Tuesday, 3 March 2015

Discrimination is Theft

Well isn't it often the way that areas you'd not particularly warmed too would be the ones to take a stand. The burlesque (revival?) isn't my thing, but I must congratulate its denizens and supporters for giving what for on the club Lucky Pierre's decision to fire a performer called Ruby Rage, for being erm, voluptuous.

Ms Rage, who could hardly be classed as fat, given so many so called "slim" people in the west are pretty solid looking themselves, had been working at said club for a couple of months. During that time the curator (?) of the show Bella Blue, was told by the management that RR was not the sort of "image" they wished to portray and that she should find a slimmer woman instead.

She told them that RR was in the show because Blue felt she captured the true spirit of the form and replacing her with someone for their size might compromise the overall flavour of the show.

Despite this, management insisted and Blue had to let Rage go. 

It was one too many times for Rage and she decided wasn't taking it this time. She fought back, made a fuss and social media picked it up and gave the club some blowback.

Excellent, no sark!

That sub-heading sneakily tries to trivializes this with some penny ante misogyny: "Never tell a lady she is not [the] right body type." Please, as if it's about female vanity. No, this is about people being able to earn a living at things they're able to do/are good at, without being impoverished by the body police using that as a pre-cusor for their open-ended fraud.

Increasingly, fat phobic hegemony carrying on its mostly unchecked momentum is seeking more ways to assault people's finances. Whether seeking to fine them, tax them through the healthcare system and perhaps more sinister still, undermining people's ability to earn an honest living.

Then bullshitting to deny unemployment/disability assistance to boot.This momentum will not stop itself, it has to be countered by people being prepared to say no to its wing-nut bratty demands.

The club management came out oblivious and a bit casual. They provided a list of star performers of history, which was supposed to justify their idea that only slim performances are worth employing, or something. 

It must have been during an afternoon dip, because one of them was Mae West. Yeah, notorious Miss Bountiful, who was bigger than Rage in her Hollywood prime-she saved her studio- at a time when the world was (supposedly) slim. That's why the Spanish have siesta folks.

Anyway, the club stuck to its bone headed overture and Bella Blue-despite it being a major source of her income-resigned. The two have apparently teamed up with a view to putting on shows! That is what I call fellow feeling and solidarity. I'm looking at you, fat phobic sisterhood.

If I may put forward a suggestion to these excellent women. Turn your experience into a play/screenplay and even a burlesque theme! Stick it to those wooden ponies and make some compensation money, at their expense.

Monday, 2 March 2015

Taking Responsibility

A few things happened the other day. I was talking to someone and they mentioned they had high blood pressure. Just on the off chance, I asked them if they couldn't manage to lower it themselves. They got what I meant, I was not saying "Oh you totally could" I was asking if they were of a mind and had attempted to-in that they responded that they'd become more philosophical about things, in general. But, they still needed medication to manage their condition.

Fair enough.

Later in the evening, I watched a programme about women making choices about how they would give birth. There was an elective Cesarean, a water birth, a lotus birth-which keeps the umbilical cord attached to the placenta, which is carried around; until it withers away on its own- a woman who wished to consume her placenta and a free birth. The last woman wished to give birth on her own, with no one else there except her partner.

Though the often vigorous disapproval there can be wasn't shown, it was clear that this was cause for concern and required the woman to be rather stubborn. The woman who had the water birth I think-was also interesting, she prepared herself to deal with pain by training herself via affirmations and a programme of hypnosis. It included disassociating from it, re-framing sensations and the like.

Again, I was reminded how far away this is from the mainstream doctor/patient relationship and how all this sort of thing would be the norm and the norm not so, if the medical machine really desired us to take "personal responsibility." A term that has been weaponized and mindlessly used to beat fat people into treating hunger-a biological signal as some kind of optional interloper.

I thought, how would one assess the risk run by the free birther? Would it be more aptly calculated according to the specifics of herself and her situation? Or would a general overview be more informative? Perhaps both?

Either way, it would be taking a chance of some kind. How do you reconcile yourself if things go awry? Though medical practice is far more often than we'd like to pretend about mere convention, e.g. laying on your back to give birth, operating outside the medical aegis makes assessment of efficacy harder to ascertain.

