heads

Have a Uterus? McCain Wants You to Pay More for Health Insurance

JeanneSager — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:00 GMT

Turns out the biggest difference between men and women in America might not be their "down there parts," but what health insurance companies think those there parts will cost them. A study in yesterday's New York Times states women ages 19 to 55 who are paying for individual health insurance plans are being charged significantly more than male counterparts for the same plans.

The reason? Women are using more insurance, the companies say. But thanks go to the sharp-witted writers at Jezebel, who were quick to point out that research has shown seeking care earlier (they often call it preventative care?) saves people down the line. Saves their lives, and saves them money. Because preventive care, well, it prevents major illness.

Jezebel's report also pointed out something American voters need to keep in mind come Tuesday. Senator John McCain's chief healthcare plans call for "tax credits" that we as Americans would then use to pay for our own health insurance plans - the ones that cost women more. He's against the (currently relatively widespread) practice of employer-based health insurance plans, or group plans, whereby insurance plans are bought in bulk by an employer to wrangle a lower cost for each individual plan. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (you see the little EEO or EOE acronyms in a lot of newspaper classifieds) watches over employer-based health plans and prohibits gender-based discrimination. In other words - our civil rights in the workplace guarantee we can't be charged more for our employer-based health plan than the guy at the next desk. Walk out of the workplace, however, and the game changes.

The Times report even quotes a Humana representative who claims, "Bearing children increases other health risks later in life, such as urinary incontinence, which may require treatment with medication or surgery.” Say what?

A woman who popped out a baby, but has a yearly check-up at the general practitioner plus her annual "foot-in-the-stirrups, let's get this over with doc, I hope you have warm hands this time" visit is apparently going to wet herself down the road. And that's going to cost them. But the guy who hasn't been to a doctor in a decade and sits on his ass eating Cheetos and screaming, red-faced at SportsCenter all day, every day is going to cost them less down the line?

I can invest in Depends, but he's a walking heart attack.

And, apparently, Senator McCain thinks he shouldn't have to pay as much for cardiac catheterization, an eventual quadruple bypass, a lifetime of blood pressure monitoring and heart medications, a twice-yearly stress test . . . should I go on? . . . as long as he doesn't have a uterus.

Image: CrunchGear

Anti-Palin Ad Targets Parents With Teenage Rape Victim's Plea

Hey Sarah Palin, Make Your Kids Go to School

Salvation Army Says: We'll Take Palin's Clothes!

They say: no one with a uterus should vote for McCain

Palin's Kids Traveling on the State's Dime, She's Trying to Claim "State Business"

GOP Shows Obama With Fried Chicken and Watermelon

They say: McCain not thrilled with Palin and she wants to run in 2012

They (Should) Say: 6 is the New 60

More People Cheating than Ever Before

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:30:00 GMT

Eternal monogamy: the beloved ideal that about a quarter of Americans find impossible to uphold. Marital infidelity is on the rise, according to the New York Times. Since 1972, the General Social Survey has consistently found that about 10 percent of married people cheat, with men cheating almost twice as often as women (12 percent to 7 percent).

But analyzing infidelity trends over the last two decades has shown some marked changes. In 2006, 28 percent of men over 60 reported cheating at some point in their lives, compared to 20 percent in 1991 (Viagra went on the market ten years ago). And among older women, incidences of cheating have increased triplefold—from 5 percent to 15 percent.

We can’t chock this increased infidelity up to boredom after a silver anniversary because the trend holds true for couples under 35 as well. 20 percent of young men and 15 percent of young women now report treating, compared to 15 percent and 12 percent two decades ago.

Theories about the reasons for increased cheating largely center on the advent of the Internet and cell phones, which have made it easier to coordinate extra-marital encounters. But the marked increase in women’s infidelity is harder to explain: are women cheating more now because they are more likely to go on business trips or stay late at the office? Or are they simply more likely to report their infidelities now that there is less (though still much) social pressure for women to be chaste while men are applauded for their sexual exploits?

Whatever the reason, I must admit that I’m looking on the bright side of this increase in female infidelity. I’m certainly no champion of extra-marital affairs, but it happened at these relatively high rates even in hunting and gathering societies. So, if cheating must happen, why should men be the only ones in whom it is expected and even, to do some degree, accepted?

Image: New York Times

The Plus Side to McCain's Scorn for Women's "Health"

Kelly Mills — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:26:00 GMT

Flowers grow out of, uh, manure, don't they? Over at Jezebel, they point out that since McCain used his finger quotes about women's health (you know, our concern for our "lives" and "future reproductive health" which are apparently, quite silly) there have been a slew of women sharing stories about subjects you don't hear much about. Things like late-term abortions and miscarriages. You know, a couple aspects of our health stuff. The stories are often wrenching to read.

Brett already told you about A Little Pregnant's feelings on the subject. If you missed this very personal story of late-term abortion from the Boston Globe, I highly recommend you read it, with kleenex handy. And Dooce also pointed to Flotsam's story on pregnancy loss at 22 weeks. Oh yes, lots of "health" concerns. We women are just full of those.

I suppose if nothing else, it is a strange blessing women are sharing all their most profound and gut-wrenching experiences. If politicians feel comfortable dismissing very real matters of life and death and health, while at the same time legislating them in ways that do not protect our most basic rights, then it's only right they should have to look in the faces of the women who have suffered immeasurably and maybe someday answer to them. Though I won't hold my breath.

