tamponblog

Again from my doctor friend (who I am not linking in case he doesn't wish to be known, though I thank him for the ideas!): a site showing men can breastfeed, or at least can lactate a little bit (or in some cases, fully nurse.) It makes sense, since some of the machinery is there, although I do question the ability to "will" oneself to lactate. I have heard of males lactating before, but more because of a disorder. I have also read about the supplemental nursing systems because some adoptive mothers want to experience the closeness of breastfeeding with their new child (or, as the link points out, the system can be used for premature and failure-to-thrive infants.)

So it all makes sense that male breastfeeding might be possible, and in the case of gay adoptive parents, single fathers, and other such family configurations, perhaps very useful!

The same link references a book (Fresh Milk: The Secret Life of Breasts) which discusses male nursing and other not-oft-discussed topics regarding breastmilk such as recipes using breastmilk and donations to milk-banks.

UPDATE: Since Nick says (in the comments) that it is okay to "out" him: His blog is Blogborygmi. Expect medical tidbits, but also lots of Hasselhoff worship. (Hasselhoff breastfeeding, now that would be interesting.)

The guy who I posted about (Flowers, Butterflies, Sunshine, and our Mascot "Mensie"!) earlier (and who is now a doctor, so knows plenty about menstruation) wrote to me with some interesting links. Apparently, some teens enjoy flaunting their birth control:

From TeenGrowth.com discussing the patch: The patch is visible, which makes it less confidential than some other methods (but then some women like the obvious "proof" that they are using birth control).

I think it is more "proof" that they are "cool enough" to have sex. (Or at the least, that they have reached menarche.) Nonetheless, my doctor friend says that he had heard some residents talking about how teens are enjoying placing their patch on provocative, visible places.

Do I remember people thinking nicotine patches were cool at one point? Like "I am so cool that I started smoking, but now I am trying to quit" (whether or not the person was actually a smoker in the first place.)

Makes me wonder how many teens wear the patch just so that they will look cool, but who aren't actually sexually active. In a way, this trend could actually create more female pressure to have sex than male pressure.

In an effort to raise money for The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, there will be a Boobiethon! Follow the links to find out how to donate money and/or submit your rack shots.

All submissions (rack shots) will be posted online in October. All boobie pictures are anonymous. "...Both gals and guys are welcome to send in their pictures, but only appropriately covered boobies will appear on the main page." (from this site)

Uncovered boobies will be available for viewing for premium donators; minimum donation amount has not yet been decided.

Finally! A really good reason to take pictures of my boobies!

While shopping for button-down shirts* (which never fit - never), I had an epiphany. I realized the perfect solution: a way to make shirts that fit:
Sell them by bra size!
They don't have to be by every bra size, but maybe list the a cup designation next to the size, like, "6B" or "10D".
I think this would really work - I think textile technology has advanced to the point where better mass-produced tailoring can be accomplished. And store keep such a tight watch on inventory that this would work for perennials like buttondowns, especially.

*No, I didn't find any that fit.

The latest post from Dooce just seems terribly tamponblog-friendly. Thought I'd link.
Enjoy!

There are so many "rules" that come in the territory of "being a good guest" and "being a good hostess," wherein both parties are supposed to not offend, etc. It can become pretty difficult to make sure that both sides are behaving "properly."

I came across an interesting dilemma a few days ago when my in-laws arrived for their two-week visit. Of course I want to be a good hostess, and to make their stay at our home as comfortable as possible. Unfortunately, I hit a snag:

My son is sensitive to particular chemicals. Most of these are ingested orally, such as artificial flavors and colors found in many processed foods. However, he is also sensitive to other products which contain artificial ingredients, such as perfume or lotion. Well, I don't wear perfume, so it honestly didn't occur to me that my mother-in-law might. When she arrived with heavy perfume, I faced a problem. I did not want to be a bad hostess by suggesting that she no longer wear perfume; however, I didn't want my son to have a reaction. I mentioned this rather meekly to my husband, figuring that he could be diplomatic with his own mother. Nonetheless, I felt uncomfortable because I wonder where the "line" is: many women are very particular about their "products," so it seems presumptuous to say that they can no longer use a product when visiting our home. After all, many women have a set regimen that includes various scented creams, perfumes, bath products and the like. It is an assault on the personal to suggest they can no longer follow that routine. (In the case of an occasional visit, a perfumed guest would probably not be an issue, but two weeks of exposure might be problematic.)

