In a Today Show segment worthy of The Onion, a bemused-looking Ann Curry interviews Women's Health editor Michele Promaulayko and Dr. Shari Lusskin of NYU on this supposed phenomenon. Says Promaulayko (a former editor of Cosmo who once pumped her staff for more stories in the "dead bridesmaid" vein),

Big families are having a moment right now, it's very much in the zeitgeist.

After this little game of buzzword madlibs, Promaulayko continues,

There is sort of an addictive quality to being pregnant, there are a lot of things happening physiologically and psychologically that would drive a woman to keep doing this.

There is, of course, always the chance that women are getting pregnant to have more kids, instead of to feed their addiction to bumpahol. Ann Curry asks Dr. Lusskin when we should be concerned about a woman's rampant spawning. Lusskin says,

We're concerned about this when women are doing it to the exclusion of the other factors in their life, in other words that drive to become pregnant just supersedes everything else, almost like Species, you know that movie?

Got it — so when women transform into alien-human hybrids who need human sperm in order to perpetuate their race of killer tentacle-beasts, it's time to worry. There's a lot more fun stuff in the clip, including Dr. Lusskin grinning maniacally as she discusses post-partum depression, but to see if there was a grain of truth behind all this hysteria, we looked at the original Women's Health article that inspired the Today Show segment. Called "The Belly-Rubbing High," it's written by Martha Brockenbrough, who also penned It Could Happen to You: Diary of a Pregnancy and Beyond (obviously an addiction memoir). The article includes several head-splittingly obvious statements like, "Having babies isn't addictive in the way that alcohol and narcotics can be," and requisite namechecks of various big families (the Octomom! The Duggars!). But it also offers this advice:

If you do find yourself feeling a void as your bundle of joy becomes a toddler, "that's a good sign that it's time to look in the mirror and figure out what's going on with you," says Ann Pleshette Murphy, author of The Seven Stages of Motherhood: Loving Your Life Without Losing Your Mind. "Invest in yourself. Though it may never be as satisfying as what we get from taking care of our kids, it's important to feel proud of something you do outside of child-rearing so that you don't think of yourself as 'only a mom.'"

Really? Investing in yourself may never be as satisfying as taking care of your kids? And yet, when taking care of said kids, you're in danger of feeling like 'only a mom?' If there really are women who are addicted to being pregnant (and Ann Curry, to her credit, doubts this is very common), might it have something to do with this double-edged sword? Once you have a baby, you're expected to think of raising it as more important than your own life, but at the same time you're at the mercy of those who think of child-rearing as an inferior activity. For some, pregnancy might be a respite from this conflict, a time to anticipate the joy of a child without yet dealing with the difficulties of being a mom (although pregnant women do get plenty of judgment about what they eat, drink, wear, etc.). Brockenbrough closes her article thus:

"Me time" can include big things-like going back to work or starting your own business from home-or small, daily experiences that enrich your life, such as heading to the gym or joining your girlfriends for dinner and cocktails. It's only when you have a balanced life that you can be sure the inner call for a new addition to your family should be answered.

If some women really do have a problematic relationship with pregnancy and childbearing, maybe the solution isn't to tell them when they should have kids (what is "a balanced life" anyway?). Maybe we should quit sending them mixed messages, quit judging and second-guessing them, and just leave them the fuck alone.

"Bumpaholics": Women Who Love Pregnancy [MSNBC]
The Belly-Rubbing High [Women's Health]

The Minnesota research team assessed 540 non-adopted adolescents, 514 internationally-adopted adolescents and 178 domestically-adopted adolescents from the ages of 11 to 21, according to a press release. The study also interviewed adoptees directly, as opposed to relying on questionnaires filled out by parents, as prior studies had.

Keyes made sure to emphasize to Time that even though adoptees are more likely to have a rough time during adolescence, potential parents shouldn't be deterred. "Males are likelier to have behavior issues... But no one is overly concerned about having boys," Keyes said. She also added, "All adolescents struggle with finding their identity. It makes sense adopted children would struggle more than most."

