Oh. My. God. I especially love the part about the 100 lb policewoman for back up, because ALL women weigh 100 lbs, and NO men do.

And if a woman has a LEGAL right to take maternity leave with pay, she should have it for ANY job, not just the lower-paying ones. What a douche.

"First of all, I must admit that I am a male chauvinist..."

Gee I wonder if that has anything to do with his perceived differences he sees in said letter?

I once read this psychology textbook from the 70s that claimed menstruation would make women unfit for ANY profession. The author seemed to be under the impression that menstruation would cause women to "take time off", it was a really bizarre argument. It was clearly made by someone who didn't know the first thing about periods.

And then of course, there was that boy I knew in seventh grade who didn't believe pregnant women should teach, because they're too hormonal.

If only Mr. Blachut here was 12 years old....

How many male police officers feel comfortable with a 100 pound female backup?"

So, he thinks female police officers are okay, as long as they weigh at least as much (if not more) than their male counterparts?
You heard the man, lady cops! Eat more donuts, damn you!

I can't believe any paper would publish a letter from a self-professed male chauvinist! If this guy thinks that men in government don't take time off to seek medical treatment, or even take extended sick leave, then he's sorely mistaken!

At times like these, it does one good to remember Pat Schroeder (D-CO) who famously retorted to some schmuck (how can you be a mom and a US Rep) "... I have a uterus and a brain, and I use them both".

I've been wondering about that too, Webbess-- there's a scene in Rosemary's Baby where two of the little old ladies are talking about being put out of commission by their periods. Granted, the state of feminine hygiene before 1970 was less grab 'n'go, but still, it struck me as odd.

Would I be correct in assuming that legislators' health insurance also covers their families? In that case any male representative or senator without a vasectomy is just a health care burden waiting to happen. Because that's what precious, holy fetuses turn into, right? A worthless drain on taxpayers.

There are so many sexist assumptions in this letter it's hard to pick one thing. I'm just flabbergasted the paper would print such driel. I hope its readers will fire back with letters of their own. Or better yet, cancel their subscription.

Well, to start with I have met 100 pound female police officers. I am not sure how their male co-workers feel about it, but they accepted to the academy and did the same training as their male counterparts. Secondly, this guy is a complete moron. Not only do people in government collect insurance (which is a monthly fee, it's not like it's actually costing the people more money for her to go to her prenatal appointments) but their families as well. Why should be pay for a public officials wife to give birth and have a child, but not a government official herself?
Also our government pays for any prenatal care for any woman who financially needs it, while it doesn't pay for birth control or abortions. So not only are we paying for this woman's pregnancy, but thousands of others, not because women necessarily even got pregnant by choice, but couldn't gain access to birth control.

Apparently this newspaper will publish anyone's letter--if you keep reading, there's one from a man who thinks that the teaching of evolution is what caused the Columbine massacre. Because there's no God in the theory of evolution, and if there's no God, we might as well do anything we want and kill everyone. You have seen those roving gangs of murderous Scientists roaming the streets, just looking for an excuse to start a bloodbath, right?

Ow. I think I rolled my eyes too hard.

There are so many sexist assumptions in this letter it's hard to pick one thing. I'm just flabbergasted the paper would print such drivel. I hope its readers will fire back with letters of their own. Or better yet, cancel their subscription.

Regarding the idea that menstruation was oh-so-debilitating back in the day: when I got the Period Movie, in 4th grade (1981), we got a booklet to take home, and I still remember that the booklet insisted that just because you had your period didn't mean you were sick (or had to act like it), and that you could still go to school and do gym class, and do all the stuff you usually did. The level of unusual insistence suggested to me - even at such a young non-analytical age - that someone somewhere believed that must be the case.

Oops. Sorry I posted my comment twice.

It's like the Onion, except even funnier.

And here I thought that "male chauvinist" was an attack phrase these days. 4th wave here we come. :(

There are only two relevant questions.

1) How much extended medical leave to we afford representatives?

2) How much time will she need off?

If 2

ARGH! I've got to remember that this forum hates brackets.

If the answer to 2 is less than the answer to 1, it shouldn't even be up for discussion.

And I suppose male politicians should have to reimburse their salaries for ever hour they're chatting up underage teens or soliciting sex in bathrooms.

OK, then any Congressman or male Senator whose wife gets pregnant while he's in office should have to pay all expenses related to the pregnancy out of pocket.

I mean really. Besides, don't elected officials get lifetime health coverage and a pension, no matter how long they serve. Why doesn't this idiot male supremacist complain about that gravy train?

This type of thinking pisses me off no end. She's taking time off for a medical reason. Would he be saying the same of a Congressman undergoing treatment for cancer? (I'm not comparing pregnancy to cancer, just the situation) Forget that- it's none of his business why she takes time off.

His comments regarding the 'differences' make women out to be tiny little beings that can't pull their own weight. My angry side wants to see how he would hold up against a 100lb female krav maga student.

I would like to suggest that all those male members of Congress who are convicted felons should reimburse the US taxpayers for all the time they miss due to serving their deserved prison sentences.

Except that...they don't go to prison. Oh well.

Didn't Dick Cheany get a heart transplant or some such thing? Should he have not been paid for the three or four weeks he spent in recovery, and for the week he probably spent prepping for the surgery? What about all of those days President Bush spent playing on his ranch?
This guy is an asshole.

Personally, I love when the paper prints letters from idiots. Especially because the local paper in my (small, Republican, East Texas town) always prints my radically liberal responses. ;)

This writer is an idiot.