They Say: No One with a Uterus Should Vote McCain

Bipartisan Group Says McCain Would Be Bad For Kids' Health

In Hard Economic Times, Bonnie Fuller Knows What Women Want

Kelly Mills — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:36:00 GMT

Lots of people have been saying that in this election, women finally matter. At last our concerns and issues are being heard and addressed as though we, you know, made up half the population or something. And clearly one of the issues that matters to women is the economy, what with how it affects all our lives and all. So it makes sense that Bonnie Fuller, in her NY Times blog post, would want to examine what matters to women in these troubled and uncertain financial times. Is it health care costs? Job security? The high price of food and gas? Planning for our retirements (ha!) or trying to save in case the kids want to go to college?

Uh, no. According to Fuller, what matters to us is... our looks.

Yes, while we may feel the wolf at the door, we apparently still shell out money for our pricey hair stylists and our Botox. Oh, but let's clarify: By "women" she means women who live in New York. And she knows what they all want, because she "canvassed" some stylists, plastic surgeons, cosmetic companies, and "even" body waxers. (What's up with that, Bonnie? Don't minimize the importance of the waxers.) Do my frequent quotation marks indicate that I think her ideas are about as helpful as an untreatable rash? Here's her closer: "Time will tell, I guess, but the anecdotal evidence suggests that New York women may end up living in a box on the West Side Highway, but we’ll still have fabulous highlights and perfectly shaped eyebrows!"

Cough.

So we could debate the ideas that spring to mind here, whether women are vain or held to a higher aesthetic standard that relates to their employment prospects, but this piece proves the trend of women clinging to Botox as much as it proves fairies exist, so it ain't worth it. Maybe I'll canvas some women and ask if during a time when people are worried about being able to provide for their children, if Fuller actually makes women look bad or if she's just more like a really annoying gnat, and we'd be better off ignoring her and hoping she finds an open window somewhere.

A third of parents no longer saving for college

Explaining financial troubles to the kids

Dudes for Palin: Vote for the Hot Chick!

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:30:00 GMT

It may not surprise you to learn that, according to the New York Times, “dudes” constitute Sarah Palin’s most vocal supporters. But it may disturb you to learn what these men have to say about her.

Although Palin was ostensibly chosen for her anticipated appeal to women, the former beauty contestant has (gasp!) won over far more men than women, with her initial approval ratings at 44 percent among men and 36 percent among women. (Those numbers have since dropped considerably, down to 31 percent among men.)

Even as many conservatives fault Palin for being, to put it nicely, not “serious” enough, Joe Sixpacks can’t get enough of her. One of Palin's female supporters acknowledged that Palin rallies are about “70-30, maybe 65-35, men to women.” Among the shout-outs that Palin routinely receives at her rallies are cries of, “You tell ‘em babe!” and “You rock me out, Sarah!” Some men sport “Proud to vote for a hot chick” buttons, while others carry “Dudes for Palin” signs.

Palin apparently loves the testosterone-charged rock concert atmosphere of her rallies. After entering a rally to the heading-banging tunes of AC/DC, she told the crowd, “That was kinda cool.” She has also introduced her husband as “Alaska’s First Dude.”

At least one Palin supporter interviewed by the Times admitted that he came to a Palin rally “just to look at her.” He wisely chose to remain anonymous. Let’s hope he realizes that, just as it’s embarrassing to admit to supporting a political candidate simply because of her appearance, actually voting an inexperienced, scandal-plagued woman into the White House simply because she’s “beautiful” at a time in which our country is engaged in two wars, is widely hated throughout the world, and is in the early stages of widespread economic collapse, would be an unforgivably inane decision.

Dudes, if you want to stare at hot chicks, watch Desperate Housewives.

Photo: New York Times

Economic Reasons to Become a Man

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:30:00 GMT

Unless you’re willfully ignorant, you’re probably aware that there remains a significant gender wage gap in America—namely, that women make 79 cents for every dollar earned by men. Some people blame this disparity on discrimination, while others argue that it relates to different career goals.

Well, an avant-garde study has determined that discrimination is at least partly at work (gasp!). What better population to test out gender differences on than transgender people? In a study of transgender people in the workforce, researchers found that, across the board, men who became women earned an average of 32 percent less after the transition, while females who became males earned an average of 1.5 percent more after they transitioned.

Some of these people remained in their old jobs after their transitions, while some started new jobs. Some were out to their employers; others were not. The constant was that they had all already attended school and picked a profession—and, across the board, men earned more in this chosen profession.

So, it's official: women don't only earn less than men because they want to be mommies.

Image: Getty

Palin: Women Who Don't Support Other Women Go to Hell

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:49:00 GMT

It's not a good sign when a potential president fouls up a famous quote, particularly when she's reading it off of a piece of paper and when she picked it up from a Starbucks cup earlier that morning. At a California rally yesterday, Sarah Palin told an enthusiastic crowd, "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women."

She was misquoting Madeline Albright, who once said, "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't help other women." In this case, "help" and "support" may be polar opposites.

Palin goes on to wonder how "a comment like I just made, how it will be turned into whatever it will be turned into tomorrow in the newspaper." Well, I'm going to let you, the people, turn that comment into whatever you turn that comment into after you watch this video.

Photo: mlive.com

National Organization for Women President Endorses Palin

Hillary Clinton on Repro Rights

Brett Singer — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Hillary Clinton (actually, its Hillary Rodham Clinton again; not sure if she used the middle name while she was still a Presidential candidate) and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood had an Op-Ed piece in the Times a couple of days ago that I thought would be of interest.

The Op-Ed discusses, "a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would…require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception."

A clear definition of abortion is left out, which means it is open to the interpretation of the health care provider. "The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?"

"The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25," which is just a couple of days away. If you feel strongly about this issue, call your Senator or Congressperson.

Source: NYTimes