But it got me thinking about the roles of host(ess) and guest. If we were vegans, would we demand our guests also follow a vegan diet while here? (We are not denying our guests the same foods that my son is allergic to.) If smokers were to visit, I would insist they smoke outside, and far away at that. (But is that bad of me to request?) If I hated the color green, would I insist our guests not wear it (um, no!) If there were a life-threatening allergy like peanuts, I am sure the guests would understand the need to not eat peanut products in the house. But my son's allergy is not life-threatening, so we don't have the same urgent authority to ban a substance. And because it involves "personal products," it poses an uncomfortable situation.

I know I would be caught off guard if I arrived at someone's home to be told that I couldn't follow my usual beauty regimen. I just wonder how my mother-in-law felt when her son talked to her about it (I was out of the room.)

Yay! It happened! I received confirmation from Miss Manners regarding something about which I had been curious:

I am "Ms. Cherry Jello," but my husband is "Mr. Apple Pie." As you can imagine, I am frequently addressed as "Mrs. Apple Pie." In the case where this is an innocent error, I politely correct them as breezily as possible so as not to act offended. After all, it is still more common to take one's husband's last name than not.

However, there is a section of people on the "Apple Pie" side of the family who insist on calling us "The Apple Pie Family" or "Mr and Mrs Apple Pie" even though they know that I am "Ms. Cherry Jello." In the case of "The Apple Pie Family," I am slightly less "offended" because 3 of the 4 members of our family are indeed "Apple Pie"s. (Though I do address all our correspondence as "The Apple Pie - Cherry Jello Family") But in the case of "Mr. and Mrs. Apple Pie" I was wondering in the "formal written form" when being addressed next to my husband, whether I was supposed to be referred to as "Mrs. Apple Pie" even though I kept my maiden name.

Well, Mrs. Manners answered the question today in her column! The question itself was slightly different than the one I would have posed, but in her answer she writes, "Miss Manners does indeed realize that etiquette must be updated to meet legitimate changes. She would not dream of addressing a lady as Mrs. with her husband's name if the lady had kept her original surname or preferred the title of Ms."

So. At least I have confirmation that etiquette does not dictate that I still be "Mrs. Apple Pie" when my husband and I are being described as a unit. Of course, I cannot clip the column and send it to the various "Apple Pie" family members because that would be against etiquette!

Salon.com has an article about Dittie tampons that explains the advertising notion behind them: a kind of female empowerment that goes against the traditional tampon advertising method of touting the concealability of the tampon. For those of you just tuning in, Ditties are a new brand of tampons that have little "inspirational" messages inside the wrappers.

The posh packaging is primarily aimed at 15-25 year old women, which seems an obvious target; creating brand loyalty in the first decade of menstruation. The way to appeal to these young women is, apparently, through pastels and drawings of fun-loving, fashionable women who are impossibly thin and long-limbed.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Or is there?

Consider this excerpt from the Salon article:

But Oona Newman, a 27-year-old waitress, also from San Francisco, says she won't be buying Ditties anytime soon. "They're offensive!" she says. "These pictures on the box, these perfect women ... It's just another thing making young girls think they have to be skinny and have clear skin -- even if they just want to use a tampon."

Images of toothpick women don't really seem in keeping with the body-positive messages inside the wrappers. Then again, what seventeen-year-old would choose to buy a tampon with a picture of a 'fat girl' on the box? The cold, hard marketing truth is that chic chicks sell. The people at Dittie want to make young women feel body-positive about their menstruation, and they want to achieve this by creating a successful new tampon brand. If they have to use unrealistic body images to sell their product and get their message out, is that okay?

I think it is. Making women feel better about menstruation is a worthy goal on its own, and it is unfair to criticize them for using marketing techniques that improve their chances at success. Their product does more for women's self-esteem than any of the other leading tampon brands, and let's just start with that.

After talking about women in politics and the role of wives, it seems a natural progression to discuss the role of the wife of the president!

Ms. Magazine examined the role of First Lady in their spring issue. Scroll to the bottom of the article for links to their interviews with Teresa Heinz Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards. Interestingly, Laura Bush chose not to respond. Hmmm.



Ms. also recently did a piece that talks about women, communication, and public restrooms!

In this month's Cosmo, there is an article entitled "An Inside Look at the New Wifestyle" which looks at highly educated women who stop working after marriage.

On the first page of the article is a quote by Susan Shapiro Barash, who authored The New Wife: "These women have a very good education but want a pleasurable, struggle-free life."

Being a housewife is "struggle free"?

Finally, on the third page of the article, the author explains that many of these women hire help for the various traditional household tasks: gardening, cooking, cleaning, and kids. Okay. So that would be more towards "struggle free!" (Although I would believe that each set of problems solved would breed yet another set of problems, so in the end, the lifestyle wouldn't really be struggle free. Consider a housecleaner who steals jewelry, for example. Or simply the lack of privacy in having someone clean your home.)