I happen to believe there are jobs that *people* are not qualified to do, for various reasons such as physical strength, etc. I should not be a firefighter, lifeguard, or anywhere else heavy lifting or prolonged physical exertion is required. I do not associate such qualities as strength, only with being male. Women who succeed in such fields should rightly be proud of themselves and their gender. I love it when women succeed and surpass men myself. There is nothing like proving oneself when others do *not* believe.

The reader mentions being in the armed forces or serving on the police force. If someone, male or female, young, old, thin, obese, makes it through the training, it is that training and equipment such as a gun that will allow them to perform their duties. If I were to stereotype at all, I would say that we most definitely could use more female police officers. Because of ingrained cultural values, they could be perceived as less threatening, and less likely to escalate violent situations than "manly" officers pumped up on testosterone. There may even be criminals who do NOT want to attack female officers because of the perceived differences or possible backlash from the public or in the jury box.

Would I be comfortable with a female at my side or watching my back?* If they are wearing the uniform, why shouldn't I? Perhaps this reader forgets that a hundred fifty million men are not in uniform. They are either too young, too old, didn't qualify, got out of their own accord, were kicked out, or made the choice not to take the risks the job entailed. However, many women willingly make that choice and take those risks to serve, in spite of, or because of these troubled times.

Oooooo. Women workers might get pregnant, cuz they are having teh sexx. What a concept. That is what childcare, partners and extended family are for, which seems to be the way of humanity since the beginning. If some man does not want to support his partner or find her proper support, particularly when working, perhaps he can go without children.

*In addition to having a nursing license, I am awaiting a position as a Transportation Security Officer (TSO) for the TSA, the federal security officers in airports. At the interview, I had just one question: do officers carry weapons? The answer was "No." Just "No." I said "OK," thought "Darn," because *I* wanted the gun, and that was that. Even then I would not fear serving at the local airport, with the approximately 50% female force, all of us preserving *ha* our homeland security in Hawaii, where Al-Qaida is so itching to strike. There have been one or two incidents of people breaking through the checkpoint at the local airport with guns. I am fairly unconcerned by that, or the fact that all officers would be unarmed. I have faith in the training.

How many male police officers feel comfortable with a 100 pound female backup?

That is why they make GUNS. Also, with the training they get, most of them could probably kick my 150 lb. ass pretty easily, bare-handed.

Besides, I'd have to imagine that one's trust of one's partner is based primarily on experience, as it is in most things.

Also, what about all the time that our elected representatives spend campaigning for the next election? Think of all the taxpayer money we could save if we didn't pay them for that!

Beautiful. The same shit gets thrown around in every corporation in this country though: women shouldn't be promoted above a certain level and should be paid less because their "family responsibilities" and the potential for pregnancy will take focus and time away from their jobs. Every corporation in this country. There's always at leaset one sexist asshole that thinks pregnancy and menstruation and "female troubles" are something we should apologize for. Nevermind that the almighty cock plays pretty much a 50/50 role in the first one.

http://www.linkedin.com/find/b/b60/b60_42.html

From this guy's Linkedin business profile:

Ron Blachut
Retired from Disney - ABC-TV

Current: Retired, Disney - ABC

Past: TV Engineer, ABC-TV
Military Police, United States Army

Education: Knowledge, Life Full of Experiences

Also, that guy's personal contribution to that sentator's medical bills is probably about 10 cents. Ouch. STEEP.

Personally, I don't know how we can reliably elect anyone. What about people with speeding tickets? They could get into accident and have to go to the hospital. People who have a family history of heart disease are obviously out. And every non-castrated male is at risk for testicular cancer! And speaking of cancer, skin cancer is the most common type of cancer there is! How are we going to find enough skinless representatives???????

See how easy it is to get worked into an idiotic frenzy over things that are just a natural consequence of life? Almost as easy as it is to forget that, oops, men are involved in the baby-making process, too.

I love how he uses "Ms" for Gillibrand but the only women taxpayers who are worth addressing are the "Mrs" ones.

"Didn't Dick Cheany get a heart transplant or some such thing? Should he have not been paid for the three or four weeks he spent in recovery, and for the week he probably spent prepping for the surgery?"

A heart condition is involuntary. Pregnancy is a choice, not an illness.

I just did my final investigative paper on cpcs v.s. legitimate centers like Planned Parenthood. On a local website for their, "A Caring Pregnancy Center," webpage, the link for men says, "If she truly is pregnant then she is already being overwhelmed by hormone changes that hinder her from making good decisions." When I interviewed the executive director about the statement she said it was medically backed, and factual because she gets over-emotional due to her hormones. When I interviewed the cpcs they made either unfactual errors, or brushed off the questions. The director got a little angry with me when I started asking about other elements of their business and cpcs beliefs. Apparently they are expanding and are planning a CPC that will serve the needs of 'business women' and students. Apparently the idea that women are incompetetnt while pregnant seems to be part of their bread and butter manifesto and they are attempting to add validity to that belief! How are these CPCs even legal!!

http://www.acpcpueblo.org/for-men.html

If a letter started out with "first of all, I must admit I'm a big stinkin' racist" I doubt they would have published several paragraphs extolling the differences between races. I seriously cannot believe any paper would publish this crap.

Carrying a weapon while serving in the Armed Forces and firefighting are not suitable lines of work for women to prove that they are physically equal to men.

The arrogance of the assumption that men somehow figure into every decision that women make is stunning.

