Doppelgänger
Ira Glass is something else. He’s smart. He’s funny. He’s nerdy-sexy. Terrifically so.
In other words, my type.

But my husband defies all adjectives, without the glasses.

So you can imagine that when my mother-in-law told me—after I took this picture, panting, sweating, fanning myself—that she was giving these glasses to my nephew, Thanksgiving almost got ugly. Had my sweet nephew not seen that they truly belong on someone else, I might have been the fugitive on CNN this past weekend.
Silly Girls: Delicate sensitivities don’t need to be burdened with mammos or paps
Oy vey, did the newsreel trip the light fantastic over women’s healthcare last week, or what? Separated by a matter of days were two important recommendations pertaining to feminine health, both of which are dramatic shifts from that which American women know and expect and to which we’ve been trained to adhere.
On Friday, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) announced a recommendation that women not receive their first pap smear until age 21. The new guidelines are aimed primarily at reducing an “over-treatment” of HPV, a common sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer. The ACOG rationalized not testing young women for HPV today because of supposed and potential harm the treatment of the virus might bring to babies they’ll have someday.
According to the press release on the ACOG website, “Moving the baseline cervical screening to age 21 is a conservative approach to avoid unnecessary treatment of adolescents which can have economic, emotional, and future childbearing implications.” While the immune system takes care of an HPV infection within one to two years for most adolescents, this no-pap-policy seems sort of like the what-you-don’t-know-won’t-hurt-you of sexually transmitted diseases. Oh, and that fetuses come first, even when they’re decades away from existing.
Two days before the ACOG announcement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent, government-appointed panel, upped the age (from 40 to 50) when they think American women should begin getting regular mammograms. This panel, with at least three insurance-industry specialists and not one oncologist or breast-cancer expert, and whose members have been as close to touching my breasts as my primary-care physician, warned against the harms of mammography, dangers that include discomfort and anxiety.
Hackles went up all across the country with this news: The collective shudder nearly caused my car to veer off a cliff. Or the erratic driving could have been the result of my general stupor upon hearing the next part of this “expert” panel’s recommendation: The USPSTF is recommending “against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination.”
(Insert pounding of fists on steering wheel here.)
That the new ACOG guidelines followed so closely the recommendation from the USPSTF is an interesting coincidence. Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia of ACOG called it “an unfortunate perfect storm.” Because the ACOG is an organization of actual doctors, and not a panel of lobbyists, and because it’s basing its (also hair-raising) decision on actual science, I’m inclined to believe Iglesia was being sincere.
I do not, however, extend the same benefit of a doubt to the USPSTF. It’s likely they knew the ACOG was publishing its update in the December issue of The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and, in a politically calculated move, released their controversial recommendations first. Certainly, it would explain their baffling choice not to inform the National Institutes of Health and, therefore, the president, who, to the lip-smacking joy of the anti-health-reform crowd, was caught off-guard.
But more than any of this political raw hamburger being gobbled up by GOP operatives—town criers who act as if they actually give a fly’s wing-beat about anyone’s health care, let alone a woman’s—is what these recommendations say about contemporary attitudes toward women and our ability to make choices about our bodies and our health.
Since when have doctors ever advocated not diagnosing an STD? Would it not be better for sexually active women to get pap exams and know their test results? Wouldn’t it make more sense for healthcare professionals to change the way they approach the treatment of HPV and use the knowledge gained from testing to help their infected patients be aware of spreading the disease?
And why shouldn’t women have a clear baseline image of their breasts at age 40? Why shouldn’t we, at the very least, have the choice to decide whether the risk of exposure to small amounts of radiation inherent in a mammogram is one we are willing to take? Barring that, why shouldn’t all women be taught what their normal breast tissue feels like? It’s not like it’s costly or complicated: I learned how to do it from the back of a flier I got at Planned Parenthood during college.
If we know what our normal breast tissue feels like, we will know what abnormal breast tissue feels like. Certainly, I knew abnormal when I felt it, and I can count three friends off the top of my head whose lives have been saved because they knew, when their doctors didn’t have time to.
While I’m sure there is more to each of these recommendations than what’s being revealed in the current news cycle, none of them sits well with me. Taken all at once, it feels like there is one very clear message for women and it goes something like this:
There, there, little girls, you can’t handle the truth and, really, why should you have to? Why should you—sweet, gentle petunia—be burdened with a silly little thing like information? Empowerment is so overrated. And too many choices is, well—it’s just confusing! You go back in there to the kitchen and make your big strong man a nice dinner and don’t forget to represent all the food groups. Then breastfeed your babies with modesty, preferably not in public, thank you. You love those babies, cuddle them and then have some more. And don’t you worry your pretty head about your breasts or that thing down there between your legs.
But perhaps I’m just being a silly, overly emotional, dramatic, temperamental girl who needs to smile demurely, speak only when spoken to and not concern myself with what’s happening inside my body.
Speaking of bras…
…let’s talk about breasts.
This week, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) released a new set of recommendations for breast cancer screening that turns on it’s head what women have come to expect as far as screening for breast cancer, the second leading cause of death in American women.
Recommending that women not receive mammograms until the age of 50 and then once every other year after that, the USPSTF has concluded that “the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years of age or older.”
That part about “current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms” raised my eyebrows. Insufficient evidence to make a call either way? So that means this influential panel upends the current protocol—mammograms every one to two years beginning at age 40— instead of sticking with it?
*Shakes head.*
Call me crazy but the new guideline instantly made me think this is has something to do with money. But what really got my hackles up was this next part about how the USPSTF “recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination.”
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!? As if the first part of this announcement wasn’t disturbing enough on its own, this second bit feels utterly irresponsible and lazy and callous and pitiable and oy vey, I need a drink. Or a bong hit. Or a shopping spree at Anthropologie with Michael Bloomberg’s credit card.
Now, perhaps there’s a reasonable reason for postponing mammograms. Probably not, given all that copious “insufficient evidence,” but I’m willing to suspend disbelief for a moment and offer a one-time-only benefit of a doubt on this one. I’m feeling generous today. But how, how, HOW can it be bad for a woman to learn what her normal breast tissue feels like? Someone? Anyone? Bueller? Because if you know normal breast tissue when you feel it, you will know abnormal breast tissue when you feel it. You feel me? Which makes me think immediately of my friend Amanda.
Isn’t she gorgeous? Vivacious? Young? Indeed. Gorgeous, vivacious, young Amanda found a lump in her breast with her very own fingers and was diagnosed with stage-3b breast cancer when she was just 27 years old.
Amanda is a breast cancer survivor. You can read Amanda’s story here.
I’m curious to know: How do you women (and my male readers, too) feel about this dramatic shift in women’s health care? Do you feel like maybe we’re getting the shaft? Just a little?
Burn ‘em all: From training bra to sleeper bra, we’ve come a long way, baby
It was the image of the bra on my computer screen that caught my attention. I was sure, on first glance, that the lady mannequin was wearing it backwards, what with the way her aerodynamic ta-tas were left uncovered by the absence of fabric that normally holds them in place.

