Monthly Archives: November 2009

The Skinny on Breast-Feeding

November 13, 2009
By

brownieMajor eye-rolling ensued when I read the article in The New York Times this week about breast-feeding and weight loss. Now that women have surpassed men on the national payroll shouldn’t we be talking about the obstacles women face pumping at work? (FYI, you can check out Moms to Work and The Savvy Gal for those stories.)

To be fair, the Times has written several articles this year on breast-feeding. They’ve covered the health benefits for mothers and babies, a link between breast-feeding and lower breast cancer rates, and the challenges of working, travelling and pumping.  But I am more interested in changing work/life policies that favor working parents than I am in changing my waistline.

The eye-rolling started at this sentence:

These days, more than ever, a mother is expected to bounce back from pregnancy and be a “yummy mummy” in no time.

And really got going here:

Earlier this year, Rebecca Romijn, who wore a shrink-wrapped outfit in “X-Men,” called breast-feeding her new twins “the very best diet I’ve been on.” After Angelina Jolie posed for the November 2008 cover of W magazine nursing one of her twins, she said that it had helped her regain her figure.

Come on, NYT. We expect People Magazine and US Weekly to feed us that load of BS. But the Gray Lady? Surely, you suspect nutritionists, trainers and eating disorders play a role in postpartum celebrity body bounce backs, don’t you?

Maybe I’m bitter because even though I nursed, I’m still trying to shed the weight I gained while pregnant with my daughter. (She’s five.) And certainly, I’m not above wanting to look good postpartum. At my 12 week checkup following the C-section delivery of my firstborn, my doctor asked me how I was healing.

“I’m bleeding,” I said.

She looked concerned. “That doesn’t sound right. Your scar was healing nicely.”

“It’s not my scar,” I confessed. “It’s my stomach. I tried to wear my pre-pregnancy jeans and my fat got caught in the zipper.”

But it was this quote that really got my eyes-rolling:

Ms. Walker thinks breast-feeding mothers shouldn’t feel guilty for loving the calorie burn. “We deserve it,” she said. “She ought to get into those skinny jeans after 9 months of pregnancy and 20 hours of labor. That’s what I tell mothers. Go for it.”

Hey Ms. Walker: You know what I deserve after 9 months of pregnancy and 36 hours of labor? A pass on how I look and a big fat fudge brownie!

 

Mass Confusion: Stupak and the Senate Race

November 12, 2009
By

capitolLast Saturday the House traded a woman’s right to choose for healthcare reform. Even though President Obama has promised that reform will not cause any U.S. citizen to lose benefits they already have, the House passed the Stupak Pitts amendment which takes away a woman’s right to full reproductive health coverage

Over the weekend several representatives threatened to vote down the healthcare bill unless the House passed the amendment.  The amendment, by prohibiting coverage of abortion in the public option, effectively bans abortion coverage across the board. That’s because it also prohibits private insurers from offering full reproductive coverage through the exchange to both subsidized and unsubsidized individuals. Remember: abortions are legal, medical procedures.

The amendment does make a provision for an abortion rider that women could purchase in the event they are planning an unplanned pregnancy. But Planned Parenthood says these riders don’t really exist. Many claim that the amendment is in place to make sure no federal money is used to pay for abortions. But that protection was already in place. The Stupak Amendment, which was backed by the Catholic Bishops, is far more restrictive.

I spent too many years in the Catholic Church to take abortion lightly, but women must have the right to control their own bodies. According to Planned Parenthood, 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 

I have also been pregnant three times. Sadly, my first baby didn’t make it. Somewhere between eight and ten weeks, his or her heart stopped beating and I underwent a surgical procedure, known as a D&C, to remove the dead fetus from inside me. The procedure ensured I would not get an infection from the tissue and, more importantly to me at the time, it gave me closure while I mourned a baby I never knew but absolutely loved. Under the Stupak Pitts amendment, hospitals might not distinguish the reason for a D&C, which is often used to perform abortions, and another woman in my situation may not have access to the surgery. What will she do then?