I second whoever brought up that Chaney should reimburse us for all of his hospital stays, doctor visits, etc...I mean he had the heart problems before he became V-P. Pre-existing condition! Most people who came onto a job with Chaney's health problems would get denied by their insurance provider.

"Beautiful. The same shit gets thrown around in every corporation in this country though: women shouldn't be promoted above a certain level and should be paid less because their 'family responsibilities' and the potential for pregnancy will take focus and time away from their jobs."

That attitude most certainly is sexist, and unfortunately the situation many mothers with careers or former SAHMs find themselves in, because childcare mainly falls upon them.

However, if someone male or female, for any of a variety of reasons including family emergency or child rearing, spent a prolonged period of time away from work, months or years, perhaps unable to accomplish what their peers did, and not attaining the same skills or level of experience, would it be unfair NOT to offer them the same opportunities as those peers whose work was uninterrupted? (Those peers could be singles, people without children or whose children are grown, people without sick family members, or people without serious or chronic health disorders.) My brother was a stay at home dad for a year and a half in addition to being a computer programmer six years out of the loop, and is paying the price*. I have been out of the country for 12 years gaining no relevant job skills or experience, went back to college at 37, was unemployed for nine months, was a man trying to get into nursing, and I am paying the price.

*Wife demanding a divorce and full custody of child, as a matter of fact. From an economic standpoint, I do not blame her, if a male breadwinner is what she expected of marriage.

I consider it quite natural to face serious difficulties for my lifestyle (I do not claim pregnancy or parenthood is a choice), as well as a drastic cut in economic opportunity. My male and female classmates who chose their careers immediately after high school or college are now likely in management or other mid to top levels in their organizations, while I am a 39 year old newcomer to the workplace. I consider it humbling and amusing that a 21 year old Filipino female RN can be my boss, not because I look down upon her for her age or gender, but because of the drastic differences between us in competence and experience (advantage - hers). Also, by my age, a worker should be well on their way to retirement (25 years gov't service) and social security benefits. I start from zero at 39. I will be working past 67, no matter what I do.

My grandmother worked for the government for years and years years, she has the same health care the congressmen do. So by that logic I guess we should stop paying her healthcare too?

This is just so ridiculous.

"My grandmother worked for the government for years and years years, she has the same health care the congressmen do. So by that logic I guess we should stop paying her healthcare too?"

Why would someone think that about your grandmother?

So, has 88mph been banned yet? Just checking.

Oh, so my point to the post above. My brother and I, for our own reasons, are six and 14 years, respectively, out of the loop, while classmates and peers - male and female - forged ahead. He is 43, and I am 39. Male. The employment challenges and lost opportunities and wages are all our own responsibility, not due to discrimination. Why should it be any different for people in similar situations?

I have no issue with govt. officials or anyone getting pregnancy, medical, or family leave.
However, during these times, the officials that we elected are unable to serve us in the capacity promised when elected. It is unreasonable to think that a new mother, or someone with cancer, or someone who is caring for an aging parent... can serve in their position as effectively as someone who is not. And voters have a right to see their elected officials serve full-term instead of someone they didn't want.
So should there be an elected "backup" for all government positions like vice president? At work, 4-5 of my coworkers can cover for me and help me out when I'm gone for a few months. But elected government positions are different.

Admittedly I wouldn't notice if the Bush administration instead of Bush were running the country, but who is going to shake hands with the other world leaders if he gets sick? His backup, the VP.

This would probably create a bloat of elected government offical jobs - where do we stop?

It is an interesting issue. Is democracy (the republic/elections) more important than the individual elected?

Food for thought anyway, for me.

Congress is one of those very rare jobs where it's not "all about the employee."

So as a result, I can actually see it being reasonable to ask those serving in Congress to try to schedule their voluntary/planned things in such a way that they wouldn't miss a significant amount of the session, assuming they could make those changes without much hardship or fuss. But that's as far as I'd go.

I think I'd really like a substitute elected by the same group of voters to do the work while the original cannot, but then of course we have to pay 2 salaries instead of 1. It might be worth it to keep the voting public of region X having a say.

I find it much more problematic that our elected officials spend the vast majority of their time trying to get reelected. Why don't we deal with that if we want them to be working for us after we elect them?

"I think I'd really like a substitute elected by the same group of voters to do the work while the original cannot, but then of course we have to pay 2 salaries instead of 1. It might be worth it to keep the voting public of region X having a say."

It could be a reserve, part time, or temporary position, for call-up only when necessary, thus not necessarily expensive. Like the National Guard or Reserves.

A male,
But then what does the reserve person do the other 8-10 months of the year? They can't be a part time politician as a full-time job....
I mean it won't happen either way but I am trying to think it fully through.

Does this guy honestly think that the Congresswoman will be totally incommunicado during the length of her maternity leave?

My former boss worked from home during her maternity leave Maybe she didn't work her normal 10 hours a day but she certainly did a good portion of her job, was in communication with her dept, etc.

In this time of constant communication via cell phones and the internet, this Congresswoman is not isolated at home.

"But then what does the reserve person do the other 8-10 months of the year?"

Maybe their regular job, or a side job. I don't know how it is where you live, but my local county council members only meet, if I recall, one a week, in addition to other time they spend to study the issues or plan. Some have other jobs, like being business owners. Just because they get elected doesn't mean they have to lose any previous employment.

"They can't be a part time politician as a full-time job...."

