tamponblog

In 2000, 22 million women were eligible to vote but didn't. (Well, 21.4 million, but everyone else is rounding that one up.) 16 million didn't register, and 6 million registered but didn't show up on election day.

Planned Parenthood sent me an email today claiming that more unmarried women voted for the last American Idol than the last President. They're promoting a new internet movie to encourage unmarried women to vote, American Idle.

The movie is kinda cute (though nothing compared to The Meatrix, by the same artists), and I'm all for the cause, but I have to quibble with Planned Parenthood's statistics. True, 65 million votes were cast for the final episode of the most recent American Idol. However, that doesn't represent 65 million individuals voting, because only between 28 and 31 million people tuned in, depending on whose ratings you believe. In the last presidential election, 23.4 million unmarried women voted. If Planned Parenthood is right, at least 75-83% of the American Idol viewership or voting poll is unmarried women over 18, and that strikes me as unlikely. I wasn't able to quickly locate any demographic breakdown of Idol viewers, but I suspect that it's pretty popular with teens.

Statistical quibbling aside, the cause is a good one. Had unmarried women (who voted at about a 52% rate, and favored Gore at a rate of 66%) voted at the 68% rate that married women did, there would have been an extra 6 or 7 million votes, 4 to 4.75 million for Gore, 2 million for Bush, and about a quarter million for Nader, in a race that was separated by a little over half a million votes. In Florida, 52% of unmarried women voted, compared to 60% of the total eligible population. Had an additional 8% of the unmarried women voted, there would have been an extra 202,640 votes, probably 133,742 would have been for Gore. The margin by which Bush was awarded the electoral college was only 537 votes.

So it is hard to find shirts that fit. Women definitely vary in the ratio of chest size to waist size to shoulder size.

But they vary in pant length to waist size to hip size, too. I have always wondered why women's pants can't be like men's: sold by waist and height. It seems so simple. But then we add the butt/hip variable, and it becomes more complex. But, a little stretch fabric can go a long way.

Still, it is frustrating to try on jeans that are supposed to be universally flattering and find them several inches too long. "Hem them?" you suggest. Well, with a boot cut or a flare, that isn't going to happen. "Straight Cut, then?" No, because that assumes you don't have hips or a butt.

So my answer? Remove the length variable to some degree: Get the skirt instead!

The better answer? Design women's clothes to fit real women.

Last Thursday's episode of ER had a man breastfeeding his infant using the supplemental nursing system mentioned earlier.

If men can lactate,
And women can pee standing up using a funnel,
then the only (physical function) thing that stands between them is menstruation. (well, and pregnancy.)

Medical-knowledgeable-people: Have there been cases of genetic males having a period? (I am assuming some folk who have equipment for both might end up menstuating in some fashion, or perhaps there is a condition where "uterine lining" builds up but has nowhere to exit?)

Courtesy of Brain, Child Magazine:

I suppose I should have been grateful for any safe plaything that diverted my eighteen-month-old while I was bathing her older brother. And I suppose I should have known she wouldn't be able to resist the crinkly wrapper and the satisfyingly chompable plastic tube with its cotton filling - just the right amount of give for her teething gums. Still, I think I started us both when I turned around to discover a month's worth of wasted feminine protection on the floor and yelled, "Lydia, Stop chewing on my tampons!"

Actually, I wouldn't call it a "safe plaything," since I'd be afraid of the chokeability of the whole deal, but I had to chuckle at the visual. I wonder how big the older brother is, and whether he was purplexed. Someday, the writer and Lydia will have a bonding moment over the story.

Speaking of bonding, my son bonded with my husband as they learned to "cross streams" in the toilet the other day. And just this morning, my son requested a little bonding with his younger brother: upon watching me nurse, he pulled up his shirt, tugged on his nipple, and asked that his brother eat from him.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I read an article recently (and will link if I recall where!) discussing how breast cancer awareness might be becoming too "gimmicky."