Sixty-four Democrats and 176 Republicans voted in the Stupak amendment, and in doing so, essentially traded women’s rights for so called healthcare reform. But this reform would not live up to Obama’s promise that we will be better off after reform than we are now.  And many of those same lawmakers then voted against the healthcare bill later that night. Women’s rights were used as a political bargaining chip in the House of Representatives last weekend and that’s not okay. However, there is hope that the Stupak Pitts amendment will be stripped from the Senate healthcare bill.

In Massachusetts, the issue is heating up the Senate race for Ted Kennedy’s seat. Congressman and Senate candidate Mike Capuano voted no on the Stupak amendment but yes for the healthcare bill that included the amendment.  Following the vote, Attorney General Martha Coakley took a firm stance on the issue with this statement, “The inclusion of the Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the very intent of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone.  I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to fix this by eliminating the provision in whatever reform legislation moves forward.”

Capuano then jumped on Coakley’s statement and said, “Unlike a prosecutor, a legislator must have the skills to build consensus and the courage to make difficult decisions, and the wisdom to know when to choose progress over perfection.”  His statement echoed the idea that women’s rights are just collateral damage in the game of politics. Candidate Steve Pagliuca is also willing to choose healthcare over women. His statement read, “if the choice is between providing healthcare to over 30 million people without federal coverage for abortion or to leave them with no coverage at all, I could not, in good conscience make the choice to leave them out in the cold.” Yet he could in good conscience take away women’s rights?

Days later, in what appeared to be a complete reversal, Capuano told The Boston Globe he would not support a healthcare bill that included the controversial amendment.  And then, just yesterday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the women behind the machinations last Saturday, endorsed Capuano citing his “courageous vote for this historic legislation” and his “proven record of standing up for progressive values and what he believes is right.” What exactly does he believe is right?

Know your candidates, ladies. Women should never be compromised for some greater good. We need unwavering advocates in Washington. Period.

Veteran’s Day Round Up

November 11, 2009
By

soldierToday, thank a veteran and brush up on your facts about women in the military. According to Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), a non-profit organization that works to improve the welfare of U.S. servicewomen and veterans, women currently represent 15 percent of the armed forces. Almost 200,000 women have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Learn more here.

Here are some interesting reads from around the web:

* Feministing on sexual assault in the military

* A thought-provoking take on the Fort Hood tragedy from Care2

* A statistic laden article about women in the military from The Reporter

* And finally, a feel good story about a soldier and his dog.

Why We Need Women in Office

November 10, 2009
By

politician

Last night, in the town where I live, we had a warrant review in preparation for a special town meeting. On the table are some critical items to do with education, raising taxes and smut zoning. As I looked around the room, I observed how few women are in power:

-9 person finance committee: 2 are women

-5 person board of selectman: 1 is a woman

- 7 person school committee: 2 are women

- 5 person planning board: no women

And yet the town population over the age of 18 is 54 percent female and 46 percent male. That is not representative government.

We’ve written before about the need for women to lead. Diverse leadership leads to better problem solving, more creativity, representative government. Girls need role models so they know they too can grow up to serve and lead some day.

And then this weekend, we witnessed the House trade women’s rights for healthcare reform. The Women’s Campaign Forum writes that if there were more women representatives, the Stupak amendment would have been defeated.

she shoudlrunThere are some great organizations that support women who want to run for elected office. I encourage you to take a look. Start with She Should Run.

(Logo used with Creative Commons license.)

Wild Weekend

November 9, 2009
By

bishopIt was a wild ride for healthcare reform and for women this weekend. Saturday started with women Democrats in the House trying to speak about gender discrimination by insurance providers. However, they were repeatedly interrupted by their male counterparts across the aisle. Watch the video here.

 

 The day ended with the House passing healthcare legislation, but somewhere in the middle women were used as pawns.

Before voting on the healthcare package, the House approved the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which severely restricts access to abortion. Women can, however, purchase a costly abortion rider in case they are planning an unplanned pregnancy.