They won't get nearly as much as a "real" member of Congress, but they'll live. Let's say $60,000 per year plus expenses, for sake of argument, in addition to whatever they get from any other source of income. Local council members get a livable wage, but are no means well off - I assume because it is not considered a "full time" job. Full time elected officials like the Assistant Mayor have it much better.

Even if it is a financial hardship, they may be willing to make that sacrifice if they have any real political ambitions, and would like to be elected, perhaps to that very Congressional seat, because they took the opportunity to prove themselves. How much did Hillary make as First Lady, for being what some commentators considered "co-President?" (I see no reason she would not qualify as "the" President. Nothing should prevent her from being Vice-President - except voters.)

And these Congressional "reservists" would only be eligible for benefits (health/life) while on "active duty" which means they won't be getting that sweet retirement package, at least nothing like it. They can pay Social Security, set up an IRA/401(k), or work their other jobs like anyone else. They are not the "real" elected members of Congress, but substitutes or temps.

Hey, I think this guy is a plagiarist, too. You know, of that letter to some editor that was making the rounds of the various rugged individualist, get-government-off-our-backs blogs? Wait, I found it:

"First of all, I must admit that I am a health snob. There are many occupations suitable for the overweight. Carrying a weapon while serving in the Armed Forces and firefighting are not suitable lines of work for the hefty to prove that they are physically equal to the healthy. How many fit police officers feel comfortable with a beer-bellied backup?

And now I must add serving as Vice President as an occupation that may not be suitable for people who neglect their health.

Mr. Cheney's current surgery makes a strong case for my opinion. Mr. Cheney was elected to serve the people of this country, and while he is in the hospital he cannot perform those duties. The taxpayers who were duped into voting for him will have to pay for his medical benefits. Yes, Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer, Mr. Cheney receives excellent health benefits, courtesy of you, the citizens. We will be without the services of a VP for a time leading up to and following his treatment. There will be times when he will need followup care. You can add those days to the total that he will not be carrying out the duties of his office.

I wonder if Mr. Cheney will do the right thing and reimburse the U.S. Treasury in the amount of his daily salary for each day that he is unable to perform the duties he was elected to do.

Not holding my breath,
Rita Beechnut
Queensbury"

Yeah, the letter writer is a flaming jerk. But. I am from that area (upstate NY)-in fact, The Post-Star was my parents' daily (not really your source for cutting-edge journalism, as you can see)- and am used to hearing people there say reflexively nasty things about folks who don't happen to be old white dudes. But before we all pile on, I think class is a worthy topic of discussion when dealing with these kinds of comments.
The area has always been pretty far behind economically, with lots of rich vacationers buying second homes and looking down on the locals. The really obnoxious folks (like that letter-writer) are reacting to the wealthy (and ostensibly liberal)people they are serving by flinging this kind of crap around. That doesn't make Ron Blachut's opinions any more correct-but I'm betting that if he had his then he wouldn't be writing drivel like the above.

The 110th congress started in January 2007 and continues till 09. House attendance records are available at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/vote-missers.

Here are some interesting details.

Sadly, five members have died during the current session, two very recently (Julia Carson's death is not listed yet). These representatives missed 90.8%, 85.9, 30.9, 30.7, and 1.4% of votes. For what it's worth, there were three women and two men in this group.

Barbara Cubin's husband's health is failing, and she has serious medical problems of her own. She has missed 54.5% of votes, and will not seek reelection in 2008.

Bobby Jindal, alive and well, is in the middle of this pack with 33.4% missed votes. He spent much of 2007 running for governor of Louisiana.

Coming in barely ahead of four dead representatives are longshot presidential candidates Duncan Hunter (missed 29.9% of votes), Tom Tancredo (29%) and Ron Paul (27.2%). Hunter and now Tancredo are out of the race.

Then Dennis Hastert appears (26.2% of votes missed). He resigned in late November under political pressure. The voting records simply state that he had gallbladder surgery in 2007.

Medical problems, political scandals, and the choice to campaign while on the job account for all poor voting records so far in the list.

Beyond this point, our representatives are a relatively conscientious group participating in about 80% of votes or more. Still, the list cites extenuating circumstances for some representatives.

Cathy Rogers missed 16.3% of votes. She gave birth in April, 2007.

One step up from Rogers is Steve Buyer (missed 15.7% of votes, 3 votes fewer than Rogers). He injured his knee skiing in December 2006.

And one up from Buyer, Eliot Engel missed 14.9% of votes. His mother died in May, 2007.

Dennis Kucinich, busy campaigning, managed to miss only 11.7% of his votes.

Farther up on the list, at 10.8% and 7.3% missed votes, Nicholas Lampson and Ander Crenshaw cite medical problems requiring surgery.

Near the top of the list, pregnant Kirsten Gillibrand has missed just 1.9% of votes.

Of the eight representatives who missed NO votes, three are women (38%), even though women make up only 17% of the overall House population.

So, who is the best candidate--a man, a woman, a person with a clean bill of health?

A close look at attendance records suggests choosing a representative who won't skip work to tend to a political campaign or damp down a scandal. Serious medical problems do affect a large number of representatives. However, as cold as it sounds, dead representatives get replaced in special elections, while distracted representatives cling to a job that someone else could do better.

According to the latest voting records, campaigning is a worse distraction than ordinary life events such as pregnancy, childbirth, a skiing accident, a short-term medical condition, or in some cases, a sick family member. Pregnancy and childbirth are particular to women, but major political campaigns are historically more likely to afflict men.