But regardless of whether a woman hires out help or does the work herself, it is interesting to think about the issues of respect involved. On one hand, these women might be considered pretty smart to have successfully ended up pampered with lots of free time. (Her husband feels Very Big that he is a lucrative enough breadwinner to support her and she feels comfortable being a Queen.) But on the other hand, they can be considered lazy. And for the woman who does balance traditional household and child-rearing responsibilities, the notion that being a housewife is "stuggle free" and that such a woman is "lazy" is troubling. (As I've mentioned before, being a "traditional" housewife is a full-time job!)

One man in the article commented, "I have a really high-pressure job, and the most important thing to me is that my wife can be supportive and not be a stressed-out partner. Besides, she'd probably learn to become a great cook, which would be nice." So this man does seem to believe that his wife would cook for him, not hire help to do so. Does that mean that cooking won't stress her out? And what if she did have a high-pressure job like him: is it just her role to support him and not the other way around? Ugh! But I digress.

Here is the question: If you could financially swing it, would you like to live "the new wifestyle" complete with servants for any task you could imagine? Or would you feel happier being a career woman? Or something in between?

The broader question: How do most women define themselves? Is it love/marriage (Consider Blaire)? High-powered career (Tampons in the WW)? Children?

Can you have it all?

Robert Reich (my favorite politician) caused a big stir when he resigned from Clinton's cabinet to spend more time with his family. Here was the Secretary of Labor, of all people, seeming to say that you couldn't have it all, and that upset some people:

Many women on the fast track, they wrote, were already battling a culture that criticized them for sacrificing too much -- and here I was, seemingly agreeing that a balanced life was incompatible with a high-powered job. Others said while it might be easy for me to find another well-paying job that gave me more time for my family, they didn’t have that option. I was sending the wrong message to people like them too.

He wrote about his decision to resign in this essay.

He also wrote an amazing essay for Ms. magazine, "The Day I Became a Feminist," which takes on some issues about gender and communication that surely influence whether or not women can be seen as effective leaders. Especially if they choose to capitalize on their strengths as women and don't always try to play the game as men do.

The funny thing is, I've known for years that there are feminine and masculine ways of communicating. (All due recognition that generalities are not absolute, etc.) I've been aware on some level that the only way for me to get my voice heard in some meetings is for me to interrupt and talk over men, using a level of aggression that makes me really uncomfortable, but works. I've watched older men in the workplace not hear me say something repeatedly, or dismiss it because of the way I said it. I've gotten in a little bit of trouble for taking issue with the way that something was communicated, for being too sensitive and "hung up on style."

But I never let myself believe that these were real until I read Robert Reich's essay. Is it because he's an astute person, and was able to articulate something that most people wouldn't be able to see because it's so insidious and firmly established in the culture? Or did I always see it just as clearly as he did, but never felt that my views were valid until a man said them? Is that because having an impartial third party confirm your observations is always validating? Or have I bought into the cultural assumptions that men's views, needs, and interests are universal and neutral, and women's are special interests?

Would having a man point out these biases in our culture influence other men in a way that no amount of communication from women ever could? If so, how do you get every man in America to read this essay?

Senator Blanche L. Lincoln made history on November 3, 1998, when she became the youngest woman ever elected to the United States Senate. (factoid from her 2004 campaign page, link to her Senate page added later by me.) She was born in 1960. So she would be right on that bump when menopause could occur at any time in 2009. Alas, her visibility is not such that she would be likely to be a Presidential candidate that early. But she has had quite a history in politics:

Before becoming a Senator, she had been in the House for two terms. She then annouced she would not seek re-election upon learning she was carrying twins. As you may expect, this created interesting comments from individuals in favor of and against mothers in politics.

Mary Landrieu, also a Senator* and also a mother, wrote a defense Blanche Lincoln (and other young political mothers): Mothers Make Good Senators, Too . It is definitely worth a read.

The fantastic thing about Blanche Lincoln is that she didn't fade away from politics after delivering her twins. She is a Senator today, and currently seeking re-election. Senator Landrieu also has children who are not yet out of the nest.

*(Landrieu ran for a seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives in 1979, becoming the youngest woman ever elected to the state Legislature. She became a Senator in 1996.)

While I was composing this post, my husband said, "There are tampons in the West Wing! Condoleezza Rice works in the WW!" To which I said, "Well, NSF meant the Oval Office bathroom, specifically. " He then responded, "I am sure Jenna & Barbara Bush use it." Then he brought up Monica Lewinsky. I don't even wanna think about it! ;-)