Monday, 20 February 2012

Agreeing to disagree

This Feministe thread on the Atlanta strong4life assault (not linking) has turned out to surpass my expectations. Alas, that is saying nothing when it comes to * human-as-disease, because the standard is so low that one can run out of air just thinking about it.

I appreciate the hint of exasperation in appealing to feminists/social justice enthusiasts;

Whether or not you feel that obesity should be targeted as a self-contained epidemic, however you feel about approaches to encourage healthy eating and activity, whether or not you believe that this “strong message” is one that needs to be sent, can we at least agree that the trauma of shaming children isn’t worth the message? Or are we expected to see kids as acceptable collateral damage in the War on Fatties?
That's a three part caveat lead up to a plea and we all know that we cannot agree even with all that, not by a long shot. I'm not mocking, its a wry amusement born of years of a grindingly consistent overall response from progressives/ feminists, basically, see fatz as human? No can do.

That is and has always been fine with me, in the sense that I don't care about people who 'think' that way. I just didn't expect them to. Yes, I'm feeling rather sheepish about that. But to be fair, I'd feel the same way about it if I was a conservative I mean, in our somewhat spoilt capatalist/ consumerist playground, who epitomise a readiness to pointlessly expend wreckless and punishing amounts of energy to often no reward and actual cost than fat people?

Conservatives should have a deep affection for us and what we represent.

Note the answer to the last question; in the quote is yes, we are expected to see kids whether they are fat or susceptible to anorexia as being expendable because it's not a crusade to increase well being and health, war is right, but its a war within the people who've latched on to it. Trouble is they've cited the "battle ground" outside themselves in other people-they wouldn't wish to be in receipt of the damage they seek to inflict on their targets.

If this sounds shocking, or like I'm making folks out to be too bad. It's in the nature of things that are important, to us, that we involve children. Look at religion. Now if you're against it, you could see that as 'brainwashing' or cruel. Though the vile obesity crusade/cal res worship is worse than a lot of religious people in general, think fundamentalist.

The extent to which people are on board with it, has to be fundamentalist, that is, the ideology or theology is more important than even good or bad effects, because it's in the nature of the central theme.

It must be performed and practiced for its own sake. In this case people must live by calorie restriction, therefore division of good and bad foods. Fatz must always be "in sin", always punished, like folks in hell who burn in the eternal fires of hades or some such.

Susceptability to anorexia, must be labelled "insane", marginalized and othered-with the collusion of many of them too-as they expose the truth about the cult of cal res.

Don't think all this is a complaint as such, I'm getting too resigned-again- for that. The emphasis of the issue falls, for me on allowing myself to feel I have to work within these parameters. I'm again running out of even the abstract once removed rationale as to why I'm supposed to force myself to care. I increasingly I just can't and therefore, don't.

Again, not so much world weary, just increasingly distanced and dissociated from the terms of "engagement". <-------LOL on this word.

* 'obesity'

No comments:

Post a Comment