This is one argument for term limits. During session, they should be in Washington voting instead of trying to hold onto their jobs (often failing). Officials doing something so frivolous when they are clearly supposed to be working, should return that portion of their salaries and retirement benefits.

A heart condition is involuntary. Pregnancy is a choice, not an illness.

Well, what did Cheney do to contribute to his heart disease? I do hear he likes his red meat.

And then there's Jon Corzine, governor of New Jersey, who was in a horrible car wreck (due to having the trooper driving him go way above the speed limit) which resulted in incapacitating injuries (because he didn't wear his seat belt). Should he have reimbursed the state for the time he was out?

Thorina did a great job finding absentee rates and reasons for them. Some very sad stories.

"Near the top of the list, pregnant Kirsten Gillibrand has missed just 1.9% of votes."

"Of the eight representatives who missed NO votes, three are women (38%), even though women make up only 17% of the overall House population."

I like it.

I really really hate when services like police, fire, and military have different entrance requirements based on the gender of the applicant-- like, making it easier for women because they're "weaker." There should be one set of requirements, period.

That said, even if Ms. Gillibrand does have her hormones go crazy when she's pregnant, that will not cause her to vote against the will of her constituents. That's what bugs me about the whole "women are hormonal so they can't work" thing-- hormones don't work that way. If a person's hormones did get that bad doctors would intervene, but mostly people just feel very moody (and then all the other side effects too. It's not like they suddenly change their opinions on things they are passionate about. And politicians especially aren't just coming up with new opinions, they have an established set of positions on topics and they don't really stray. SO she will be perfectly capable right up until she actually has to go on medical/parental leave.

Yeah, politicians shouldn't really plan to give birth when they are in office but I kinda doubt this was specifically planned for this particular point in her life, even if she wasn't really making extreme efforts to prevent it.

Thorina, great post on voting records.

Basiorana, I agree with you about having different requirements for physically strenuous jobs. Those women who are strong enough to do it should be welcomed--but it makes no sense, and invites backlash against feminism, to change the standards for women. If you can't carry me out of a burning building, I don't want you to be the firefighter who responds to my 911 call.

You also make a great point about the legislative process and how it would (not) be affected by pregnancy. I wonder, though: what would your opinion be about executive branch positions? Particularly I wonder about the presidency, which is considered very strenuous and of course carries great responsibility militarily.

Alan

My uterus is about to go kick Ron Blachut's ass.

Doesn't Congress usually have recess in summer months? If I'm correct about that, that would be about when she's at the point where she would have to take maternity leave anyway.

"Particularly I wonder about the presidency, which is considered very strenuous and of course carries great responsibility militarily."

Considering recent men who have been elected President, including an elderly man with health problems who got shot, and an intellectual lightweight who takes month long vacations at home, I see no reason why any woman elected President would not first be sure she had some sort of support system in place, or otherwise do at least as good of a job. Again, only voters would stop a woman who wished to become President. I have no reservations at all, based on women who have represented major parties, back to Geraldine Ferraro.

Unfortunately, I vote in Hawaii, while predominantly Democrat, lacks the number of voters or electors to have any influence on election results. Our polls also close the latest of any in the US. We cannot do what Florida or California can do.

The Constitution also has explicit measures which can be taken in the case of a President not able to perform their official duties. e.g., there is always (if your name is not Cheney) the Vice-President.

A male,

Seems I wasn't clear--I was referring specifically to the idea of a *pregnant* woman as president, not to the general idea of a female president (which I agree would be great). It's not a terribly likely scenario, as people generally become president past the age at which most women would bear children.

Liza, to answer your question: Congress takes a recess in August.

Alan

have we ever had a president whose wife was pregnant while he was in office? i can imagine that such a thing would distract a male president just as much as a female president.

the last line of this post reminds me of a sticker i have on my dorm room wall "if we don't have freedom of speech, how will we know who the assholes are?"

have we ever had a president whose wife was pregnant while he was in office? i can imagine that such a thing would distract a male president just as much as a female president.

JFK. IIRC, that was the baby who died and is buried at Arlington.

You mean voting for a known pregnant female Presidential candidate? If she was qualified, why not? At least I would know*. Why should I expect any young female President or other elected official to remain non-pregnant for the remainder of their term(s)? Are opponents going to ask her about her reproductive choices in debates to prevent a woman from getting into office? [What dicks.] Wouldn't female Presidents with child have partners, family, or state provided support? It is not my business. Other countries have or have had fairly young female leaders of reasonable childbearing age. [I consider it odd that the US has not had a female leader, ahead of certain regions of the world which have had some.]

*It might depend on the running mate in the Vice Presidential spot. If Rodham-Clinton were 35 and the running mate were Obama (and they were more cooperative than now), why not?

I cannot identify any "bad" Democratic candidates offhand. I am tempted to vote for Senators Clinton and Obama simply for their novelty. The same may be true of a pregnant candidate in the future.

In the private sector, it would be discriminatory not to hire a woman for being pregnant. I cannot cite the law, but it came up in some women's magazine I was reading years back.

More about this "at least I'd know" what I was getting if I voted for a pregnant woman for President (meeting other qualifications of course). It all boils down to why should we assume that a woman with no plans on a family, or a man in general, would not have circumstances like poor health or family troubles (God forbid assassination or attempts) to prevent them from fully performing their duties in the future?

That's the whole point why this original letter to the editor was dumb. Check out Thorina's post. A pregnant woman and at least three *dead* people missed fewer votes than other members of Congress. The pregnant woman was near the very top of the vote/attendee list. Love it.