But quite the opposite from being worn backwards, this cupless bra was intentional: La Decollette is the brainchild of a Brit who grew tired of waking to the horror of chest wrinkles. I just call them chinkles. It’s easier.
In case you’re my editor—or a gay man or a carefree, 20-something co-ed who rightly has no idea what I’m talking about—chinkles are caused after years of side sleeping (sun damage doesn’t help). It’s when uninhibited boobs collide in the night, the result being a series of jagged, vertical lines decorating the décolletage. Be warned, oh young ’uns, and start sleeping on your backs ASAP.
Chinkles are just another in the laundry list of aging women’s battles, and now, for £45 ($80), Rachel de Boer is offering all of us a way to fight back in the form of a revolutionary bra to be worn at night. Never mind that you could jump down from the treadmill, towel off, spin your sports bra around and have the exact same thing—minus two cute bows. The bigger issue here is: Dear Lord!—who wants to wear a bra when she’s sleeping? The first thing I do when I walk through the door at the end of a busy day is the magic bra-through-the-shirt-sleeve routine. The second thing I do is toss it with one quick motion as far away from my body as possible, flinging it to the floor where it will stay until I need to use it again in the morning.
Don’t get me wrong. I adore a lacy lovely every now and then, especially when wrapped with a bow and left tucked in my lingerie drawer for my private discovery.

But overall, I have a general disdain for bras, and whenever I go shopping for one, I can’t help but think of what a rush I was in to need one way back in 1981 when I was but a wee dork. A flat-chested, braces-having, Mork from Ork suspender-wearing dork.
As it happens, my next-door neighbor Heidi was not any of those things. We were the same age, but, somehow, she was light-years ahead in pretty much every way. She was sophisticated, worldly, beautiful and developed. More than anything, I wanted to be like her. If Heidi was serious, I was serious. If Heidi swung her pigtail when she walked, I swung my pigtail when I walked. Heidi was on track to become a concert violinist, so I convinced my mother to buy me a violin. Today, Heidi plays Carnegie Hall and I? Well. I know who Itzhak Perlman is.

At age 11, though, what I wanted more than anything was Heidi’s boobs. One could argue that, had I chosen to practice the violin even 30 minutes each day, I might have been able to give a recital of “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” at our local library within the month. But there was no amount of I must! I must! I must increase my bust! chanting that was going to give me the result I wanted, the result that wouldn’t happen for another grueling four years. Thanks, mom, for the biology.
Since my exercises were fruitless, I had my mother take me to buy what was then called a training bra and what I hope, for the sake of my daughter, is no longer called a training bra. The fitting was humiliating, first because there was nothing to fit and next because some orange-haired nana at Girls World with chinkles all up and down her giant exposed bosom, was charged with measuring and pulling and tugging and analyzing, all while my mother looked on. Good times.
I came away with three training bras, not one of which you could tell I was wearing when I was fully clothed. So I took to wearing very tight Izod shirts over my very sophisticated I’m-growing-up bras, which I wore all the time, even when I slept—ahead of my time, I was—and which very nearly brings me full circle. I always made sure a strap was somehow exposed, not a lot, just a smidge, because I’m classy like that. And then, because a bra should be filled, I took to stuffing it with neatly folded layers of toilet paper that left my “breasts” looking less like budding orbs and more like Tefillin you see strapped to the foreheads of Rabbis the world over. That I went out in public with my shoulders thrown back, unapologetic and prouder than hell was nothing short of foreshadowing. Of what, I will leave up to you, Reader.
And now I find myself today looking at what the Daily Express calls a “revolutionary bra designed for women who suffer from wrinkles between their breasts,” and I’m scratching my head. I’m no longer the girl with the boxy breasts that could put an eye out, and I’m not yet the poster woman for the anti-chinkle bra. I’ve been one and the other may be my fate—I am a side sleeper, after all. But do I really want to sleep in a bra at night simply so that my breasts don’t flop over on each other? What if this revolutionary bra causes them to slide into my armpits? What then, I ask? What. Then.
The women of Holland may have bought into the gimmick, but this girl’s jury is still out. If I do decide to give it a go, barring an offer of a free product for testing, I’ll give my $14.99 Target sports bra a spin around the mattress.
(As published today in San Diego CityBeat.)