It requires a mindset that differs from our expectations now to put "personal responsibility" into meaningful effect. Healthcare systems eschewed interest in 'prevention' until they could see a way to use it to get a hold of directing people and their lives. 

I never quite thought of it this way but I wonder how much that has affected the ability to keep lying about weight loss dieting. That happened mainly outside the medical remit, on the encouragement of the profession.

And despite the bad faith caused by the rejection of reality that was heartily embraced by the public. How many people haven't restricted or dieted at least once? The aim as long as I've been aware has been to keep us dieting and now that another wave of generation/s are seeing through restriction, it has been drawn into the medical aegis as they intend to try and impose it on those trained to be open to this kind of invasion and take over.

Medics could have of course made a partnership of those millions of people, during the dieting years. Encouraging them to take responsibility-if that's what they really wanted. That would have required them to accept the discipline of reality and keep informed of the feedback of millions-[as if they didn't already know.]

Instead that was used to deepen docility by opening a new front, breaking people's will under the guise of breaking a non-existent will to be fat. And the rest is non-history [according to them.]

Saturday, 28 February 2015

Forewarned is Disarmed: If you think you know Better

A new series called NHS £2 Billion a week and counting, is about what should and shouldn't be funded by the tax funded National Health System [NHS]. It asks the public to consider medical dilemmas related to the overall costs. What should be excluded from the NHS budget. Do I even need to tell you where this is inevitably going to go?

That's right, should 'obesity' be used as a blatant tool of rationing? Okay, they don't make it that explicit but we know that's what they mean. You just know "self inflicted" is going to be in the mix somewhere, don't you?

According to the first programme, the answer's yes it should. It featured a heavy drinker who needed a new liver and a fat woman who needed breast reduction-each was as big as two heads.

After much tooing and froing, the former was successful-he'd stopped drinking and was told if he began he would be off the list. The latter was not. The programme broadcast people's tweets live as the show was going out.

I'd like to say it was interesting, but it wasn't. It was pretty much predictable outpouring of judgmentalism for both candidates with islets of reason-you couldn't say one more than the other. Obviously, the main comment was the fat woman could solve her problem by losing weight-she'd already shed 70lbs/31kgs, though the actual principle was supposed to be whether cosmetic surgery should be allowed.

It is and it isn't- it varies.

In the end she paid for it herself, albeit at a reduced rate after going to the press. At a consultation before the surgeon told her, even if she managed a greater loss, she'd be unlikely to see much more loss from her breasts which were outstandingly large.

The whether a person should have weight loss surgery is a delight to come. I wonder if it will be mentioned that fat people have been telling people for decades that calorie restriction dieting was not cutting it. And that society chose to ignore this, that this was a gamble, which it lost and frankly, never tried to hard to win, on its own dictated terms and so anything that flows from that is called consequence.

Or even that no rigourous reality based pathway has been established-due to this mass elective delusion-so no real progression or learning curve has been established.

Or even that the social contract depends on you not attacking law-abiding people and casting them as villains, for your own personal gain. Or even-no taxation without representation/can't pay won't pay etc.,

We'll see..........

Friday, 27 February 2015

Skinny Bird Watching-Quelle Outrage

Hold the phone. Something terrible has happened.

What? Have people have had their humanity displaced by being defined as dis-ease? Epidemic? Is the medical machine trying to turn them into a silo for worthless toxic drugs, seeking to violate every piece of privacy a person has? Are they being denied medical treatment until they are able to overcome their bodies innate resistance to the imposition of pathology?

Non, nein and nope.

A new "plus size" fashion imprint decided to launch with a PR stunt it called #skinnybirdwatching trying even to get it trending on twitter. I can't be bothered to go into what this was supposed to be about-I didn't care then and I don't care now.

Luckily, even the type of fat women who would respond to this kind of crap-i.e. mainstream- are wising up. Unlike their slimmer counterparts who continue to ride 'obesity' bullshit as if its not dehumanizing assault on personal autonomy. They can whine though and act all hoity-toity as if they give a damn about anyone but themselves. They can really throw down some fake high dudgeon.

I hereby inform you that is supposedly a "body shaming" outrage. And this is what it looks like when slimmer women feel moved to get upset. Take a good look and imagine what it might look like if they gave half a damn about something truly outrageous.