MLEMac,

Have you ever been pregnant (that is, carried to term?) I have not, of course, but I was married to a woman who did it twice. It was distracting to me, but it's not comparable to its effect on a woman. I mean, you see professional athletes all the time who become fathers while in the midst of a big playoff race or something; I don't think you see a lot of nine month pregnant women on the WTA Tour (my women's sport of choice). In fact, there was a woman who played a match when she had just become pregnant, and it created a minour stir; but that is a lot different from the end of pregnancy or the postpartum period.

A male,

A BIG issue for me is to have the U.S. catch up to other countries (including Canada, where my sister has become a citisen and will be having her second child in less than two weeks) that have a year of paid maternity leave. For most mothers, it is just not realistic to expect them to work up to the delivery date and then go right back to a demanding (more than) full time job within days of giving birth.

To me, it is very feminist to fight for maternity leave; but I understand that to some second wave-type feminists, complete gender neutrality is the goal. From where I sit, that is utopian thinking that is disconnected from the real world. There *are* some physical differences between men and women that have real consequences.

Alan

"For most mothers, it is just not realistic to expect them to work up to the delivery date and then go right back to a demanding (more than) full time job within days of giving birth."

One trend I read about a few years back that concerned me was outpatient childbirth. The woman with a low risk pregnancy goes in, has her baby, and after a checkup, leaves, or maybe is discharged the next day, if I recall. One reason was for insurers to cut back on health care costs. That was crazy*. I have also read or heard all kinds of crazy stories about what women did after being discharged from the hospital, basically ignoring the fact that their bodies just went through a traumatic experience. It could take at least six weeks to some months to recover.

However, if a woman of childbearing age has the political ambition to become the President of the United States, I believe they should be confident they will be able to do the job they are setting out to do. Even more so if a woman is actually campaigning WHILE pregnant - she better have some idea of what she is getting into, if that is the choice she makes. As we can see by the voting records of members of Congress, it doesn't always work out the way people planned. Some have family emergencies, some have health problems, and some actually die while in office.

I'm willing to take that chance on a qualified candidate, if they have faith in themselves** and are considered a low risk pregnancy. There are some risky conditions and complications that could arise. If I saw some pale, sickly looking candidate with swollen lower extremities on TV, or they couldn't appear at functions due to severe morning sickness, I would have serious doubts about them and their judgment. If they can't follow through on the campaign, or perform after election, there is always the Vice-President or running mate, who was probably the second most popular candidate during the primaries, anyway. Not a big loss to the country, I hope. There have been some lackluster VPs who had to step in, like Ford, according to critics. I was too young to know about him. Thank goodness we never needed Quayle. Gore could have made the transition.

This is a whole lot of what ifs. There haven't been a whole lot of young men running for office, and zero women of childbearing age so far. Geraldine Ferraro, Elizabeth Dole and Hillary Rodham Clinton are or were in their late 40s to their 60s during their campaigns.

* In Japan, doctors might keep a mother and newborn in the hospital on bedrest for 5-7 days to be sure they are alright, as well as have the mothers (yes, it is patriarchal) participate in some motherhood training - holding, feeding, bathing, etc., I guess just in case they didn't get it during community based parenting classes. In addition, the traditional recovery for mothers in Japan was to be pretty much on bedrest for about a month at home with her own mother who took care of her. My wife claimed that even reading or watching TV would cause eyestrain, so she just lay in bed. Other women claimed that it was necessary for the pelvic joints (circling the birth canal) to heal, and one reason US women had such "big hips" was because women resumed activity so soon after childbirth. I have no idea about the validity of that.

** You know a Republican I could have voted for, just because I liked him? Colin Powell. Even white Republicans could get behind him. But when the time came to decide, he put his family first. I respected him for that. Too bad he went back to work for the younger Bush, and just kind of faded away the way he did.

SlackInc: ANYONE in the Executive branch should rely heavily on a good, informed and variated group of advisers. If say Bush got pregnant, would I trust him to push past hormones and do the right thing? Hell no. We'd be at war with Iran in a week. But a competent President, or other such leader, would know enough to never make any decision without confirming that it was a good one with many different advisers, pregnancy hormones or not.

That said, I doubt very much any woman would chose to become pregnant while in a stressful job like that. Too much stress can cause miscarriage, but more importantly, a President really doesn't have a lot of time to devote to caring for a newborn. I know it's been done in the White House before but it was usually mostly done by nannies and such in the past, and the President never had to wake up at 2 AM to breast feed.

Also, I totally agree that we need more time for parents to have off. I don't think a year is good because that's a long time to have your workforce gone for, but a week before the due date until the kid is 6 months old for both mother and father, paid, would be ideal both for the parents' health and sanity, for building a family in the earliest years, and for enabling the child to have a good start.

Also, A male: Asian women have on average smaller hips because they evolved that way and most don't eat the excesses we do. The bone usually does not change during pregnancy. At the most it might have been because Asian women traditionally rested a great deal after pregnancy so the women with smaller hips who would have had trouble laboring survived to have more children, but that is purely speculation.

"If say Bush got pregnant, would I trust him to push past hormones and do the right thing?"

He can't be trusted to do the right thing anyway.

Oh, and thanks, SlackerInc. I was close, I was thinking June or July. But if she's about two months pregnant now (isn't that when you usually start telling people? I've never been preggers so I don't know) that would put her having the baby in July so she wouldn't be that far off recess and wouldn't miss much time in office.