Adoptees More Likely to be Troubled [Time]
US Teens Adopted As Infants Appear To Have Moderately Increased Odds Of Mental Health Problems [EurekAlert]

According to the Financial Times, there's a charity in the UK, Oxpip, devoted to helping parents in their relationship with their babies. Researchers believe that early relationships shape an infant's brain and nervous system; babies born to parents with attachment disorders often have emotional and mental health problems later in life. It's enough to make you wonder if you should just skip the mommy thing, especially if you're not naturally a "baby person."

I'm one of those people who doesn't just automatically like babies. I can recognize a cute baby when I see one (Zahara!), but I'm not "into" infants. (My sister, who is in veterinary school, is the same way, and has been known to declare: "I don't like baby humans.") I'm neither married nor at the point in my life where I'm seriously considering having kids, and the lukewarm (at best) feelings I have about babies make me wonder if I even want to have any. Ever. But saying so makes me feel vaguely guilty. Should a woman who is reluctant about motherhood have a baby anyway? And if you have a child and feel a sense of regret, are you a bad mother?

Women Who Aren't Cut Out For Motherhood [Times of London]
Welcome To The Nuthouse [Salon]
When The Magic Of Motherhood Is Missing [Financial Times]
Related: Oxford Parent Infant Project

A "lifestyle divide", in which women take on the burden of domestic duties, creates a vicious circle as they are then less able to work the long hours needed to win top jobs. They then earn less and are reinforced as responsible for household tasks, says the Europe-wide research.

Ms. Harris commented on an L.A. Times article ("Moms Over 40 A Risky Trend," by Mary Engel), writing: "This story (along with others like it) also misses a broader cultural point. 'Their 40s just seemed to sneak up on them,' Engel writes. Right. But doesn't that happen to lots of us these days — especially as our 20s have become the time to NOT settle down? Isn't everything happening later, including old age?... Every decade is 'the new' previous decade."

What are we supposed to do in a world where women can dream of "having it all" and instead find themselves doing it all?

Career Women Work Longer Hours Than Men [Telegraph]
Childcare Locks Women Into Lower-Paid Jobs [Guardian]
"Their 40s Just Seemed To Sneak Up On Them" [Salon]
Related: Moms Over 40 A Risky Trend [LA Times]

The problem here is the same problem with "chick lit". Just cuz you're chick who likes lit doesn't mean you're gonna like chick lit. And if you've given birth and like to read, does that mean you want to read about fictional moms and their wacky, plucky adventures?

Maybe it's to be expected after the bestseller I Don't Know How She Does It sold millions of copies worldwide. But is there something demeaning about being marketed to this way? Like, hey, you, with the womb: Got something for ya! You're gonna love it! On the other hand, is it refreshing to see that, since women buy 70 to 80% of fiction, they're being recognized? But do moms want to read about other moms? Or would they rather escape into a story about someone whose life is completely different from their own?

Book Roundup: Mommy Lit [USA Today]
Earlier: The Problem With Chick Lit

TMZ Creators' Next Target: Moms [Silicon Alley Insider]

I just went and filled in for someone teaching a workshop on choosing single motherhood. Even though the women I know who have done it are attractive, successful, great women, even though I hope that I fit into that description as well, and I don't feel like there is anything wrong with me, I went into that workshop expecting to see a bunch of losers. And I was surprised to see a bunch of really attractive, articulate, educated, successful women. And when I realized I was surprised, I thought: "What is the matter with you?"

And Baby Makes Two [Salon]

Less than a third of mothers with a baby get hands-on support from their own mum at least once a week. On the in-laws front, more than a third never help.

Look, we love modern conveniences, and we're not retro, but were mothers ever supposed to be home alone with the kids all day? We have fantasies that things used to be easier. Surely our tribal ancestors had kids and then went back to weaving, fishing, berry picking and stuff, while the tribal elders watched the kids over in the day-care hut? And maybe the infant mortality rate was high, and life expectancy was short, but no one felt isolated and alone while holding a screaming infant, and waiting for their husband to come home from boozing with the boys, right? Right?

Babies Destroy Social Life, Say New Mothers [Telegraph]