Representative Stupak and others had threatened to vote down the final healthcare bill unless the amendment passed. And ultimately 64 Democrats and 176 Republicans voted in favor of it. Many of those same lawmakers then voted against the healthcare bill later that night.

Regardless of personal or religious beliefs, how can women not find it disturbing that our lawmakers were so comfortable trading our rights in exchange for their end goal? The media has framed the move as “pragmatic” and a “concession,” but those words are merely euphemisms. It speaks volumes that our politicians knew just how easy it would be to trade women in exchange for political gain.

Starting with the blatant disrespect shown on the floor Saturday morning, to the passage of the amendment later in the day, this weekend felt like anything but progress.

A Corporate Fantasy

November 6, 2009
By

home officeYesterday I attended The Boston Club’s Corporate Salute honoring New England companies with two or more women directors on their boards. The Boston Club is a great organization, run by high caliber people who help businesses find women directors.  The event was well run and well attended. But I walked away disappointed.

Three women, two from the Boston Club and one a keynote (Sharon Allen, Chair of the Board of Directors for Deloitte LLP) spoke about the lack of women, the need for women, and the benefits of having women at the top of businesses. Allen shared stories from her personal career and was a great speaker.

But while I sat there and ate my egg frittata next to highly competent women with their oversized patent leather bags, Prada eyewear and high-heeled pumps (4 is the new 3″ fyi), I daydreamed about the speeches I wanted to hear.

You see, The Boston Club just released its annual census which looks at the number of women on boards and in the executive suites of the top 100 public companies in Massachusetts. And according to the data, not only has the Commonwealth not made any progress in this area, it is moving backwards. You can download the report here.

Women represent just 11.3 percent of all directors in Massachusetts and only 8.6 percent of all executive officers. More than half of the companies surveyed have no women C-level executives at all. The percentage of women directors is basically flat since last year but the number of women executives is the lowest it has been since The Boston Club first compiled a census in 2003. The percentage of women among the highest paid executives is 23, a full point lower than last year. For women of color, the situation is even bleaker. They represent only  two C-level executives and 10 directors at the top 100 public companies.

And so, in light of this data, I wanted the speakers to stand up and yell, “Bullshit!” I didn’t want to hear their restrain and reason – their calm discussion about how women at the top make a positive impact on the bottom-line — or how businesses benefit from diverse management teams –that businesses need a woman’s perspective to relate to their customers (remember women control at least 85 percent of all consumer purchasing power, represent 51 percent of the population, and represent the majority of today’s workforce.) I’ve heard it all before.

I wanted them to call, “Foul!” There is no legitimate reason for this lack of diversity. Women are graduating college, law school and business school at greater rates than ever, and organization’s like The Boston Club can help identify the top candidates. The women are there.

The event organizers had representatives from companies with two or more women directors stand up for recognition. In my daydream, representatives from the companies with No women at the top stood up and all of us threw tomatoes at them (they were served with the frittatas).

Is it any wonder I no longer wear high heels and carry expensive totes to work, and instead wear pajamas and Uggs to my “office” everyday?

Don’t Kill Grandma

November 5, 2009
By

granny

There are two sides to every issue. Yesterday the National Women’s Law Center sponsored a day of blogging about healthcare reform.You can read the posts here. Today, the Tea Party Patriots are holding a nationwide rally at the Capitol Steps in Washington, D.C. to “kill the bill.” For those who can’t attend, there is an online “war room” with information on contacting Congress. There is also a website called Don’t Kill Grandma detailing the rally and the group’s take on the issues.

I completely agree we should not kill Grandma. However, since we are going to let her live, shouldn’t we at least offer her – and her daughters and granddaughters – equal coverage for equal premiums, access to quality maternity care and insurance policies at least comparable to Grandpa’s?

 It’s only fair.

You are Not a Pre-Existing Condition

November 4, 2009
By

DeniedDo you know who may be denied health insurance?

* Me. I had a Cesarean section. C-sections are pre-existing conditions.

* A good friend of mine. Her husband hit her. Domestic violence is a pre-existing condition.

*The one in six women who will be sexually assaulted. Rape is a pre-existing condition.