I've been writing since July (here's what I just posted about comparing and contrasting the Gillibrand LTR) about how my state legislator volunteered to go back to Iraq, after only being in office for just over six months, as a freshman, and now being absent for at least eight months, and returning when he has about five or six months before re-election. There have been many comments about whether he should have run at all or should step down while there. The Ohio law allows him to continue to hold his seat, get paid for it and serve in the military.

But the letter in the original post here is concerned about absence from the elected position, period.

So - what about politicians who choose to return to military duty after voters vote them into office?

I'm not suggesting that there's an easy answer, but is there?

Basiorana

No, I don't mean some evolutionary thing. Those women claimed the hips of individual women became wider after childbirth because the pelvic joints hadn't healed properly.

"So - what about politicians who choose to return to military duty after voters vote them into office?"

Now that is crazy. Does he claim to be on some investigative mission that will help him in office while he collects his dual salary?

The bone usually does not change during pregnancy.

That's not true. Towards the end of a pregnancy, a woman's body starts to secrete a hormone of some kind (I forget the details--it's been a while since my doula training) that specifically loosens ligaments (the connecting tissues between bones) in preparation for labor. The hips do become wider and more moveable. When the hormone is no longer secreted, they can certainly stay that way.

It's been a while since my labor and delivery nursing classes, as well, but this Wikipedia page is really bringing it back to me. To a degree, it is possible the Japanese claims have some merit, despite being an "old wive's tale."

"Pelvic Girdle Pain causes pain and instability in any of the three pelvic joints during and/or after pregnancy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelvic_girdle_pain

It's really quite interesting reading, and people should be aware of yet another possible complication of pregnancy and childbirth. Future mothers should not feel apprehensive for this reason, however.

How creative of the medical establishment. The hormone that causes the physical changes to allow passage of the baby is called "relaxin."

"During pregnancy relaxin has a diverse range of effects, including the production and remodelling of collagen thus increasing the elasticity of muscles, tendons, ligaments and tissues of the birth canal in view of delivery. This hormone also inhibits uterine contractile activity, allows nipple growth to occur, contributes to the rupture of the fetal membranes at term and is needed to support the establishment and maintenance of early pregnancy." (Wikipedia).

I don't know the details about actual permanent post childbirth remodeling of the hips, as the instructors and mothers in the class did not elaborate (my assumption is that independent women would not make it a consideration even if the Japanese women are right - who wants to be on bedrest unable to resume activities or work, for 30 days*?).

Anyone experiencing the types of symptoms described in the article, during or after pregnancy, should seek medical attention. Also take note of the linked resources.

*Pearl S. Buck type stories that peasant women went in from the fields, gave birth, then went right back to work in the fields are not reasonably credible, as a cultural practice. The risks of hemorrhage and other effects of the fourth stage of childbirth are too great.

OK, all I have to say is..."relaxin." Wow. How long do you think it took the doctors to name that hormone?

"Hey, Bob--lookit here. This is the hormone that makes pregnant women's various connective tissues relax in the final months of pregnancy. Whaddaya think we should call it?"

"Man, who cares? It's the end of the week--call it "relax" and let's hit the bar."

"But 'relax' doesn't sound all Latin-y and medical and stuff. Let's stick a funny ending on it: 'relaxin.'"

"Perfect! First round's on me!"

Hi "A Male." You wrote:

""So - what about politicians who choose to return to military duty after voters vote them into office?"

Now that is crazy. Does he claim to be on some investigative mission that will help him in office while he collects his dual salary?"

No - he doesn't claim that at all. He says that he just felt that he has a duty. It's created a lot of conflict even within his supporters who've left comments on The Plain Dealer's blog and other places (like my blog) that have noted his choice. I didn't vote for this rep, who is my district's rep, and the reputation people attribute to him re: political ambition makes the move very suspect. However, he has been in the military for several years, and he did pretty much the exact same thing just after he'd been elected to city council four years ago (not my city) - although from what I've read, he was called up that time, whereas this time he's volunteered.

Again, voters voted for him just eight months before he chose to return to the military and then will return with hardly any time to serve in the legislature and be up for re-election.
I feel it's playing political games and giving the constituents no service.

I don't think I'm being too hard - but some people do. What do you think? Is it different or the same as the pregnancy?

Well, okay, maybe I was poorly informed about the hip thing, but it is true that the average female hip size varies from race to race even before a woman has children.

Jill Zimon: I'd say that's worse. I doubt Ms. Gillibrand will be gone, in another country, for almost her entire term. Personally I think that if it is something you specifically plan to do, like serve in the military, and you're planning on being gone for a significant chunk of your term, the proper thing to do is step down. However, neither of those contingencies apply to a pregnant woman.

Given proper support (and I am certain she would have it), a pregnant woman/mother as President can accomplish as much or more than other politicians discussed above who are deliberately neglecting their duties by campaigning, etc. That man can perform his duty to his country on his own time, that is, not while in elected office, or at least wait until is he (re)called for service to leave. Is he in the National Guard, testing the requirement he get his old job back upon return? He is not like a pregnant woman or mother as President.

Basiorana

No, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've been conducting a thought experiment, because that is how I am. Try putting your fingertips together with your thumbs toward you, and your middle and ring fingers in the rear, to form a rounded ring* that represents the pelvic girdle. Now open some space between the fingertips in the back to represent where the tailbone (coccyx) would go. The thumbs represent the pubic symphysis, the pubic bone.

