Thursday, 23 July 2009

The opinion finds a mouthpiece on its wavelength

Over at shapely prose, A Sarah takes on Michael Karolchyk a self publicist guy with that peculiar kind of hysteria about what he claims is the excess weight of the surgeon general appointee, Dr. Regina Benjamin. Or should I say histeria- waggishly referred to as 'roid rage'? The thing is a lot of people complain about the anti-obesity argument being presented by this guy and others like MeMe Roth.

What! I say it should only be presented by these kinds of people, preferably in their most acute state of neurotic ardour. For two reasons. One, their level of discourse reflects the true level of the anti-obesity argument a factor that is usually hidden by a cloak of pseudo (scientific) credibility.

Two, they accurately reflect the results of living according to its dictates. Everyone knows about MeMe and her running miles before she eats. Far from this being "obsessive" because that's who she is as is sometimes inferred, this is the kind of behaviour required to sustain the euphemism that is 'lifestyle change/choice' and the angry attitude is a product of doing that to oneself.

That is why it has to be turned into euphemism in the first place, to hide the essential neurosis of a life built around expending as much energy as possible.

It feels less like choice though than sublimation. It is called a lifestyle because that phrase refers to your life, what used to be called your modus vivendi-method of living. This flows directly from what you believe in and what you hold to be important.

That's a form of self expression. To pretend that the way these people live is a lifestyle is only correct, if that flows from your deeply held philosophies, this is much more of an imposition. It is enforced using all sorts of punitive measures, so how can it really be so?

Defining it as a lifestyle choice mocks the intelligence of the person living this way. It has to be forced, imposed, whether you do it to yourself or feel pressure from others.

And it is the obesity crusade that is a movement to spread and inculcate the notion that fatness is a disease that requiring you to live the way you are told. I mean really, what is the legitimate 'anti-obesity' argument?

What is the cogent one that deals with reality, rather than delusion? If you believe that weight regulation is a purely conscious matter after everything this is what you believe, no matter how you dress it up. When people like this speak it's as if the rationale of anti obesity is finding it's true expression.

For far too long it's been dressed up by the respectability of those delivering it. It is sexist, it is annhilating to the personalities and sentience of all fat people, whomever they are.

The respectable don't have anything better they can only say it 'nicer', big deal they are still talking shite. It's not that anti's like this are undermining the argument, it has been falsely elevated by being invested with the gravitas of science, rather than its own merits which are about the same as this gymed out wingnut. 

No comments:

Post a Comment