In case you feel like modern ads are idiotic and demeaning… Here’s proof positive that they were like that way back when, too! (Wow, does that make me feel better!)

It was a struggle to decide which one I “like” best. #2 is particularly creepy, #4 I absolutely do not understand, #11 I find adorable. But the one pictured above took the prize in the end. It says:

Though she was a tiger, lady, our hero didn’t have to fire a shot to floor her. After one look at his Mr. Leggs slacks, she was ready to have him walk all over her.

Gosh, how could one resist?

Removing and freezing your ovary so you can “use” it later, when you’re “ready” to have children? Apparently.

Women from Hong Kong, California and New York who want to have babies, just not right now, are paying thousands of dollars to have their eggs frozen at Montreal’s McGill Reproductive Centre. In St. Louis, Mo., newly single professionals in their mid-30s have elected to remove and freeze part or an entire ovary, to use when they need it.

It has been five years since the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society sought to combat an infertility crisis by urging women to stop waiting so long to have babies, and five years since the scientific breakthrough that allowed women with cancer to successfully freeze their eggs or ovarian tissue. While one initiative was meant to convince women to begin their baby-making sooner, the other advancement predicted a future where any woman could cheat the ageing process that hampers fertility.

Rather than heeding the advice of starting sooner, women are increasingly turning to technology for what experts call social fertility reasons, even as the debate around preserving fertility continues.

I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic to the women who find out, often too late, that they can’t have the babies they suddenly realize they wanted all along. I can’t imagine how painful that must be. But – and you can call me a Crunchy Con all you like – I have trouble believing that this kind of awfully invasive (and expensive) technology is the answer.

_____________________

Andrea wins the award for most inappropriate response to a news item: Should I be admitting this? I found myself chuckling while reading this. I’m not laughing at infertility, just to be very clear, but rather at this notion that you could fight nature by removing a body part and freezing it the way I do with leftover casserole. It seems not only wrong to me, but slightly funny. By the way, the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society hasn’t exactly been working overtime to fight “the infertility crisis” as they call it–there is close to zero public awareness amongst the women I know that there’s a time limit on having babies. A certain type of feminist friend has won the day: they are out and about stridently asserting that none of this matters, that women have no real longing to be mothers and it’s really all about having that successful career, isn’t it? File folders and clients to see you through your old age, neatly arranged in piles and there when you need ’em. Fan-tas-tic.

_____________________

Véronique adds: Can I grab the award from Andrea’s capable hands for a minute and step on my soapbox? As someone who was blessed by runaway fertility I do not want to diminish the anguish felt by infertile couples. However, I was recently reading an excellent commentary from one of my students in bioethics at St. Paul’s University where she argued for public coverage of fertility treatment for infertile couples, including lesbian couples. I am increasingly irritated, on behalf of infertile couples everywhere, when we include old(er) women and lesbian women in our grab bag of infertility. Diminishing fertility because of age is not a medical condition: it’s the natural course of things (one I’m actually looking forward to, actually). Inexistent fertility because of homosexuality is not a medical condition: it is just the way things are when you don’t have a sperm and an egg. Don’t get me wrong: I am not saying that older women and homosexual couples shouldn’t want to be parents because that’s what they asked for (although I am not immune from thinking along those lines when I get going). My point is that in a system with limited resources the pie doesn’t get bigger as more people claim a piece of it. By ever extending the definition of infertility to include couples who are fertile but homosexual or used to be fertile but no longer are, we prevent those who are truly infertile from getting access to treatment.  

Also, while I’m at it, isn’t it interesting that a treatment that was originally meant for cancer patients made infertile by chemotherapy has been taken over by wealthy women wishing to beat nature? In the mean time, is the treatment available through public health insurance for cancer patients? I didn’t think so. No wonder provinces won’t fully fund infertility treatments.

Sarah Palin announces her resignation.

__________________

Andrea reads this: “But Palin also hinted at her own national ambitions, invoking a quote that she credited to Gen. Douglas MacArthur: “We are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction.” Good for her. I’d be thrilled if she ran again, nationally. I wouldn’t personally have the stamina for that kind of abuse, but I’d be thrilled.