Consider:
- Race for the Cure
- Boobiethon!
- Breast Cancer Three Day
- Tied to the Cause
- Pink Pony
Plus pink ribbons, breast-cancer stamps, etc.

Is it "cool" to wear pink? Do we glorify breast cancer as some cutesy disorder?

I would say yes, it is cool to wear pink, but I don't think it diminishes the perception that breast cancer is a serious disease that involves a lot of pain and turmoil. I know that breast cancer kills, and that it isn't all about "being a breast cancer survivor" as a status symbol - it is about making sure that there are survivors.

I won't start a whole tirade on how money devoted to "research" doesn't actually make it into the hands of those performing the research, since that is true of any disease. (And the amount of money that actually goes to a particular fund through the sale of a product is typically pretty small.) That said, I think having an awareness month and having pink promotions is still a good idea. However, there are a few caveats:

1) It is in some ways more important to raise awareness about heart disease, since that is the #1 killer of women. The Go Red for Women campaign is helping with that, as are some of the major women's magazines during February, showing models and celebrities with gorgeous red dresses (The next Wear Red Day will be February 4. 2005.) There are more preventative measures that women can do to prevent heart disease, so this not exclusively a monetary cause. It is also a way to encourage women to eat well, exercise, and be aware of their own risk factors.

2) People shouldn't just "buy and forget." The fun thing about pink polo shirts or pretty red ribbons is the fashion end and the "look how cool I am because I am supporting a cause." It is too easy to think about it as the "in" thing to do, rather than pausing to recall exactly why these promotions are in existance.

3) If there are too many "causes," there won't be enough support for each. My hope is that women can become more educated about their health overall, so that they aren't just fearing a breast lump. I wish there could be more research devoted to how women respond to various medications and how their symptomology for less in-the-spotlight diseases can be examined.

In this week's issue of Parade Magazine, there was an article about menopause. Included in the article were results from a study questioning women on their knowledge of female health care concerns. Sadly, many women are misinformed. For example, imaging thinking that menopause occurs at age 30! And only 3% know that HPV causes cervical cancer. Fortunately, the word seems to be spreading that heart disease is the biggest killer of women. 47% correctly answered that question, while 42% gave the common answer of cancer.

Speaking of heart disease, cheers to the American Heart Association for promoting women's awareness of heart disease as the #1 killer of women - but jeers for not relaying information regarding how heart attack symptoms are not the same for men and women. On their website, the typical men's symptoms are listed only. Too many women figure they aren't having a heart attack because they aren't experiencing the male symptoms. (A document buried deep within the women's section includes some additional symptoms, but most individuals won't find it - instead, they will just see the symptoms listed on the front page of the site.)

ABC's new show Desperate Housewives may be a source for some tamponbloggy moments. I enjoyed the pilot, but especially chuckled at an article in my local paper about the show:

For many years, television writer and producer Marc Cherry lived under the spell of a false impression: He believed that his mother, Martha, pretty much had led a blissful, sweet-natured June Cleaver-like existence.

That is until the two sat down a few years ago to watch the evening news. On came a tragic story about Andrea Yates, the Houston woman who drowned her five children. In stunned disbelief, Cherry wondered aloud how a woman could ever reach the point of such desperation.

To which his mom removed the cigarette from her mouth, turned to him and uttered: "I've been there."

"I was astounded," Cherry, 42, recalls.

Astounded, indeed. The grass really is greener. Whether working, staying at home, kids or no kids, our lives are filled with various stressors that "the other side" will never quite believe. It is fun that there is now a TV show that shows a little bit of the hecticness related to the stay-at-home variety, though it will likely end up just as unrealistic as the "on the job" dramas (policework, medicine, law). Nonetheless, I will watch the show both for its humor and for the times that it hits close to home.

And I am willing to bet that there will be a tampon-in-the-dog's-mouth moment or a "hey ma, what's this?" query. I'll be watching!