Oh and by the way, fat women should be ashamed of this and should avoid it 'cos its a "bad move." And one fat person=all fat people;
The questionable move has inspired a collective disapproving reaction from people of all sizes, who recognize that skinny shaming is a bad move for anyone claiming to promote body confidence.
Oh really? Well the 'obesity' cult's still being worked by thin and slim women and they're seem happy with that. So each and every one who can only give a rats arse about themselves can shove their so called equally misplaced "outrage" where they think the sun shines out of. Some of us aren't remotely interested in their game of body size oneupmanship, that is not strategic that's ethics.

It's called, do unto others and I know how this system works, and I don't like it and want no part of it. How dare people take that for granted. People who don't feel they owe it to fat women and I certainly don't feel we owe it to slim women either, for that very reason. We abjure what is currently being embraced, because we don't believe in it. Not to be on our best behaviour as if we're on trial to be judged by those who happily partake of far worse than this fluff. When is that demanded of slim women by us? That they be perfect? That they always do the right thing?

We're still, how about you try connecting with some real feeling? I'd love to see that.

How Many Times: Bodies Do not Cause Eating Disorders

Here we go with another tedious installment of let's stay in denial and pathologize bodies as the source of anorexia, yahwn.

Repeat, anorexia is ultimately about susceptibility, meaning that you have to have some tendency towards it to succumb to it. But, the trigger of that susceptibility, i.e. how most find it out is through the hunger/appetite blocking practice of calorie restriction. Calorie restriction is the disordered and dysfunctional basis of all available weight regulation, hence people merely trying to stay the same weight find themselves inexplicably mimicking and triggering various disorders, including those of eating.

That includes more than anorexia or starvation disorders, it includes provoking the hunger/appetite (signalling) to go hyperactive too-the latter is a defense mechanism against potential starvation the former is a succumbing to the pressure of it.

What isn't the cause of anorexia is thin bodies who you'll find are thin people. Their appearance in the fashion meejah merely reflects the value accorded them by middle and upper classes, especially. The haute fashion biz is invariably chock-a-block with that strata. They naturally disseminate the currency and values of their class experience and milieu.

Until they are prepared for a genuine re-think, they need to stop this ridiculous pantomime of attacking the adolescent girls favoured to illustrate their fashion fantasies.

This combination plus the wretched 'obesity' crusade in overdrive is a ticking timebomb waiting to implode on those unfortunate enough to become "collateral damage."

Singling out a 16 year old weight outlier for abuse is not only bullying it's dishonest and no account. It seeks to criticize in a roundabout way, attitudes approved of by those doing the criticizing-which is why they enjoy being so virulent and nasty about it. Their own sense of guilt and shame.

I'm sorry that some with varying stages of anorexia etc., feel "triggered" by people, but, they'll just have to get over that. It's outrageous to demand the banning of bodies because of your personal problems. No one with "low-self esteem" would dream of such an imposition. You can't dump that amount of responsibility on someone who has no control over you, apart from anything, it doesn't address the problem.

Part of recovering from ED desensitizing overactive reactions - you might as well get on with that. In fact, this might be a cue for those who provide treatment to make this more important. Sending people out there who can barely tolerate the sight of another strikes me as somewhat of an oversight.

And if especially privileged middle and upper class people are too silly or brutish to tell their children-models get paid for their size, for the way they look, you do not-your job is to look like yourself, then they'd better do what they usually do, employ someone to do it for them

Wednesday, 25 February 2015

This is what Progress Looks Like

Here's some good news, Truvada an antiviral, has been found to reduce the spread of the HIV virus in a recent test. Though its not a particularly large scale study, the results on the face of it seem impressive and could be life changing for people, including the most marginalized, if not more so for them. This drug, which can be taken daily also treats HIV/AIDS, containing the virus.

It's always instructive to note what happens with genuine diseases. Those engaged in those respective fields of study look for real treatments, cure/s, plus even vaccines too boot-if apt.

Unlike the so called life threatening condition of 'obesity' which seeks only "prevention" i.e. don't "get it"/give us any work. As if that were all, don't forget, most medical science tends to start by dealing with those who have the most and acute pressing problems. In trying to grasp the nature of what they're dealing with more clearly. Because that would obviously be more important than people outside their field of study. 

