Thursday, 14 March 2013

Weight judgement rebounds

Are people stuck in the land that hates fat ever capable of joining up their thinking? Gwyneth Paltrow has apparently decided to avoid feeding her children carbohydrates and this has amazingly caused consternation among some nutritionists, yawhn.

Before you lose the will to live, fat hating food activist (how many of them aren't?) Joanna Blythman isn't happy. It seems the weight shaming cemented in the public consciousness by a certain crusade is being applied to the wrong targets;
Paltrow is putting her children, aged eight and six, "at risk of nutrient deficiencies", warns one. Her children "won't be able to think straight as their brain won't be functioning", says another.
Now where have we heard that kind of thing before? Not that I'm dismissing or concurring just noting- the same points are made in the same partial and biased manner. Setting out to provoke, upset and manipulate reactions, rather than to illuminate

Why do those who are slim and/or their supporters think they can bang on ceaselessly, defining fat people's weight as a record of habits morals and character-as diagnosis-yet take for granted that this will somehow not be used on them?

The weight spectrum as risk factor is U-shaped

That's kind of how the concept of privilege works. It's not, the atmosphere's neutral and some have gold, silver, brass or nothing in their pockets to help them along. It's more that the atmosphere is unforgiving. Some get shielded from that, others less so.

The momentum of the attempt to classify and regulate fat bodies is already known to be rolling over everyone-to those who are looking at it the right way. The extent to which this use of weight has been re-inforced constantly, is too much to remain contained solely in fat people.

It's one of the reasons why FA people have been so shocked by the hostility of those who usually tend to promote the idea of united we stand, divided we fall. 

Disconnection from fat people puts empathy in a stupour. This means others fail to make the right connection between what they're going along with, when it starts on them. Often they react by pointing fingers at fatness. That always feels so right; is even observed that Paltrow's children are thin – shock horror! – as if this was automatically cause for concern. So accustomed are we to the sight of overweight children, thin ones are beginning to look unusual.
Typically sophorific lack of insight. 
Casting Paltrow in the role of the neurotic celeb, selfishly inflicting her own faddy and dangerous eating habits on her poor starved offspring, has undeniable appeal, especially for those of us who aren't rich or pretty and who struggle daily with our own excess weight.
Right, if you replaced the relevant parts with fat or 'obese' would it make any difference? JB bemoans this critique of Paltrow's book;
"The book reads like the manifesto to some sort of creepy healthy-girl sorority."
The feeding of fat children is often portrayed in this kind of sinister way, it is frustrating, divisive and unnecessary. Though frankly, healthism can sometimes be quite odd if you look at it more objectively and I say that as someone who used to be very into that way of eating.

Many haven't noticed this because it rationale has had a free pass for a long time. Never has it been continually subject to its own critique  of diets it considers less than optimum.

As for carb free/low carb I agree with the sentiment that going without is unlikely to do to do any more harm won't than any other faddy diets. That is, the effects will eventually be seen no doubt, if they stick with it. I daresay it's the usual case of a different set of upsides and downsides in the end. 

No comments:

Post a Comment