Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Anne Heche | The Sleeper »

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

The Day in Women

posted by on January 24 at 16:15 PM

Well, this is depressing: American women have become so overweight, the FDA now says birth control pills should be tested again using “heavier” subjects.

And this is just disturbing: A court rules in favor of parents who had their dead son’s sperm “extracted” five years ago and are seeking to have it implanted into a 25-year-old woman, making their son a posthumous parent; although their 20-year-old son never expressed a wish to be a father in writing, the parents say that was what he wanted.

That didn’t take long: The backlash over the news that the majority of American women are now unmarried begins, with this column (by a divorce lawyer and a “men’s advocate”) from the Chicago Tribune: “The current trend away from marriage and toward divorce and/or remaining single has more to do with overcritical women and their excessive expectations than it does with unsuitable men.” The authors do cut the ladies some slack, though, allowing that women’s incessant nagging is “an evolutionary necessity.”

The study linking coronary disease in women to higher levels of “expressed anger” continues to be used as evidence that women should suppress their feelings, most recently in this article, charmingly headlined “Angry women prone to heart problems”: “In what may prove to be good news for husbands and boyfriends everywhere, a new United States study finds that some women who make a habit of openly expressing their anger may be more likely to develop heart problems.” (As I noted earlier, what the study actually was found a correlation between heart problems and expressed anger in women with certain pre-existing health conditions—anger itself, meanwhile, has repeatedly been found to be a risk factor in men.)

Bush thinks health care choices should be kept between patients and their doctors. Unless, of course, that patient has a uterus.

The New York Times just can’t leave Nancy Pelosi’s clothes alone. This time, in an article that contains no information about, say, Dick Cheney’s tie, the Times notes that “appearances were obviously important to Ms. Pelosi, who changed from the brown suit she had worn earlier in the day to a soft green one, which offered more contrast to her dark leather speaker’s chair.” I’m sorry… How is Pelosi the one obsessed with appearances?

Cross-posted.

RSS icon Comments

1

So what are some of those excessive expectations, and why did the authors of that article not specify them? Because they're full of shit, perhaps?

Posted by keshmeshi | January 24, 2007 4:50 PM
2

Um, guys, being married and having children are not necessarily both required at the same time (or ever) for women.

Or men for that matter.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 24, 2007 5:05 PM
3

Well, she did change her clothes, which suggests she's more obsessed with her appearance than, say, Denny Hastert. Which isn't saying much.

While flipping past the news channels last night I did see a runner on the bottom of the screen on one of them -- Fox, CNN, MSNBC, whatever -- describing Cheney's choice of suit and tie. Blue, I think they said.

Posted by Fnarf | January 24, 2007 5:24 PM
4

Jesus H.... What is with the Barnett (I am woman hear me roar)-a-rama today??

Posted by GoodGrief | January 24, 2007 6:37 PM
5

Yes, it is shocking to see a Stranger reporter reporting items to the Slog on a weekday. Good heavens. What can she be thinking?

Posted by Fnarf | January 24, 2007 7:27 PM
6

I thought it was the gay agenda that was keeping 51% of women from being married. They are really accomplishing a lot.

Posted by Wondering Willa | January 24, 2007 9:35 PM
7

The dropping marriage rate just means more guys are appreciating the rules of Leykis 101. Blow me up Tom!

Posted by just another lurker | January 25, 2007 12:14 PM
8

http://aweb4.org/naturally-bus_0e456xe.html >naturally busty*[url=http://aweb4.org/naturally-bus_0e456xe.html]naturally busty[/url]*

Posted by boi | February 13, 2007 6:26 AM
9

http://aweb4.org/naturally-bus_0e456xe.html >naturally busty*[url=http://aweb4.org/naturally-bus_0e456xe.html]naturally busty[/url]*

Posted by gong{ | February 14, 2007 11:50 AM
10

http://aweb4.org/naturally-bus_0e456xe.html >naturally busty*[url=http://aweb4.org/naturally-bus_0e456xe.html]naturally busty[/url]*

Posted by sik | February 14, 2007 7:30 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).