'Obesity' pays little heed to this seemingly rational course. Turning it on its head, it seeks to center its attentions on people who aren't even its supposed target audience. Turning and using them only as cautionary tales, whilst all the while braying ceaselessly about the damage done being "evidence" of why those outside its cross hairs would do well to stay that way.

The reason why truvada and such happen is not because people liberate, stoke up and fully indulge their most bigoted urges. They happen because those in the field are totally invested in relieving suffering, avoiding ill health and death of those it exists to serve, regardless of their purported "moral" or perceived societal value or even how supposedly "easy" it is to avoid the real or imagined dis-ease.

Take HIV/AIDS. In the main, we're talking about avoiding sexual intercourse, not sex, nor even sexual gratification, no, we're talking penetration. Compared to what some of us are being asked to avoid, that hardly seems like a thing.

No matter though, that is of no concern. It becomes a thing, if, as in this case, people are trained that sex =sexual intercourse and well, it doesn't matter anyway, because the job of medical science is not moral philosophy and they aren't interested in that. Or they'd be in a different field altogether.

That is why real medical science doesn't piss away 40 years of effort on diddly squat. It makes progress and it works. Progress works and bullshit remains bullshit.

Friday, 20 February 2015

HAES is not the Paradigm Shift

HAES- "health at every size" refers to making wellbeing/ health decisions according to what works and makes sense to you-which is the norm for all humankind. Those choices go according to what best facilitates your ability to function, what suits you best and what is most sustainable for you. HAES came from fat people's own desire to re-assert a normalcy that had been derailed by official interference from medical healthcare influence and society as a whole.

In other words, its (fat) people behaving normally. 

The real paradigm shift happened when fat people were diverted from that cause in order to adopt calorie restriction as a way of life. That wasn't the initial intent, which was temporary. It spread to take over people's lives because its dysfunction and profound inefficacy did not act as a break on its imposition.

No "evidence" was produced to show that this made sense or even what it was supposed to achieve.

The instigator of this counter-intuitive, self harming and futile behaviour was people considered to be scientists and the actual medical profession. Via cultural imposition of discomfort and unease they sought to make good the idea of being as disease.

In other words, the main driver of calorie restriction dieting-which is repulsive to most people was escape at any cost, not a positive embrace of the foul. 

No "evidence" was produced as to show how this improved health or even would succeed in these purported goals. Which were supposedly slimness but look far more like deepening and containing a person in a no-man's land between discomfort and self abuse. What would be the point of seeking to ghettoize people as a class-by weight-in order to liberate them from said ghettoization?

No plan was made of how this was to work out. 

The basis of excusing this behaviour was pathologization of fat people or 'obesity' which posited people as slim with or without the imposition of an adipose suit that is a disease, a dis-ease generating organ etc.,

No proof could be advanced for this as it doesn't accord with anatomy. Declaring slim people as shrunken failed fat people cannot be proven as the premise doesn't hold. The human body is not ideology, its anatomy that's objectively observable.

No evidence advanced for which pathways would turn this kind of stress into health-in those above a certain body mass. No one would expect pathologizing (slim) people, defining them no longer as human but as dis-ease as leading to health benefits. So at least explanations would be required to explain why that changes.....

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

None was proffered. 

The reason I have difficulty with haes is, I have little idea why normality is being touted as a paradigm shifting novelty. This continues the learned habit of defining anything that comes from people as case for the defense. When actually, the prosecution has not proven its case.

In case of any undue excitement, its lack of such does not mean either the process of weight and weight itself cannot be a problem. I shouldn't have to mention that though, because its obvious the 'obesity' has little interest in dealing with that. Their case is solely about social engineering and doleing out punishment.

Deliberate intent to contrive unnecessary pathology goes against all the rules of health. Even a snake oil salesman or a quack knows better than that. This could be easy to miss in the case of 'obesity', because we're used to treatments for life threatening conditions, i.e. chemotherapy for cancer being almost as rough as the disease itself.

That is a by-product, a side effect of the treatment not its aim. That's the difference between real disease and 'obesity'- the former is a problem which treatment seeks to relieve whilst the main aim of cure is at the helm. 'Obesity' wallahs own estimation of 'obesity' is its nowhere near disease enough.