There are also other issues with OB/GYN's that don't tell patients in advance that they don't offer hormonal birth control as an option. One is money - doctor's visits are expensive, especially if you don't have insurance or you have high-deductible insurance. It's easy to say "the doctor can tell you during the office visit if he or she doesn't offer birth control". But will the doctor who only offers "natural family planning" waive the cost of the office visit if the patient decides she wants hormonal BC after all? In the age of $20 co-pays, people may not realize that a simple office visit can cost $200-$300 or more if you're paying cash (or are on a high-deductible insurance plan), and that's not cheap. There's also the question of time - I'd be pretty ticked off if I waited 6-8 weeks for an appointment, and then had to start the process all over at another doctor, because the doctor didn't tell me in advance she wouldn't prescribe what I needed.

On another topic, I know natural family planning works for some people, but I think some women are too quick to extrapolate from their own experience. I've never taken BC, and my "natural" hormones have led me to bleed for 11 months straight, and to go months without a period, and all kinds of other irregularities. I tried the natural planning system at one point (including the temperature taking and the mucus measurements) and it just didn't work at all. Natural family planning may work for some women - even many women - but it definitely doesn't work for everyone.

This kind of thing drives me nuts. When you look at thousands of men and thousands of women, there may be some differences overall – but those differences are minor compared to differences between individual men and individual women. But it’s easier to say “women do X” and “men do Y” than to look at individuals.

I’m unmistakably a woman – I have the DD’s to prove it – but I don’t fit into the “women do X” category very easily. I work in a “man’s” field, I’m not particularly maternal, I don’t talk a lot – and I only have two pairs of shoes. Shocking! But the people who agree with these books are the same people who tell me I must be a “fake woman” or somehow “flawed” because I don’t fit into their stereotype of “what a woman is like”. We’re all individuals, people! Your chromosomes aren’t the sum total of who you are!

I've voted in every election since I was 18, and I don't intend to stop now. But it does get tiring, voting for candidates who repeatedly ignore issues that affect the single and childless. (I don't expect to be pandered to, but every now and then, couldn't I be mentioned?) But what drives me absolutely crazy are candidates who imply that the only important or worthy voters are people who have children. Sadly, this affects Democrats as well as Republicans (including one Democratic candidate who lost my vote forevermore because of his repeated referrals to those with children as "the only real Americans"). I vote for generous school budgets and child care tax breaks because I think it's good for the country as a whole and it's the right thing to do. But I think I'm still a "real American" and my issues are important too, even if I won't ever reproduce.

It's kind of insulting for a candidate to tell me on one hand, "I want your vote" and then turn around and say "you're not a real American".

I've never understood the phobia that so many feminists have about pink. It's a color, not a political statement. I happen to like pink, and it suits my coloring a lot better than the ubiquitous black or red, so I wear it quite often. It hasn't stopped me from working in a male-dominated field, or supporting myself in my career, or doing anything else I've wanted to do.

I don't think women with breast cancer are supposed to use their pink Kitchen Aid to make cookies in between treatments. It's a way for Kitchen Aid to show their financial support for breast cancer research (and presumably get more sales from women who want to support a socially responsible company). If we were all logical, we would donate money to breast cancer research directly, instead of doing it indirectly by buying more expensive pink items. But people aren't logical - otherwise people wouldn't go to fancy fundraiser dinners, or fundraiser golf tournaments - they'd just write a check and save the charity the cost of putting on the event. But people are more likely to give to charity if they can "give" to themselves at the same time - either by going to a fancy dinner or buying a nice mixer that they've been wanting. That's not limited to breast cancer fund raising - or just to women.

The bigger scandal is companies that try to fool concerned buyers by selling special pink items and then give little or none of the profit to breast cancer charities. Don't assume that just because something is pink, it's supporting breast cancer. Check the label.

I'm adopted, and I've often felt uncomfortable with certain aspects of the adoption process (both within the U.S. and international). But I feel even more uncomfortable when celebrities spend thousands (tens of thousands!) on well-publicized infertility treatments, surrogates, etc. instead of considering adoption. If Madonna had chosen to go this route instead, she'd probably be on the cover of People magazine with a headline about how great it was that she was expanding her family. I have no idea whether Madonna is really after publicity or self-promotion, and certainly she should be subject to the same rules about adoption as other people, but I hate to think that this firestorm about her adoption will discourage other people (celebrity or otherwise) from considering it. There's enough of a negative attitude about adoption already.