If you have consulted the wiki page, you have seen the numerous ligaments (and large, almost like minor muscles) that hold the pelvis, "the largest bony part of the skeleton," together. Under the effects of the hormone relaxin to allow for elasticity and remodeling to allow passage of the baby's skull and shoulders, rock your hands (the "hips") back and forth to find the largest, or most receptive passage through the ring formed by your fingers. Keep in mind that the joints may actually open up temporarily to allow passage of the baby during birth. Can you imagine pulling a muscle or ligament here? Ow.**

If the actual bony structure of the pelvis does not return to its pre-pregnancy state (see "degrees of pelvic instability"), I believe it is possible a woman's hips can take on a different appearance - wider, twisted inward or outward, whatever. I have not taken notice of anyone like that, however. The altered gait of a pregnant woman, or a woman with pelvic injury and resulting instability have been well documented.

*This is really getting too technical, and I'd have to grab my book, but there are four female pelvis types determined by the shape of the passage. Only two are recommended for vaginal delivery. One type, fittingly called "gynoid" or "gynaecoid," is the ideal. If you see a small hipped woman or one with a butt "like a man" (and young women still developing, naturally), it is possible they will not be able to have children except by cesarean. Asian women tend toward lower average birthweight to permit childbirth with their smaller hips. See "Babies of South Asian and Chinese ancestry are smaller at birth than those of European ancestry, say B.C. researchers . . . "

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/07/13/birthweight.html

Really. My wife gave birth to eight pound plus babies (she's well proportioned, but big boned for a Japanese), but average Japanese babies are more like seven. I guess one could say caucasian, black or hispanic women start with wider hips in the first place to permit birth of babies with higher birthweight than Asians.

**My sister-in-law's problem was sciatica - the baby's passage damaged her sciatic nerve which passes through the region. She was actually unable to use her leg for a while, and recovered with a walker.

A male: you wrote:

"Is he in the National Guard, testing the requirement he get his old job back upon return?"

No - he isn't in the National Guard. He's in the Marines. There's a whole history to his plans, some argue - that it's all very deliberate and planned and calculated to milk the political system and image system. I'm told that for the few months he was in Columbus, he was indeed a very hard worker. And I have a specific issue that his staff has kept me up to date with since he went overseas.

But this just makes it harder because again, he is an incredibly ambitious young man with some personal life decisions that just are little less savory. So it's a bit complicated.

Nevertheless, I agree - I really believe he should either not have run and gone to serve, or he should have stepped down and run again upon his return. It's just not fair to the constituents. IMO.

Well, Jill

I likewise hope a pregnant Presidential candidate, or a mother with young children, won't use that as her selling point, but sincerely want to do the job. I'd be happy to vote for such a person if qualified.

A pregnant president -- I love it! I think it would be awesome.

I've been pregnant 6 times and have always worked hard at something while pregnant. Pregnancy had little effect on my job (although it had huge effects on me, my body, etc.) Some of the best decisions and boldest strokes I've made in business were during pregnancy -- not because I was pregnant, but because that was the right timing.

As something of a pregnancy enthusiast, I've followed the careers of pregnant women. There was a young state rep who started a family as an incumbent. Everybody loved her and she worked right through pregnancy, breastfeeding, etc.

Then of course there was Jane Swift, who gave birth to twins while governor of Massachussets. Seems like she had to go on bedrest to avoid premature delivery -- but simply telecommuted from her bedroom! Smart woman. Citizens didn't tolerate it well when she had state employees watch her babies or misused the state helicopter.

Americans would never go for a pregnant president. Think about it -- they don't even trust pregnant women to make decisions about our own bodies! You can be jailed these days for refusing an induction or scheduled c-section. If women aren't allowed to make decisions about their own bodies, they surely won't be trusted with the country.

But I for one, would love to see how a pregnant woman would run the country. I can imagine she'd be strong, resolute, edgy, and full of laughter. Where is she? I want her!

How did Gov. Swift "misuse" the state helicopter?

Um, I think a pregnant woman president would be difficult because the age limit for president is 40 years old. It has been a while since I took American government, but I do believe that is the limit. Fertility declines drastically after 35 (and some even say 30). Not impossible of course, but not probable.

Hope,

The minimum age for president is actually 35. But in practical terms you're not likely to see someone under 40 run for the job.

OTOH, Elizabeth Edwards had her younger children after, what, 50? (I tend to wonder if she used her own eggs...but she says she had a grandmother or some relative who had kids almost as late in the era before fertility treatments.)

I do doubt that a president would ever go through pregnancy and childbirth in office, in any event.

Alan

Have you ever been pregnant (that is, carried to term?) I have not, of course, but I was married to a woman who did it twice. It was distracting to me, but it's not comparable to its effect on a woman. I mean, you see professional athletes all the time who become fathers while in the midst of a big playoff race or something; I don't think you see a lot of nine month pregnant women on the WTA Tour (my women's sport of choice). In fact, there was a woman who played a match when she had just become pregnant, and it created a minour stir; but that is a lot different from the end of pregnancy or the postpartum period.

Wow. What a wonderful way to both trivialize pregnancy and demonize it. "Men have babies all the time and it doesn't affect them, but women can't play tennis at nine months' pregnant so let's just just end the pretense right now."

Pregnancy is a fact of life. You don't like it, that's your problem, but spare us the bullshit about how it incapacitates women. Sounds like you have a bad case of projection of foisting off on women the character flaws you fear men have. Let's face it, anybody who'd had to treat a man for the slightest of injuries has to recognize who the weaker, whinier sex really is. IF men got pregnant, we'd die out as a species in a few years.