Monday, 23 May 2016

Attacking Bodies

I was puzzled by the story of a feminist group called "Cherchez la Femme" and an ad publicising one of their events. Little did I know it was going to turn into why mainstream feminism is too often stuck in an intellectual drain part Xty X.

The event question, mooted as a "talk show" will discuss fat acceptance/body positive and such. F**book [yes I'm aware only two **'s.] banned it from boosting the ad you see at the top of the banner of their page, featuring a picture of Tess Holliday in a bikini.

Now what thoughts are rushing into the void? Discrimination? [see comments underneath the post]. Or good on f**book for resisting the impulse to promoobo? [see DM commenters-probably responding to that headline].

All this despite Jessamy Gleeson a producer of said event, helpfully touching on f**book's actual problem, which is-to quote them,
Your ad wasn't approved because the image being used in the ad doesn't comply with our Health and Fitness Policy.
The image depicts a body or body parts in an undesirable manner. Ads may not depict a state of health or body weight as being perfect OR extremely undesirable. [my emph.]
You can see "undesirable manner" plus the last two words-"extremely undesirable" probably set some people off. We'll let them continue,
This includes ad images showing:
  • Close-ups of "muffin tops" where the overhanging fat is visible
  • People with clothes that are too tight
  • People pinching their fat/cellulite (even with full body visible)
  • Human medical conditions in a negative light (ex: eating disorders)
Any clearer? Here's the money shot,
Ads like these are not allowed since they make viewers feel bad about themselves.
And there we finally have it. Lying bunkum and balderdash about how mere viewing of bodies gives poor ickle womenz body boo, boos, have come home to roost.

Tess Holliday's form is apparently presented as an aspirational image, which might make less than perfect fatz feel bad about themselves. Boosting the ad featuring her image is therefore being blocked by f/b on the grounds that women's bodies cause women to have problems with their own bodies, totally against their will. If indeed they have one in this storyboard.

No wonder no-one got it!

Like every fat person, I've said I really miss(ed) the input of the mainstream bodied. But I keep waiting for the application of their business as usual twaddle to be of any earthly use to fat women. I don't wish to seem unnecessarily divisive, but a lot of what is said in the m/s about women 'n' their bodies is horseshit and stinks just as bad. Dishonest, bogus and heavy on the quack, ridden with psychobabble, blatant unconvincing placeholder type waffle.

It's only supported by the halo assigned to certain people.
Is it really bad of me to point this out? We know those phoning this in don't believe it either, 'cos they've told us. They bend over backwards to tell fatz we choose our bodies, and get very onery about any attempt to introduce the nuance of our actual experience [how dare we].

Not a little of that is due their own frustration and boredom with their own fakery and its dampening of honest exchange in this area but won't give it up. Well, it's status ain't it?

I couldn't help but be amused when on one forum some years ago, there was thought to be a suggestion [there wasn't] that slimz diet solely for the approval of others rather than personal fulfilment. They rightly felt the inference to be blazingly patronising [whether true or not]. "What, we're so pathetically supine that we cannot express urge to control our own bodies? We have to be 'oppressed' for that?"

There you have it. A tacit recognition of just how bad this nonsense about poor defenceless women starving themselves because of other women's bodies really sounds without the shield of m/s investment.

Just read that highlighted sentence again;
Ads like these are not allowed since they make viewers feel bad about themselves. 
For three year olds maybe.

Bodies do not cause eating disorders. And even if they did, tough. People's bodies cannot banned or pathologized because of other people's personal issues. There's also a sense of using body banning to avoid seeing someone you might envy and of finding ways to harass those you are jealous of, but don't have the authority driven funkfest that is the crusade.

[Oh yes they would.]

The only concern should be any undue exploitation of those who appear in such publicity, models, actors and the like. But as long as they aren't under duress to starve themselves, the body police can lump it.

Especially given that the problem is the denial of your agency by the white coat elite, intent on continuing to deny real means to help yourself. More effort can be put into techniques that could undermine and protect people from problems with hunger and food.

Thinspo is rank, it's hatred should be challenged, but the agency of those involved must be recognised, along with the context in which it operates. Insisting any reversal of weight must happen via calorie manipulation, encourages calorie restriction. It's not gone unnoticed that  thinspo is just a form of "weight management."

This little set-to should give pause for thought in going along with this other women's shady antics of the bodies cause me/someone else damage variety, this is where it can end up.

Now there's potential discussion with real bite. I wonder if CLF will take this ball on in their talk?

No comments:

Post a Comment