The head of the Korean affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation recently pleaded with his countrymen and women to have more children. I like this part:

Korea needs to create a new social atmosphere to make a woman’s job and her home life compatible. We need to allow workers to spend more time with their families. The annual working hours of a worker in Korea is 2,357 hours, the longest in the world. We need to vitalise the public education system to reduce the financial burden of private education and other expenses for children. We need to provide financial support for families, such as a child allowance or a child-rearing allowance, even if only for a very short period.

You’ll notice universal daycare full-day learning is not on the list…

Don’t you love it when your family newspaper tells you how to have great sex? If so, you’ll want to go have a look, here. I admit I was intrigued by the first paragraph:

Put away your vacuum pump, heavy-duty auto booster cables and edible latex Brad Pitt face mask-and-abs combo.

According to a study released Thursday, such items are simply litter along the road to great sex.

Brad Pitt I get, but heavy-duty auto booster cables? Do people (more or less normal people, I mean), use those for sex? I knew I’d missed a couple of beats, there, but I had no idea… Anyway. I don’t like litter so out they go!

Where was I? Oh yes. Great sex.

Apparently, according to that newspaper article (and who wouldn’t believe such a trusted source of empirical research?), “sexual fulfilment has far less to do with technique and perfect bodies — elements most often ascribed great significance by popular culture — and more to do with such factors as presence, connection and erotic intimacy.”

So pop culture and its countless magazines (you know which ones I mean) describing in great detail the 101 secrets to pleasing your guy are actually lying? Now that’s news!

Some village is missing its idiot:

June 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an interview with newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in March, a Swedish couple said they are refusing to disclose whether their two-and-a-half-year-old child, called “Pop” in the media, is a boy or a girl. They said that their decision, made at the time of the child’s birth, was based on the feminist theory that “gender” is a “cruel” “social construct” that forces children into artificial roles.

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It’s cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.” The parents say they never use personal pronouns, referring to him or her only as Pop.

“I believe that the self-confidence and personality that Pop has shaped will remain for a lifetime,” said the mother.

While we’re here debating cruel social constructs, I’d like to ask one question: Why does Pop have both a mother and a father?

Sorry to ruin your Sunday:

More than 450 teenagers below the age of 14 terminated pregnancies between 2005 and 2008, including 23 girls aged 12, the statistics from the Department of Health disclosed. Over the same period, 52 teenagers terminated four or more pregnancies before they reached their 18th birthday, as the total number of “repeat terminations” hit record levels across England and Wales.

[…]

The Government data disclosed that 64,715 repeat abortions were carried out across all age groups last year — the highest level on record and a rise of 22 per cent in a decade. They included 46 women who terminated at least eight pregnancies.

A proposal to reduce the legal limit for termination for abortion from 24 weeks was defeated last year following a fierce parliamentary debate and the new figures showed a sharp rise in terminations after at least 26 weeks. There were 241 between 2005 and 2008, a rise of 16 per cent from the previous three years.

A Department of Health spokesman said the Government had invested almost £50  million in efforts to prevent teenage pregnancies and that the rates of abortions for teenagers as a whole had fallen by 4.5 per cent in the past year.

Well. Forgive my crusty old goat reaction, but I’d say that was money wasted. Trying to “educate” girls about sex does not (repeat: NOT) lead to better sexual practices. By which I mean less sex and fewer pregnancies – and therefore, fewer abortions. The challenge is not how to figure out what kind of contraception would work best on 13-year-old girls. The challenge is trying to convince 13-year-old girls that they ought to busy themselves with a great many things other than sex.

This is such a cool idea:

Pregnant women are being given the chance to hold life-size models of their unborn babies, thanks to an invention that converts data from ultrasound and MRI scans.

[…]

The technology is being trialled at a clinic in Rio de Janeiro. “It’s amazing to see the faces of the mothers. They can see the full scale of their baby, really understand the size of it,” said Dr Lopes.

[h/t]

Burger King puts its foot in it. Dumb!

___________________

Andrea adds: Your title could have been “When ad companies are run by 16-year-old boys”… Remember when Telus decided they would package porn and make it readily available to their customers? What bothered me was not so much that porn would be available (it already is) but that some group of prepubescent ad execs (and I don’t care how old they actually are) thought this was a good idea.

However, my boycott of Burger King will have little effect–I’ve never eaten there in my life. Apparently with good reason.

_____________________

Tanya adds, regarding the boycott: Don’t panic!  The veggie burger at Harvey’s is just as good AND you get to pick your toppings.  I know you were all worried ’bout that.