Good new/bad news

Boy, oh, boy. This is hard-hitting investigative journalism at its finest. ABC News was right on the money to focus a spotlight on an issue about which so few Americans have even the slightest inkling. Men like boobs. Who'da thunk, huh? Women like boobs. Women like that men like boobs, and the bigger the better. I hope America is taking notes. ABC News and research author extraordinaire Florence Williams might just be on to something.

Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History is the title of Ms. William's groundbreaking exposé. If the book's cover illustration of twin, lush and perky hills doesn't clue you in she's an authority on her subject, then the book's opening line surely attests to her intellectual credentials. "Funbags. Boobsters. Chumawumbas. Dingle bobbers. Dairy pillows. Jellybonkers. Nim nums," she begins in her informatively titillating style, for the benefit of all who have never enjoyed her privilege of attending junior high school or reading the etchings on public bathroom stalls. And so begins a whirlwind tour of fun facts Ms. Williams gleaned from the internet after literally thousands of milliseconds worth of research time was invested with sophisticated, scholarly research tools such as Wikipedia and Ask Jeeves. Hang onto your tits, now. Here we go...

"We love breasts, yet we can't quite take them seriously . . . they [breasts] can turn both babies and grown men into lunkheads," she writes.

Uh huh. When was the last time a nursing mother looked at her hungry infant clawing at her breast and said, "Oh, look! My Chumawumbas have turned my child into a lunkhead." Is that supposed to be some sort of proof that no one, not even a baby, can take breasts seriously?

Later, she claims breasts are "the most versatile organ in the female body." I had always thought it was the brain that was the most versatile organ, but maybe the female body in question is none other than her own. Perhaps her breasts have assumed rudimentary cognitive functions as a survival mechanism in the absence of more specialized organic hardware.

But then she gets all techno-jargon science-speaky, so I know she knows what she's talking about. "They [breasts, again] are made up of fat and estrogen receptors -- so they soak up pollution like a pair of soft sponges." Yet, in the absence of comparative data, I suspect she might be making that up. A quick text message to a former colleague who works as an emission controls engineer at Ford Motor company confirmed my suspicions. He called me right back and told me that never in the history of the industry has anyone used a pair of soft sponges to soak up pollution. When I asked if anyone has ever thought to use female breast tissue in catalytic converters there was a long, silent pause, and then he hung up on me. The jury is still out on that issue, but I still have my doubts.

ABC News claims Ms. Williams is an "award-winning science writer," but they dutifully neglected to mention what award it was that she won. I won a Certificate of Participation for my seventh-grade science fair project (A Comparative Analysis of Beans and their Flatulence Generating Properties), which included a write-up. So, that makes me an award-winning science writer, too. I should write a book about tits to compete with Ms. Williams'. Maybe a pop-up book.

ABC News goes on to inform us that Williams' book is chock full of informative gems: "Men like big boobs."; "Breasts tend to droop as women age."; and what is certainly her book's central message, "We live in an environment filled with pollution, these things will and do affect our health."

Thank you ABC News, and thank you Ms. Williams. Breasts are good, pollution is bad. The lives of millions of people the world over have been immeasurably enriched.
 
Well, for the record, this was on her website:

In 2007-2008, she was a Scripps Fellow at the Center of Environmental Journalism at the University of Colorado. She has received many awards, including six magazine awards from the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the John Hersey Prize at Yale. Her work has been anthologized in numerous books, including Outside 25, the New Montana Story, How the West Was Warmed and Best American Science and Nature Writing 2008.
 
Well, for the record, this was on her website:

yeah, there's sort of a flippant shoot first, ask questions later attitude permeating this place lately

I, for one, have a genuine interest in the subject of her piece, and am doing all I can to look into the problem first hand
 
yeah, there's sort of a flippant shoot first, ask questions later attitude permeating this place lately

I, for one, have a genuine interest in the subject of her piece, and am doing all I can to look into the problem first hand

Your dedication to science is admirable. :)

I'm currently reading (well I was until I got this cold and my head started to feel like it was full of cotton) Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex by Mary Roach. It's pretty funny and informative.
 
yeah, there's sort of a flippant shoot first, ask questions later attitude permeating this place lately

I, for one, have a genuine interest in the subject of her piece, and am doing all I can to look into the problem first hand

I meant that piece more as an indictment on picayune journalism than as a flippant cheap shot against Williams, for what that's worth. In their rush to get to print what they apparently believed was a titillating, ratings-grabbing fluff story, ABC News neglected to indicate Ms. Williams had any credentials beyond ownership of two breasts and an unspecified science writing award. The excerpts from her book they chose to showcase were moronically presented, and, I believe, were a grave disservice to Ms. Williams' work.
 
I agree that mynameisben's original objection to Florence Williams’ work is more accurately laid at the word processor of Susan Donaldson James. Williams certainly isn’t the first scientist to have her serious work turned into Sunday supplement Pablum by a journalist distorting it for fun or attention.

Whichever woman is responsible, she missed one old saw by a mere whisker: Mothers’ milk is "always the right temperature; it has the correct balance of lipids, proteins and sugars. It is medicinal, nutritious, and, to a baby, delicious,” and it is delivered in such attractive containers.
 
Agree about how it's sad that breasts are so sexualized. Trust me, not all of them look like we think they should.

I found a nice website a long time ago. It was advocating for girls to be proud of their bodies, and there was a function for girls and women to submit anonymous photos of their chests, to show that not all young women have round perky breasts.
 
Your dedication to science is admirable. :)

I'm currently reading (well I was until I got this cold and my head started to feel like it was full of cotton) Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex by Mary Roach. It's pretty funny and informative.

I thought it was hysterical, especially the part where she and her husband 'volunteer' (well, she volunteered) to have sex in an MRI. For science, of course . . .

Mary Roach is priceless.
 
I loved this bit:

"One in eight women will have breast cancer in her lifetime. "

My first thought was It ain't going to happen in someone else's, is it ?

[and no; any cancer is all too frighteningly real and NOT, of itself, funny]
 
I loved this bit:

"One in eight women will have breast cancer in her lifetime. "

My first thought was It ain't going to happen in someone else's, is it ?

I want to examine the posthumous breast cancer stats before I comment.
 
Back
Top