data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a972b/a972b0b1015bf794087fbefc687b68abbdbc7249" alt=""
Source: http://www.usmagazine.com/news/rebecca-romijn-debuts-post-baby-body
Source:
Bump: 1)something that bulges out or is protuberant or projects from a form [syn: bulge, hump, jut, prominence, protuberance, protrusion, extrusion, excrescence] 2)the defining feature of pregnancy
Well, it's 43 degrees Celsius (110 F) in
Anyway, back to business. Nothing irks me more than the current media exhortations to women in their mid-late 30s that if they don't start popping out babies soon, their ovaries will become the next vestigal organ. It seems that the pressure to procreate is now coming even earlier thanks to a new campaign by the American Fertility Association (AFA) to remind women in their 20s that their biological clocks are ticking. The campaign consists of posters like the obnoxious one above and a seminar called 'Manicures and Martinis' at the Dashing Diva Salon in
With the inclusion of Flockhart, the magazine answered its own question: Of course, it is.
Thanks to the sassy gals from Sex and the City, the television show that opened the eyes of women worldwide to frank discussions of sex, love and relationships in 1998, just two years later, Time was asking its readers, ‘Who needs a husband’? Charlotte, Miranda, Carrie and Samantha were deemed ‘the daughters of the women’s movement’. By standing in as spokeswomen for sexual freedom and independence, the single woman, it seemed, ‘had come into her own’. Not only was it acceptable for women to buy their own homes, buy their own drinks and spend $400 on strappy sandals if they wanted to, hell, they could even buy their own diamond rings. By the close of the millenium, the ‘Ah’ ring became the sine qua non of the power of the affluent single woman. Symbolising that a woman is ‘available and happy’ (or is it affluent and hyper-competitive?), the Ah ring was made specifically so that single women could have a diamond ring paid for on their own dime. Feminism, apparently having softened its stance on that whole partiarchy thing, was seemigly allowing middle-class women to crash the engagement party with a ring worn on the right hand as a status symbol and not necessarily one’s status of being ‘owned’ by a man. If women could circumvent the antiquated trappings associated with marriage, single women could certainly invest in solo pregnancies. With the popularity of IVF, surrogacy and adoption, more of those single and fabulous women were saying to themselves, ‘Why buy the cow when you can get the sperm for free?’
In the new millenium, singlehood was described as the ‘logical result’ of a generation of gals empowered by the women’s movement. While ladies were being patted on the back for not settling for anything less than Mr. Right, a perfect baby and a white picket fence, they were simultaneously rewarding themselves with the ‘choice’ to foster their own spirit, to relish in their own company. Yet, not only was the essence of the third-wave deeply embedded in a woman’s right to choose (or should I say shoes?), it was also firmly entrenched in having a hot body to match. Whereas becoming a mother was once the essence of femininity, the next generation of women were finding their empowerment in their tiny-waisted ones, big-breasted bodies. With the rise of television shows like What Not To Wear in which the bodies of everyday women are scrutinised from their saggy boobs to their tree-trunk ankles or the covers of tabloids that act as metaphorical calipers squeezing the flesh of female celebrities.
So who is fit to mother? Whereas in earlier generations, mothers seemed to be (un)happily singing the same tune of domestic drudgery, selfless mothering and settling into long days spent with a child on the hip and dinner in the oven, in these uncertain times (economically, socially and politically), an obsessive attention to being a good mother has posed something of an existential crisis for women who want to ‘have it all’ as sexy, high-achieving, independent women.
The whole industry (and yes, it is an industry) of infertility is reliant upon women who are told that as soon as they hit the age of 35, the egg factory will be invariably shutting up shop. Women must be aware of their fertility from the moment they begin to menstruate and are encouraged to have children early in life so as to circumvent any unforeseen 'problems' later on, as a sort of reproductive 'insurance' policy. The overriding message is that if you wait too long, you can find yourself with a 'barren womb' and it is nobody's fault but your own. Why fault women for finally making themselves happy? I thought we had evolved past the women-as-baby-making-machines.
Source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/181840
The Opposition's spokeswoman on women, Pru Goward, says the planned changes are a good idea.
"The Opposition supports compensating women for the medical costs in the last couple of months and also the loss of earnings in the last couple of months because most pregnant women don't work in the last couple of months," she said.
"What the Opposition would not encourage is the commercial surrogacy, the hiring out of a woman's uterus."
John Morrissey from the Australian Family Association says "Commercial surrogacy amounts to rent-a-womb, obviously. But our concerns are with surrogacy in itself, that it commodifies a child," he said.I tend to disagree. I think that just because women are helping other women to become mothers does not mean that pregnancy cannot also be a business transaction. I hate that as a result of this long-standing perception of women's bodies as 'natural' and being closer to nature, therefore, anything related to motherhood is automatically pure and uncommodified. If you think about it, everything about pregnancy today is totally commodified. From designer prams, boutique maternity clothing and expensive prenatal care, affluent women spend an enormous amount of money on pregnancy and their bodies during this 9 month period. No one seems to have a problem with this. It seems ridiculous to worry about the commodification of a child through surrogacy when foetuses are commodified through entertainment ultrasounds and through the purchase of baby clothing well before the baby is born. Pregnancy is commodified through IVF when couples pay to have their eggs fertilised and no one seems to have a problem with that!
I think this is a dangerous argument because it is just like saying that women who stay at home to be mothers don't 'work' because they are not being paid to stay at home. The only reason that SAHM are not paid to be mothers and to do housework is because it is too often assumed that women should selflessly do caring work; to ask for or to be offered compensation for nurturing/domestic tasks is antithetical to everything our culture believes to be associated with motherhood. This is the same situation with surrogacy. If a surrogate is being paid, it leaves an icky taste in many a mouth because it suggests that women can sell their wombs, in effect, taking the romance out of pregnancy and motherhood.
Any thoughts?
Naomi Watts, having given birth to her second son just one month ago, has the answer to post-baby weight loss: breastfeeding.
"I'm breast feeding and he's sucking it all out of me, it seems," Watts, 40, told People magazine on the red carpet when asked how she got back in shape so quickly.
"And when the baby comes out, it's a lot of weight right there."
Huzzah!
Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4818347a1860.html
"Some people might look at me and say: 'You're going to give birth to a freak' – but I don't care because I feel blessed," she said.
"To me my twins were a gift from God and we're determined to give them a chance of life."
Of course, people are sensationalising this story, making the poor couple look like nutjobs (140 articles written about the story at the time of writing this post).
Any thoughts?
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4220334/Conjoined-twins-Woman-pregnant-with-twins-with-two-heads-and-single-body.html
"This is scandalous," said Maya Sturduts from the National Collective for the Rights of Women.
"Employers can now use this to put pressure on women", she said, especially during the current tough economic times when employers may be looking for excuses to cut staff.
Others are claiming that Dati 'had' to return to work, lest she lose her place in male-dominated political circles.'I can't move anymore...I'm a beached whale!' she said. "I have not been without a bra this entire pregnancy. I refuse. I'm not taking any chances. I'm determined to keep the puppies up!"
According to the ABC website, Linda says she feels like a mom now that she has reborns.
"I take them out to the park, if I'm walking the dog, and maybe put it in its stroller, or put it in its sling, or hold it in a blanket, and people do think it's real."
Owner of 36 dolls, Lachelle Moore said that she still feels the need for babies who'll never grow up.
"What's so wonderful about reborns is that they're forever babies," she said. "They don't give you any trouble. There's no college tuition, no dirty diapers. … Just the good part of motherhood."
Linda says it's better than having a "crazy habit" such as "drinking, or something that's going to hurt you."