*Another good friend of mine. She underwent IVF. Fertility treatments are a pre-existing condition.

Ladies, we are NOT pre-existing conditions.

The list goes on:

*My cousin. She is having a baby. Many health insurance policies do not cover maternity care.

*My sister. She needs a mammogram. It’s not covered by her insurer.

*My neighbor. Her health insurance company charges her more than they charge men but her employer pays her less. She can’t afford coverage.

*You. If you are a non-smoker. Health insurance companies typically charge female NON-smokers more than male smokers.

Most gender-based discrimination occurs in the private insurance market, where the self-employed and small businesses find insurance. But even among the group health insurance market, gender discrimination exists.  Insurance companies are allowed to determine premiums based on the number of women a firm employs.

This is appalling. Health reform is NOT a political issue. It is a matter of human rights. Click HERE to contact Congress TODAY and tell them a woman is NOT a pre-existing condition. We deserve equal coverage for equal premiums.

(*NOTE: Clickon the title of this post to view a video.)

Read more on this topic here and thank you to the National Women’s Law Centerfor their report “Nowhere to Turn: Insurance Companies Treat Women Like a Pre-Existing Condition”  which you can download here.

Women in Peril

November 3, 2009
By

tv

According to a recent report from the Parents Television Council, the incidence of violence against women on television (including an increase in female victimization as a punch line in a comedy series) is up significantly since 2004. (An incident is defined as a storyline that includes victims of violence.) Consider these statistics based on primetime television (excluding news and sports programs):

*Violence on television in general is up 2% since 2004.

*Yet violence on television against women is up 120% since 2004.

*There was a 400% increase in the depiction of teen girls as victims from 2004 to 2009.

*The most frequent type of violence on the screen was beating followed by credible threats, shooting, rape, stabbing and torture.

Television is not reality. We get that. But when you consider the studies that show exposure to filmed violence against women leads to decreased perceptions of violence, you see just how damaging this sexist programming is. It desensitizes society to violence against women. That is irresponsible. The television industry is trading the value and the safety of women for ratings.

What can you do? When you see gratuitous violence against women on television, or you notice a disproportionate number of storylines victimizing women, let the shows’ advertisers know how you feel. Women control at least 85% of consumer purchasing power in this country. We can make a difference.

Fear of Success or Failure?

November 2, 2009
By

runI did it! I set a goal and I achieved it. Seven weeks ago, I decided I was going to run a 7 mile road race. That same day I tripped, fell and badly bruised both knees. Graceful. A week later, my knees felt better and I started to “train.” I ran just a half mile my first day. What the hell was I thinking?

By the end of the week, I was running a mile and a half. Cruising. And then, I got sick. I had an allergic reaction that caused my right eye to swell shut. You can’t run if you can’t see. Ten days later I went out again. I completed a mile. That night, I dropped an iron on my toe. Eight days later and four weeks until road race, I ran another mile.

But I kept running. And three weeks until the race, I was up to three and a half miles. I realized my goal might actually become a reality and so, I quit. I didn’t run for ten days.  

Why is it that, when the going gets good, we panic? When we can finally see what we’ve been working for, we run the other way (pardon the pun).  I do it all the time. I successfully diet, the jeans finally fit, and so I binge. I impress everyone at work, I’m headed for a promotion, and I blow a deadline. Just you wait: I’ll blog, blog, blog. I’ll build an audience and I’ll stop posting. But I’ll come back. I always do.

And so, with only a week to go until the race, I started running again. I ran four miles my first day back. At half a mile, I was gasping for air. At one and a half I started fantasizing about getting hit by a car. If you can’t walk, you can’t run. At mile three I slowed to a shuffle. At three and a half, sparks were flying from under my feet from the friction caused by dragging them on the ground. Just before mile four, I asked myself, “What’s the worst that can happen?” Death was the immediate response.

And so, with the pressure mounting, I became determined to meet my goal. I pushed for the last few days and I pushed through the race. And it felt great. It still does. But I wonder, why the self sabotage? Fear of failure or fear of success?

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes