Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts

Tuesday, 6 November 2018

Viner Doll Emission

What in the SEO is this?
Elaine Gormley was desperate when she turned to slimming pills. She had been obese since childhood, but lost a significant amount of weight by going to Slimming W💀rld classes in her early 20s. One in three slimmers have purchased pills online, according to the joint #FakeMeds survey by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Slimming W💀rld.......Golder and Gormley eventually lost their weight healthily, thanks to Slimming W💀rld.
Sense a running theme here? It's supposed to be hidden by asking a question with an obvious answer; Why is the market for slimming pills booming?
“Everything I read and saw on TV said obesity was linked to every cancer you could imagine. It frightened me into thinking, ‘You’ve got to do something, you’ve only got yourself here for the kids now,” she says.
The 'obesity' blockade on relevance if not science, supports the weight must be lowered solely through calorie restriction and/or exercise purging, often for life rule.

Given the endless moaning about increase in societal body mass, its obvious that this is irrelevant relic of history. Science has produced a stream of "miracle drugs" [i.e. drugs that actually work], so there's a sense that an effective intervention should have arrived long ago. People taught slimming drugs are the "holy grail", will be on the look out for them.

Virtually any slimming drug ever promoted by health care has been harmful, ineffective, often both.

It is still entirely rational to sense changing your weight is inherently a trivial non-issue that should be something your body does whilst you get on with your life, not something you have to permanently sink significant parts of your conscious bandwidth too, something that configuration of your brain was never designed for.

Every time life throws a curveball, you're supposed to expect to fall off, imagine if contraception "worked" that way. 

Rather than face facts the guardian appears to be continuing to double down on its attempts to salvage itself at least in part by using the forces of 'obesity' promotion + commercial slimming. Writer Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett just sounds like another transmission outlet for her mistress's voice.
When it comes to losing weight, most of us know the only real way to do it is a sustained period of healthy eating and exercise, requiring hard work and patience.
A real Viner doll in fact. The latest in a lengthening line, including token males Denis Campbell and George Monbiot.

When guardianwoman especially tries to release their inner conservative on other women in this way, it's like women who'd tell their daughters to stay in abusive relationships due to the "sanctity of marriage", not convincing. To be that, you have to apply that same level of empty conservatism to yourself, and they most definitely don't.

When Rosie Boycott-seen over here as a pioneering second waver-claimed 'obesity' was a side effect of feminism,
A food expert and adviser to Sadiq Khan has claimed the current obesity crisis was fuelled by feminism as more women swapped the kitchen for the workplace.
Feminists were'n't falling over themselves to say; "If we're pushed to cook everything from scratch around work and/or other duties; hard work and patience shall overcome",
The rightwing media made its mind up about working mothers long ago. Don’t expect a groundbreaking Harvard study to change it 
I won't expect the reality of the failure of calorie restriction dieting to do any such either. Complaining about the extent of BMI 30 + is complaining about the failure of slimming industry and its non-existent 'product' of telling people to starve and purge off weight.

Look at the tone of RLC's previous article, we can see how easily her same dosage of tendentious condescension can be applied, "How to refocus the spotlight on female writers"? "hard work and patience." ~ Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett.

How helpful.  
Women too often have their lives rather than their books reviewed.
Oh I'm feeling that, are you? When slimy arseholes just keep making shit about you or your life or your supposed personal failings when its really about thoroughly contrived systemic failures,
...following a breakup and an operation, the 29-year-old from Belleek in County Fermanagh had gained all 10 stone 6lb of it back.“I lost my focus. I felt I was unloved,” she says.
Articles about giving working mothers, mothers or women a break from pointless exacting standards, play up such a glaring exemption. Having a part-time extra job acting out function your body could easily do itself,is no way to live. 

It's hard to take being expected to feel unworthy of benefiting from accurate and relevant science from those with such lofty expectations of life. I don't share those, I just want people to be able to alter their own bodies themselves, without trauma or pathology.

Why are we able to pull the desire to be an anorexic athlete out of our arses, but women can't just bow down to lesser demands made on them? If this isn't a thing, others seem such non-issues.

We cannot be on the same page if there is this chasm of expectation.

Feminism is assumed to be for the bourgie/haute-bourgeoisie + upper class women isn't it? At times like this, they can't even be bothered to hide it.

Feminists? Selfists, more like. Not even choosy-choice can make them pretend we should be allowed to choose whether to inflict this on ourselves. Feminism is an exemption for them from patriarchal dictates, the rest of us can just have good old misogyny. 

In case the likes of Katharine Viner don't want to get it, way more than the hard work and patience required for any reasonable aim has been expended, nothing we have done or will do, no sacrifice we have made or can make, no costs we have paid or will pay, not even our own lives will ever be proof enough for anyone, including the sorority.

The 'obesity' crusade has weakened women, and it's weakened and exposed feminism.

I don't care what the media is getting for this shit, keep supporting it and we'll continue who applies that term to no-one but their own supposedly elevated class or anyone they slum-to-anoint. 

Tuesday, 25 April 2017

Not Cool With Misogyny

Regarding this TITP post entitled "For the record". It uses an acronym, "TERF". That stands for "trans excluding [or exclusionary] radical feminist". This is one for the dustbin. There's no valid excuse for the existence of this stupid term. What's so specifically noteworthy about the exclusion of trans people by radical feminists, as opposed to any other trans excluders/exclusionary personages of any type? Why are they the only people who merit a specific term?

What's the acronym for those who kill trans people because they are trans? Or are they of less import to the well being of trans people than radical feminists excluding trans people from...........what? 

Rather like people use the racism of white people in fat acceptance to legitimise their desire to turn weight into a caste system for any fat person. These of course give a free pass to the open racism of the 'obesity' cultists and use their same terms.

I'm taking the liberty of reproducing the post in full to illustrate the point;
Other mods may disagree with me, but as far as I’m concerned, TERFtransphobes can FUCK RIGHT OFF.
My WIFE is trans, you bigoted shitheads.
(If you don’t know what this means or is about, feel free to ignore this post.)
-MG
Yes, I agree. TERFtranphobes can fuck right off. I know your schtick. I’ve spent time in your subreddits, trying to understand how you want to deny the right of the people close to me to exist the way they understand themselves. I’ve listened to you cherry-pick and armchair psychologize and twist and deform any research that’s vague enough towards your purposes. At the end of the day you assume *everything* you have to prove. Yours is not a scientific crusade, it’s a plain old regular ideological crusade. The sooner you realize this, the better. But until then, fuck right off.
-ATL
“aninkyaffair replied to your post “For the record”
Are all the mods on board with this message? Because I’m not comfortable following or supporting if any of the mod team are even a little bit TERF transphobic sympathetic.”
Even though FatBodyPolitics hasn’t been very active on here I know for sure that she is not cool with TERF transphobes in any way, shape or form.
So yes, everyone at TITP believes that TERFtransphobes can fuck right off.
-ATL
I'ts fair to say nothing is lost except the misogyny.

Monday, 21 November 2016

Thin and Slim People's Internecine Body Politics

I wonder what you make of the increasing and crude use made of fat people's self acceptance to shield thin bodies or anorexic people from attention that's coming from either other thin people and/or slim people. First an example of attention given to slim bodies. 

Check out the words of this headline, "stop demonising thin women like Bella Hadid-the body positive movement doesn't just apply to plus size women" by Jacqueline Hooten.

The whole point of "body positive" was that it about any bodies targeted for negative attention, for example disabled bodies. It exists precisely to de-centre fat activism. What for instance is "plus-size"? It's plus Jacqueline Hooten, Bella Hadid size, is what it is. The play on innocence also attempts to hide slim people's aggression towards thin bodies by cynically invoking the old stereotype that fat women are inherently jealous of thin/ner women.

Let's go back in time

Back to western teens sprouted in the post WW2 era. In their youth, women like Twiggy expressed the physical ideal for many of that generation. Many sought to be that size, regardless. This proved to be a historical turning point in the western body aesthetic, one that's continued more or less to the present day. In spite of an increasing challenge from the failed "weight management" strategy.

A couple of decades or so ago, anorexic activists-white coat professionals/academics, people who had previously had anorexia/ currently had it-often these overlapped -decided anorexics needed to be saved from anorexia via the public's personal intervention.

It was made to seem obvious when a person had this condition. Emphasis was made of what appears to be a determined refusal of an anorexic to accept they have the condition-when it has got a hold of them. These activists trained real reticence out of people, insisting they bore a burden of responsibility if they didn't confront anorexics vigorously-to save their lives. Anorexia then was defined and diagnosed by low-weight.

This automatically made any woman who looked like they might be wasting from a target. I only found out through the fatsphere that many who had anorexia weren't thin. This was often and still is rejected by many who insist you can only be anorexic if you are of low weight regardless of your behaviour or even symptoms.

No doubt the fact that proto-anorexia is the prescription -now to be enforced by whipping your stomach out-for 'obesity' is part of that reluctance.

Though official channels have shifted diagnostic criteria away from weight, the damage was done.  Later on, slim women began to seize the opportunity to hide their long gestated resentment of thinness behind a veneer of amateur diagnosis. This is the source of a lot of the heat thin bodies get. A lot of slim women feel so close to being thin and have often tried to be but haven't managed it.

Maybe there's a sense that if thin women are pressured to gain weight and become at least slim that will make slim women feel better about not being more twig(gy) , Naomi, Kate, Lupita, Bella or whomever -like. Like vanity sizing, its hard to see how much of the impetus for this can come from jealous fat women, given it wouldn't make much difference whether a person is thin or slim.

I'm not saying fat women never stray into in this nonsense. It's still policy of many official/medical agencies to blame anorexia on thin bodies. Most fat people still have a conditioned and unquestioned belief that whatever slim women say is the rules of how to be. Whatever slim women say, is what's to be said. If slim women, shout at thin bodies, that's what you're supposed to do.

I've already busted those using anorexia to confidently attack thin bodies, I know that hasn't been ignored, yet the main, driving force behind this has.

Slim women need to learn to deal with mea culpa and re-think their attitudes without continually dragging fat women into things that are little to nothing to do with us.
Plus size models like Ashley Graham and Tess Holliday are credited for empowering a new generation of women to embrace their curves whilst challenging the notion of an ‘ideal body’. But somewhere along the way thin women have become the enemy and that’s not okay
If I was either of those two, I'd not take kindly to any suggestion that I was in some way responsible for the cynical and brazen attacks on thin people's bodies.  And what about this,
In September, The Women’s Equality Party launched the “No Size Fits All Campaign” aimed at tackling the fashion industry’s influence on body image. The campaign calls for a change in the law to ban fashion models with a BMI below 18.5. While the campaign’s aims appear laudable, by failing to define an upper BMI limit the WEP are effectively looking to legalise the demonisation of “thin”.
WTH, "failing to define an upper BMI limit"? Wow, if these women can't see a bus to throw fat women under, they go to the bus garage.  There is no equivalence between someone wasting away from anorexia, effectively dying from starvation and/or someone being forced to starve so they can work and someone who's merely fat, however fat.

Anorexia starts with wilful actions that are able, in a minority of people, to outstrip the natural in-built defences our bodies have against anorexia nervosa. It's not so much about weight as its about an unusual reaction to the stimulus of self-inflicted starvation.

The problem here is with the diagnostic attitude the women's equality party has picked up, and its inability to distinguish between the merely thin and those who are actually anorexic. Those involved in that field also need to say more about this sort of thing or they may find that the mis-use of fat people will give everybody more problems than they bargained for.

I don't mindlessly fall in line with anorexia activists when they are bullshitting. Conflating fat bodies with anorexic bodies is really not a good move. When it comes to advancing the cause of their own self-denuded sense of superiority, fat phobes rarely put anyones health first.

Saturday, 28 March 2015

Wish Fulfillment

Good for Yoni Freedhoff. He was reading the book Princess Bride to his children and decided to stop when he reached the passages he quoted, read them in full but in case you're feeling link-fatigued/lazy;
The year that Buttercup was born, the most beautiful woman in the world was a French scullery maid named Annette......Annette worked in Paris for the Duke and Duchess de Guice and it did not escape the Duke's notice that someone extraordinary was polishing the pewter......the Duchess set about studying Annette and shortly found her adversary's tragic flaw.  
Chocolate.   

Armed now, the Duchess set to work. The Palace de Guiche turned into a candy castle.
Annette never had a chance. Inside a season, she went from delicate to whopping, and the Duke never glanced in her direction without sad bewilderment clouding his eyes.
Isn't that the dream? Weight as a lever of total control?

YF goes with "weight bias," in doing so inadvertently demonstrates sadly his 'field' is the genesis and the heart of liberating this kind of mal-feeling. His and other @besity wallahs credo for "weight loss" attacks the same target as the Duchess, hunger and appetite. Indeed, it sees fat people in the same way as the Duchess sees Annette, but in reverse......... (or not? Looking at all the slim people plumping up, you have to wonder.....)
And so right out of the gate The Princess Bride is teaching kids that obesity is consequent to gluttony,
Interesting. To me its telling people that weight is a lever of controlling people. A means of being able to destroy them. It's how women can beat up and degrade other women, depriving them of the ultimate prize of competition, not the male gaze, wealth.

The class element plays out too. Annette's weakness was hunger-which is always hidden by drawing the eye to food or "gluttony." She started off slim though. She was provided with food and she just couldn't resist-probably because she was common.

And of course for "chocolate" you could read how's your father.

And, @besity, so glibly off the tongue reminds us of the keying of brains everywhere into this artificial creation called @bese. This depersonalized yet deeply personal classification/prison so easily stands in for person or blocks person/ people  or individual from standing alone.

It is the wish fulFILLment inherent in this little fable that demonstrates what a turn-on the @bese construct is for so many. A lot of them feminist, who like to collude with this, overriding their principles. Competition, power getting other women out of your way.

I suppose this is the price paid for the participation called "survival"-you know when you say you dress up to survive, maybe. But it keeps alive the code that is its basis-in your mind, undermining your urge toward liberation (assuming you indeed have one). What you invest in marks you, whatever your rationale for it. 

In an age of democracy, where everyone's supposed to have a say.

People love the idea that they can run or ruin a person at their whim, just like this story. No wonder there's no urge to find resolution for what's claimed to be the greatest threat to civilisation evah.

Thursday, 26 March 2015

Post-Partum Rebound

We're all stuck in the 'obesity' calories in/out mindwarp-some are just trying to escape it. It's like being brought up in a faith then becoming ex-muslim or catholic.

The same issue inevitably appears in the issue of post-pregnancy self image. Some women- they may or may not be a small percentage but they definitely exist and are a distinct group-have bodies which instinctively re-assumes its pre-pregnancy shape on its own, give or take.

This is homeostasis, the body's self regulatory instincts, restoring it's own equilibrium. The same thing that makes their bodies snap back on their own, is what makes most people regain weight after restriction induced weight loss [RIWL].

From the outside their bodies resume an unaffected look. Either they looked like a normal post-partum and yet regained a pre-partum size/look, or straight after giving birth. Some women only look pregnant from the front. I'll never forget a fleeting glance I got of a woman from the bus. I first saw her back, slender curved in waist. Then she turned around and she had a stand out fully pregnant belly.

Human variety is intriguing.

Pregnancy marks every woman from the inside and out- if only minimally for some. Pathologists can tell if you've been pregnant post-mortem. The expectation is pregnancy should substantially and visibly affect your body, and should have to make huge effort to recover prior size and shape if at all. 

Typically, many formerly slim women have allowed themselves to become so self righteous about what could for them quite pronounced changes-when you consider the fetid air of body hierarchy. They can be careless, displaying hostility toward those whose bodies respond less dramatically. The thin/slim ones obviously, though some fat women's bodies also barely change or not much.

Celebrities, rather like models get paid for their appearance. They employ staff to coach them through strenuous work outs, have nutritionists on call and often personal chefs to prepare those recommendations.

It's like insurance for their earnings. They're less likely to take a chance waiting to see how their bodies respond, if they can help it. They need to restore their pre-pregnancy image quickly, often its as much about image as anything. They do not wish to appear to weakened by anything, they wish to have a sheen of being unaffected by anything associated with ordinariness. It can ruin their expensively cultivated aura.

Letting go of that must be something like one of us letting go of a lifetimes investment in (internalized) fat hating of ourselves.

Post-partum is especially a time to be kind and gentle with yourself and other women in the same situation. No look is more authentic than others, that kind of thing is unnecessary, the envy and resentment is all too obvious. It's not however the fault of the thin rebounder their body is as responsible for that as yours is for the way it is.

I suspect it's entirely possible that they are how bodies are supposed to respond and those getting pompous are more anomalous- though they may seem more prevalent. Trying to almost cast quick rebound as bad form is silly.

Often its a question of time anyway. Many recover more slowly, some much more. It's probably another example of forgotten/lost knowledge of how to help the body's natural restoration process along.

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.

Sunday, 30 November 2014

Body Promotion

So the British Plus Size Awards have been accused of promoting 'obesity'? From what I can see, they'd be more readily accused of 'promoting' whiteness, yahwn.

What happened to the much proffered notion that 'obesity' is separate from the 'obese' person? I've seen that accusation more than once from other fat commentators, bravely critical of people's self-acceptance. People's unselfconscious assertion of their continued and real existence, fat self recognition/acceptance of one's own fatness. A big fat consciousness.

They state with no little contempt, that we pathetically can't separate "our obesity" from ourselves. What's their response to this accusation that firmly reveals the indivisibility of fatness and person? Can slimness be seperated from a slim person and thinness from a thin person? Why not? Slim is to thin, what chubby is to slim. And chubby is to fat what thinness is to slim.

Don't think I'm trying to gain their precious agreement, but I offer this for their consideration.We may be picking up on this rather than expressing an internal cri de coeur. We may actually be listening to other people, unlike they, who are listening to their own, "promotion of slimness" mirroring slimmer fat phobes "promotion of obesity" in order to promote, to themselves, the idea of slimness as some kind of identity, akin to the traditional gent/lady thing. 

Try to remember the 'obesity' isn't and has never been fat people's. It really has little to do with us. The routine unrelenting imposition of it on us, requires us to read it. And we are not as stupid as your acceptance of your own assignment [though you of course dump it on us] leads you to assume, can't you tell that difference?

What is with this idea of promoting 'obesity' anyhow? You have to grasp just how alien and odd the very notion of it is. It so caught me unawares that it took me a while to place it. The best I could do was that it's an inversion of the idea that thin bodies in the media compel "young girls" to starve themselves.

An idea that's always been so utterly unconvincing that my mind discounted it without bothering with it. Like if you insisted: "Scooby Doo's POTUS." Despite moi, the idea has great currency, especially within the usual cod-feminism we're usually exposed to.

Women want to be thin/remain slim for its currency. Whilst there is a context of relatively stark cost-benefit, ultimately, they're not forced by anyone. Indeed, they're supporting the system because they feel they can win at it. White middle/upper class women most of all.

You can see this from the feminist response to fat acceptance. Rather than seeing it as a potential other front to the liberation of female consciousness. They see it as competition, feel jealous along with highly contemptuous. Above all they wish to kill it, without seeming to. They neither give a shit about the effect on fat women, or themselves.

That simply isn't convincingly about pure coercion.

If they were truly feminist and wanted out of this contrived marketplace, they'd feel more like myself. Yes, I realise how that sounds, but lack of eloquence etc., I basically feel, if women want to be thin/slim, let's get involved in the science/research/thought in how to bring that about and find the best possible way. Because we're freaking worth it. And this is about the desire to be slim right?

Ultimately I respect that extent of desire, and I don't care how 'trivial' that does or doesn't sound. It's not in and of itself harmful. And it just so happens that this leads to other things that definitely aren't trivial. It leads to 'nice'.

Women could have been in the forefront of this, propelled by our own desires, rather than majoring in being imprisoned in the shame of not being nice, important seeming person's, to make up for the trivialization of women. The truth is though that women could have and could still escape this, but prefer instead to play the game. Yes, I'm saying it.

That's why they don't care about the effectiveness of what we use to slim down any more than the ahem, patriarchy. 

Those who feel like winners, who feel like they can want to play-to win. And they'd rather win through privilege, position, and contrived scarcity, than find a way for everyone to access what they want, if they want it. If slimness was available at will, it would be something else with them. Otherwise why support class?

So bodies have to carry the can, so "we" don't have to discuss anything remotely uncomfortable. Whilst despising that about ourselves and shouting it at others, in this case fat people and our purportedly unique lack of "personal responsibility."

Which brings me to the way this weird charge is responded to, the now rote-like: "Fat people aren't necessarily unhealthy." "Fat people don't all get that way by sitting and eating x,y,z." You whaaa?

It's like watching two sets of dancers perform their own mutual idiom, one that makes little sense to me.

Friday, 10 October 2014

Real Women L0L

"Un-photoshopped   "the female body-no matter what size or shape"

Examine closely for shaming of the skinnies

That's what the work that brought the term to prominence always referred to, real women. Women in the flesh, have curves. Whether women are thin or not, they curve. They have curves. Especially when their bodies aren't excessively gym modified.

An added reference of RWHC was working class women (in this case Chicana/Latina) and their bodies were made by their lives and their work. Where some of them get the "exercise" that doesn't count.

And that was the problem. WC +/or WoC don't count among the internet classes. "Real women" was cynically false flagged into "skinny shaming." That this nonsense was acceded to is pure and simply thin and class privilege. It had nothing to do with injustice full stop. The idea that thin/slim women ever feel less than real is not convincing.

Yeah, I'm sure they feel insecure in the face of an acceptably voluptuous woman, that's hardly the same thing.

The point of this sort of distraction is slim women still feel caught out by fat women's refutation of the pathology assigned them. They know they "should" support it, but they can't quite make themselves. And they can't think of an acceptable sounding way to put that.

Demanding meaningless shows of subservience is supposed to reassure slim people, but it never does.

Fat people as usual feel very guilty and responsible when slimz are distressed in conjunction with them, so went with this status politicking. Also perhaps to win them round [slim chance].

The irony is, real women have curves, was precisely in response to the surround of technically altered images of women that encourages all to see themselves through this lens of barely attainable. Thin and slim women keep trying to make a complaint about how its assumed they suffer no image problems. Forgetting that they've signed on for being the only acceptable human form/s and are supposedly thus due to their highly evolved consciousness.

If there was desire to communicate. This could have been an opportunity to explore this anguish honestly. Join forces to overcome it. Instead, women aren't ready for that so, the priority is "damage limitation."

Tuesday, 30 September 2014

Shape Backlash

Since the beginning of the internet imprint of fat acceptance, a lot of slim/mer women seem to have struggled with an overwhelming bitch of a fact. Being caught out in their collusion with the official objectification of other women.

This has emphasized the objectification of all women.

They didn't care because they accepted their elevation by weight.  Being crowned with a (slim) halo obviously felt, feels uplifting.

Humans keep falling for this faux superiority elevation act. I suppose the hook is rooted in the optimist bias of our minds. Positive objectification feels positive, even when you are ultimately losing by buying into it as slim/mer people have.  

Witness spectacles such as women calling themselves feminist, insisting fat women we are "unscientific" by referring to the ways our bodies actually work in reality because that's not women's place. Men are the only one's qualified to decide that. How arrogant of us to "forget" [i.e. assume we were just self reporting].

Deviating from established fictions ballasted by male privilege has shown that women don't feel they have any real innate credibility in describing what it is to be human. We're more qualified in testing matters of the intellect like housework and crafts.

This has been one of those sneaky tests for women, one that has shown us up very badly indeed and no, I don't mean being competitive. Invoking banal misogynistic expectations of women under the guise of feminist analysis as distraction ain't cute. This is about women's conviction that reality is something outside us-something we receive, unless its fashion or something.

Proving our own unnecessary levels of disgust and contempt for ourselves as female human beings. Rather than worry about fat/thin shaming or what, let's just try and have the (feminine?) grace to end this farce shall we? It's dragged us all down.

And no, class-male is not to blame for this. This ones on us.

Nevermind, no-one's perfect right? Let she who's without sin cast the first stone and all that.

In the end, we all know: "Putting other women down doesn't lift you up." "Shaming thin bodies isn't helpful to fat women." We can see that now. What have slimz got out of this really? The media aimed at women is deluged with their multiple insecurities. They've not gotten away from their "internalized misogyny" by trying to dump that on lesser status women, it's just stirred it up. So why didn't they say any of this to themselves during their gathering enthusiasm for the crusade? Come on now.

We can see you!!!

And wouldn't you know who's currently fuelling this fire?

T/W: Contains lots of swears. 

 
spot any fat chicks up in this beatcch??!!

Enter Mz Minaj.

This piece of fluff is pretty crude in its erm storyline, featuring what Mz M's "anaconda" does and doesn't like.  But an aspect of its overall message touches on something quite interesting.

First at taste of the nontroversy;
Minaj actually raps; "Little in the middle but she got much back" "Yeah, this one is for my bitches with a fat ass in the f***ing club." "I said, where my fat ass big bitches in the club."[I'm being delicate tuhday.] Then she says "f*** skinny bitches.."

Inevitably;
Ouch to the [thin] anorexics. Minaj is mostly talking about shape and how having one associated with femaleness is totes the best. It's a bit like the idea that slim is the only way to be human, just without the backing of the medical machine.

This kind of shape has been deemed a liability in the feminist era. In the aura of FA, plus Black women's necessary self assertion, she's proclaims the integrity of having an outstanding tush-on a small frame.

One irony is her (supposed) current arch nemesis's most startling physical feature is her very prominent hips, on a small frame. 

Feeling duly inspired she squeals; "fat ass big bitches" and then eff "skinny bitches", managing to prod the genesis of fat phobia in the feminist movement. Before you pseud me.

The way that a female identifying shape; big bust, big butt, big hips, big thighs goes against feminism's much favoured straight up and down/ muscular androgyny. Downplaying anything seen as emphasizing femaleness.

What these lady features have in common is fat mass. This is how "fat" has become such a devastating put down to women. It is the humiliating reminder of woman=lesser. Hence feminist's problem with fat and why women are called fat merely for not being straight up and down AND thin. Whether conscious or not Minaj slips from fat arse to big bitches.

The combination of fat phobic misogyny, plus feminist androgyny means women "feel fat", for being anything more than a gender pranging beanpole. 

I noted the "Buns of Steel" era with confusion, 'til I worked out what was happening. Having an andro, though fat shape myself, I didn't get the hip / butt anguish. Women, many of whom did not even see themselves as feminist let me in on this via their actions.

All kinds of women are in on this shape trouble. Having a female identifying shape has been almost a faux pas for a while. Hip and thigh whittling dominates the slimming and fitness industries. In the era when the un corsetted stomach has been a seat of profound disgust, we have been deluged with slim your hips/ buns of steel, slim/tone those thighs.

I knew it was inevitable that there would be some swingback from such an extreme position. Just never thought FA would help create the spark for it.

Saturday, 26 July 2014

Society's Cauldron

Here's how fatness inadvertently shines a light on things others were rather left shady;
Maybe – just maybe – telling women that they're making a mistake by not personally dealing better with public and social problems is just another way of selling – and materially benefiting from – our supposed shortcomings.
I always feel a slight outer body sensation when feminists do this. Say exactly why I expected them to instinctively have baulked at crusade and its construct.

Whatever people think about fatness, choosing food as the route to change weight-then individualising it, is exactly this. Forcing individual fat people to turn around the juggernaut of society's food system. Fat people's insides, mental and physical have been into the internal junction to re-route this against the will of other people's conflicting impulses. Whilst being accorded no social power or influence over either.

Hence the cutting. Cut fat people into acting as a place mat for everyone else.

Whether it's the medical profession's desire to maintain their extent of monopoly over healing via the unsustainably passive patient doctor 'relationship', their interesting professional structure, or the desire for their workspaces-that's you and me-to be "tidier."

Or trying to leave the slimstream out of a life built around restricting and expending calories, despite them choosing that way for us. Sadly, feminism breaks down without a sympathetic frame to draw it on. In this case white middle/upper class women.

Theoretically, that shouldn't be, but this is the reality.

This is the understanding that is sisterhood. Not, brown nosing women, but recognizing the devaluation of any woman via the route of misogyny, devalues all women.

Misogynoir, classism, homophobia, fat phobia etc., ultimately devalue all women, including those feeling insulated by the distance of assumed superiority.

So, what do these feminists really believe? That women should be torn to shreds by having to work out society's systemic grievance-against its own momentum and desires?

Or that they should not.

I think we know.

Thursday, 24 July 2014

You Did Not Eat That

Same sureness of attack, same declamatory form. With a splotch of innervating pomposity. Feel your mouth open and the air mis-behaving in the back of your throat!

Calories in/out means fat people eat and thin and slim women don't. Strangely enough, the latter continued to  expect to be spared this. And for a while, they did.

Increasingly, not it seems.

This has been going on for a while. Especially since (anti) anorexia advocates decided to exhort people to confront those who were thin, as if they couldn't just be thin natural. i.e. that thinness was their equilibrium-not their achievement.

In the media, thin women, actresses and the like have felt the need to be seen to eat in public, especially foods that are deemed unlikely to pass the lips of those slender. Even worse pose with said foods.

The pressure is for women to do whatever it takes to be thin/slim yet go at food with gusto. Be easy to be around. I remember a woman complaining that she attracted a man with her figure. But when he experienced how much effort she put into it, which was constant. He left her citing that as a reason.

Oh well.

This is ironically leading to some thin/slim women replicating what was supposed to be the trait of hyperphagia [or compulsive eating/food addiction] secret eating. One of the reasons why I cannot abide the nonsense surrounding HN is that kind of boob.

There's nothing particularly disordered about not wishing to detonate the bomb that the same smeckperts have turned food into by insisting on it as the weight lever. It can get to the point of messing with your digestion.

It's a shame, I thought at least slimz could hold up the flag of uninterrupted normal eating. But it seems, eating neurosis is overunning them too. This is bad news for all women. Slimz helped me regain a sense of what healthy eating really meant after years of hyperphagic induced in part by an unwittingly orthorexic mindset.

To have a charming benign view of food, just by being, maybe no more. 

The title, feels like a companion to, "This is why you're fat." Plus the whole fat as a feeling. Thin is probably deemed one too now. When one is hungry presumably.

Tuesday, 12 November 2013

Shadows

It's the 30th Anniversary of the US publication of a book called "Shadow on a Tightrope" this Friday. For many its an inspirational and seminal FA text. It's a collection of all sorts of writing, personal testimonies to poems on being fat. I got a hold of it at some point, it wasn't for me to be honest, but its worth a look. Maybe I'll peruse it at some point.

I do remember reading a horrible piece that felt like it went on forever, about a woman who had, I think, more than one weight loss operation. In those days, progressing to a figure of 1- 2 in 100 deaths-post surgery had yet to be reached.

It was horrible in so many ways and totally convinced me of what an insult "weight loss surgery" is to human beings. Even writing the term disgusts me, surgery for weight loss. Unbelievable. There's no doubt in my mind that there are potential avenues (always have been) for reversing or advancing weight. Such as manipulating gut bacteria. The issue with that is the same as that of calorie restriction; homeostasis overruling it. However, barring any problems with infection, it doesn't hurt, seek to attack the body, or cause pain. I really don't give much of one about those who think everyone should just live with being fat or thin. That's not really for anyone else to say.

The problem as I keep saying is the calorie restriction/wastage strategy. 

Not only that, it doesn't make sense. Human metabolism is a biological function. Understanding it and being able to manipulate it must occur, even if weight woes didn't exist, because of metabolic disorders like diabetes-all types, PCOS. And even mental disorders from neuroses like depression, to eating disorders. Even psychotic conditions too, given some anti-psychotic meds can also cause weight gain. There's no doubt that there's a relationship between metabolic function and mental health. Understandably, as its the basis of our bodies regulation and restoration of our material selves.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's potential for some resolution for something like alcoholism perhaps some ideas on correcting the underlying dysfunction of drug addiction too. Because that's caused by the body's reaction to ingesting an external supply of chemicals (drugs) that it makes itself. The body reduces production, to avoid overdose-when drugs are taken.

The key to reversing addiction more successfully, is to get the body to restore normal levels, which may have been compromised slightly in the first place-leading perhaps to drug seeking behaviour in the first place.

Alcoholism is different, but there too, metabolic rebalancing could assist even the more chronic and intractable cases. Anyone who's seen long term alcoholic decline even its dementia knows how much suffering that could end.

For many, especially the archetypal story of a traumatic upbringing, it's really a cycle. Manipulation via nervous system and/or metabolism, could aid recovery from such and other kinds of trauma. Grief that becomes impacted and even things like PTSD.

I'm getting ahead of myself, but the point is, metabolic function is either resolution or a stepping stone to getting closer to resolutions of many conditions as it is central to maintaining our existence. As you know, sometimes, a development doesn't in itself provide answers, but becomes a stepping stone to putting you in a position to see what you couldn't see from your previous position. Even if you cannot quite reach from there.

So, the idea of treating being fat as like being gay in that it's offensive to even go any where near changing it has never been tenable for a second, though I understand why some feel that way. And shocking though it may seem, I'm not even convinced gay people will avoid options on that score either.

It just doesn't work like that. Things are discovered often because they're needed for something perfectly innocuous or righteous, only for the underlying mechanics to be applicable elsewhere. Because guess what?

Biology is biology and it doesn't give a damn about any ideology of offense. No matter how justified.

Thursday, 11 July 2013

Vanity

I must say I've not noticed any confusion between size and fit. (The writer seems to be talking about as if it means cut.) That would seem harder to do that to get it right. i.e. about something being either too big or too small to fit on your body. 
When we mix up size and fit, we expect mass-produced garments to fit our bodies perfectly, and get angry or upset when they don’t.
Nope. We get sad when we can't find clothes to wear and spend years of our lives looking at accessories. Simples.
The mainstream media only make the confusion worse.
 There's no confusion. Stuff isn't available in the breadth of sizing and style people want.
We regularly hear that skinny models promote eating disorders while plus-size models worsen an "obesity crisis". We hear a lot about the deceptive practice of "vanity sizing" and the need for standardised clothing sizes.
That's a differing mix of threads, coming from different quarters; using bodies as narrative, thin bodies=anorexia has been advanced by certain women who aspire to that size and wish to disassociate both from that desire and its negative fallout. Especially when its on their offspring. The plus size/ 'obesity' nonsense is a play on that from silly fat haters. And vanity sizing......
There’s no such thing as "vanity sizing". Instead, clothing brands arrange their sizing to minimise their costs and appeal to the majority of their customers. They make relatively few of the smallest and largest sizes in their ranges, because the medium size always sells best.
The majority of their customers are the ones they arrange their sizing around. So this is faking argument via tautology. Yet;
In turn, the brand will revise its sizing so that the most popular size is again the medium size.
That's the basis of vanity sizing. If it wasn't vanity, they'd just make more of their biggest selling size. She then goes on;
A decade ago, Rip Curl revised its women’s sizing after measuring its female customers aged 12-24. Its sales leapt by 86% the following year.
86%?!!! How so if they just make clothes for their customers? Why's she denying this phenomena? I've been told my whole life by size 10's that if they keep not being able to fit into what they see as their definitive size, they won't go a size up. Perhaps she has an different metaphysical frame unavailable to the rest of us (tee hee, I can talk!)

Though predictably demented brain scramble of fat hating makes people blame this on fat people. Like shouting at fat people for the AMA's recent decision, as we are assumed to be in agreement.

Vanity sizing is about this surprisingly tenacious sense of identity. And as the clothing industry revolves around this, there's a palpable loss of sales when the identity or "vanity" 'boycott' reaches a critical mass. Its deemed vain presumably because its seen about not accepting you're fatter, rather than how you define yourself. Even though, I've yet to know of a fat woman who's won't size up if she can get something she likes to actually wear. 

Too many of us are still have the feeling of just finding stuff that fits and appreciating that. As opposed to the joy of liking stuff and finding they have our size. I know vanity sizing exists because I monitored my size-measurements quite closely, in the past. I know I went up to size 22 by measurement. Yet when I finally had cash to buy some new threads. I was a consistent size 20.

At first I thought, maybe I'd held the tape a bit too loosely when measuring myself. It took me a bit to figure what was going on. This identity crisis is indicative of the mentality and attitude at the heart of the 'obesity epidemic'. Clinging to a sense of self, feeling "swamped" by the prospect of what's deemed foreign. The whole thrust of the crusade is for fatz is nominally, to become slim. Or preferably, angle ones life around aiming to.

I suppose you could call that a biological opportunity, rather like between races, sexes and sexualities.

Having lots of people try to be and fail does something to the perception value of slimness, to all concerned. Not trying to be slim offends for that reason. In and of itself, weight is pretty meaningless. Or at least, its differences are far more subtle and obscure than some want them to be.

Monday, 24 June 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen

Okay, I decided I wasn't going to comment on this. "Blurred Lines" harks back to an old lyrical theme. Complaining about the effect patriarchal double standards have in putting women out of sync with their (true) sexual desires. Revealing the room that leaves for projection of exactly what those desires might be, too.

It's from the partner's point of view. As if it's the fault of the woman rather than her adaptation to society's rules. In this case, it's a man, I wonder if many a lesbian could also sing a similar tune, though it'd be expressed with differently no doubt.

A tad pompous I guess, but sometimes one has to be brave.

Anyway, the "blurred lines" concerned are the woman's internalisation of the Madonna part of the Madonna/Whore dichotomy. The clashing of her actual desire-which according to the narrator is more in the much admired but at the same time despised "whore" direction.

i.e. she wants to get down, but doesn't like the implications of that. This is doubly useful. It can be a (man's) rationale for a woman not living up to expectations/wishful thinking and a way of her refusing (further) sexual advances in the first place.

Imagine if you fancied doing some press ups. I did say imagine, lol. You'd just make sure all was well, you had a space and ground that could support you etc, then just do your press ups right? You wouldn't think oh, just getting down to press ups like that, merely because I feel like it, means I'm dirty and bad. Rather than someone who just wants to get take an opportunity to er, get active.

The source of the wrong kind of friction is, how reliable is this narrator in divining the woman's wishes? He does warble about "The way you grab me" "Go head get at me", rather than say, "The way you look at me" or, "The way you were flirting with me", i.e. the way you are being polite and nice like ladies are taught means I say you want to do the vertical boogaloo with me.

However, the point is this is deliberately intended to push feminist buttons. It moans about the way women dress as being too provocative for a red blooded male to handle. And adds, "Just let me liberate ya".

If this baiting was too subtle. Singer Robin Thicke said in an interview;
People say, "Hey, do you think this is degrading to women?" I'm like, "Of course it is. What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman. I've never gotten to do that before. I've always respected women."
[My emphasis]

Now this is the sentiment that really caught my ear (call me bored/cynical). When I first got to FA I lamented being the target of this very kind of impulse. Whilst others tried to insist other women, feminists included indulged in fat hating due to "brainwashing." I felt, witnessed and experienced that the above was exactly the true urge at the heart of all this, i.e what a pleasure it is to degrade human dignity.

Anyone's really, especially whilst retaining or increasing your own. At their expense. With the permission of often them and authority. One doesn't pass up an opportunity like that easily.

And the video? Well, that's a lot like it is to be fat in a system designed for slimness as the dominant expectation, emotionally stripped whilst everyone else is fully clothed. The interviewer added;
Calm down, folks, it's a joke and everyone in the video is in on it. Thicke's a real Southern gentleman and his soul's as good as his hair. 
I'm not pointing this out to excuse Pharrell, Robin Thicke et al. It's just so people can better connect with the impulse under the lens. We do have the urge to degrade our own humanness, so the question is why and what do we do about it?

Helpful as ever. Well, I am a laydee.

[The most repellent thing about this effort for me was the state the "Southern gentleman's" section proposed to leave a certain part of the woman in question's anatomy. Eurech.]

Monday, 29 April 2013

Put Down Your Booze Doughnuts

Here's a telling little spat concerning the findings of a study. It apparently showed the surprising fact that fat boozehounds have a greater risk of liver disease than slim lushes. Though;
More research is required to determine the exact thresholds for each risk factor that independently and in combination increase the risk of chronic liver disease but this is an important first step in the right direction."

I find it hard to believe there's no raised risk if you're a heavy drinker in the underweight category. But as is usual in anything connected to 'obesity' this aspect is obscure(d). Not to pick on them, but to make the point-again- that weight and risk is a U-shaped curve, like many a spectrum of human function.

Jezebel's Anna Breslaw seems to have been on a misguided mission to appeal to fatz. Which I find kind of sweet, appreciate the thought. It's bit like when the very mainstream abusing thin women on their tawdry assumption that everyone hates everyone else, but without such self reverential nastiness.

In this case she got it a bit wrong. Mind's drift when banality ensues. That tends to be central to the body of knowledge that appears under the aegis of the construct of 'obesity'.  If this is so, I sympathize. 

These kinds of mistakes happen when those who have a history of being excluded are being included. The process is not without hitch, I've seen it times without number. That's okay.

What I don't like is this provides yet another unneeded opportunity for certain so called feminists to dump misogynist stereotypes on those women they consider of lesser status, in this case, fat women. As well as taking a dreary dig at fat acceptance being the sinister enemy of science.

Please.

After all we have been put through because we refused to pretend the failure of calorie restriction induced slimness hasn't happened.

No feminist who has a remotely logical or scientific brain could take 'obesity' seriously, merely because men are still able to assert it grandly, on grounds unrelated to pure science endeavour. Someone pointed out the flaw in the construct, in that it fails to correctly sketch out the ways CVD and/or organ damage degeneration happens, using fatness as a proxy instead.

Why some of these whiners don't think that might be a problem for those who have these factors, but are not fat, I don't know. I'm sure they will when some sufficiently scienterific guy tells them.

And don't get me started on some of the rank matter that turns up in that increasing turd bath of 'eating disorders'. I'd like to hear some outrage from these types then. That jazz is increasingly not just harm inducing it is straight up ignorance promotion filled with more hot air than Formula 1. Oh and can I give a special mention to things under the banner of 'nutrition'?

Oh and what about all these toxic placebos we call 'mental health meds'. Don't take us on because um..........displacement.

All that needed to be said in this case was in this excellent comment from "ruby.s.chard"
I haven't read the actual study, but it sounds like they're looking for an interaction effect. If drinking causes your risk of liver disease to be 6, and obesity causes your risk of liver disease to be 2, does being an obese drinker make your risk of liver disease 6, 8, 12, or something else entirely?
Anyway, I agree that Jez needs a dedicated science writer. And then Jez could do what no other news outlet that covers science seems to manage: include the citation for the original damn article(s) at the bottom of their coverage!!! It's hard to get mad at Jez for this when the philly.com coverage doesn't tell us either. I don't have time to spend an hour scouring Google Scholar for this exact study, but if it were linked from here, I might go peek at the abstract* so I can engage in discussion about it a bit better informed.
*Unless they're using any cool statistical techniques that I can learn about. Which is rare, because medical research seems to stick with OLS regression
Sorry to crib the whole, but she says it so well. I also agree with Vidiya's sentiment, who if I'm not mistaken is a fat acceptance advocate.

I'm not a reader of Jezebel, but I might be if it did upped its science coverage-got a scientist on board and made that a selling point. Fat people are not afraid of science. We are afraid of what masquerades as science and 'evidence' based, which is being used increasingly to transfer resources from fat to slim, if you don't mind.

Remember we asserted an instinctive understanding of ourselves as whole functioning indivisible units-when it was still total currency amongst scientists that 'excess' weight/ fatness sits there like a separate detachable preventable load.

Scientists eventually caught up not only with the fact that fat cells are actually active cells, but also that fat tissue operates as part of the system as a whole. Just like we said, not like the 'obesity' construct still assumes, slim people with detachable fat units.

This isn't clear because when others find out something we already know, it is presented to us as an accusation, in a form acceptable to their view. So active fat tissue becomes an inner guerrilla launchpad attacking our organs and glands oestrogenically. 

Good definitions help to explain things. When you grasp that our bodies are as whole as everyone else's, you begin to get why the body perceives an attack on fat stores is seen as an attack on itself. They say science is often elegant.  

If all these sharpies are so scienterrific, why didn't they tell us this? Why don't they ever get how much we know, or want to? Why didn't their outside perspective help us to get there? Why don't they respect our experience? Why haven't they formed a sounding board for building on more of our insights?

You know like women who take for granted that science doesn't reside in men or something.

Imagine women just taking the ball and running with it, forcing others to catch us? Think of all the effort women put into calorie restricted weight loss. Imagine if we'd used that to try and manipulate human metabolic function?

But no instead, let's dump on those under attack from our masters and compete for the imagined light of most obedient girl. Not so much Jezebel as Pollyanna.

Whatever feminist misogynists keep on hollowing out what used to be an intellectual awakening for women, it's your era and you're welcome to it. 

So, not so much fat shaming as the usual inconclusive and predictable filler that we get from a bogus construct.

Monday, 11 March 2013

How to think progressively

The European Union is planning to vote tomorrow on a proposal brought by Dutch Euro politico Kartika Liotard. Its intent, reflected in the title is to "eliminate gender stereotyping in the media", it isn't legally binding;
whereas stereotypes still exist at all levels of society and in all age groups, affecting how we perceive each other through oversimplified assumptions based on socially constructed norms, practices and beliefs that are often cultural, and religion-based and -fostered, and which reflect and perpetuate underlying power relations
This move to ban pornography is seen by many progressives as an attack on civil liberties.

Okay, I'm sure you spotted a gap there. The document lists 69 points (oh sauce) aiming to improve the status and opportunities of women. Part of that focuses on the stereotypical portraits of girls and women relayed in various forms of media from advertising to the mainstream advance of pornography;
Calls on the EU to conduct research into the links between child pornography and adult pornography and the impacts on girls, women, boys and men, as well as the relationship between pornography and sexual violence. Calls on the Member States to establish independent regulation bodies with the aim of controlling the media and advertising industry and a mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting the sexualisation of girls; 
The latter is what seemed to most excite the sensibilities of progressive civil libertarians who see it as a slippery slope obviously, given it's supposed to be about ending the perpetuation of sexist stereotypes especially to supple minded youths.

Porn's okay because there's no evidence to prove it encourages sexual aggressiveness toward women. So phew, no cause for concern there. In fact, it would be a bad idea if that was being planned because apparently wanking, decreases the likelihood of sexual abuse. Convicted sex abusers say so. 

Pornography is not just the commercial proposition of anything for a toss, it's a social, nay feminist good. Keeping folk safe(r) from the more harmful elements in society. Free speech tends to go with it too.  

Large size sugary drinks on the other hand have a proven link with porn unfriendly obeastiness. Regulating these isn't any kind of attack on freedom. That's just some propaganda put about by cynical mega global food corporations. New research finally shows;
sugary drinks were found to interact with genes that affect weight, significantly amplifying any genetic risk for obesity
So there.

Could there be potential for agreement here?
whereas the alcohol industry, with its vast investment in the marketing of its products, strongly contributes to perpetuating gender stereotypes and the sexualisation of girls and women.
 Booze, drinking calories;
On any given day, about one-third of men and one-fifth of women consumed calories from beer, wine or liquor.
No way then, LOL!

Monday, 18 June 2012

Self loathing is the instigator of action? Really?

It's posts like this that remind me again that fatness is keeps being used to discuss things that have been shut down elsewhere, due to the extent those things have been defended out of other discussions.

Time after time fatness feels like the last stand of people being able to say what they feel they need to say, yet what has it produced? A deeper understanding of metaphysics? Scientific advance? A great slew of ideas because our psyche's are free not to give a damn about fat people's sentience?

Hardly.

The same thought stopping paradox returns, coming from the disconnection slim people have developed for fat people.

The writer says, self acceptance is really hard, I don't want to feel shamed for not having the discipline/will for it. But I must do something about my weight, others should not feel shamed for the ill discipline, lack of will widely associated with that.

Why can't people connect these dots?

When fat people protest the latter, we're accused of being 'oversensitive'. Excuse me? What about someone in a weight loss diet ascendant society who feels marginalized merely because they rigid hegemony has broken down at xojane?

This disjointed way where slim people keep expressing the same or similar feelings to us and just don't recognise it is getting old. They complain and moan about what we say doing everything to de lgeitimize it, yet lead with the complaint we are doing that by no longer being silent and abject as before.

How awful of us.

Though the complaint is that it's becoming unacceptable to bray loudly about how repulsive your barely plumped body has become, rather than just stating exactly what your problem is. As if it's lacking in compassion to want you to hear exactly that, rather than a whole lot of generic fat hating.

It just doesn't make sense, using fatness to divorce yourself from your real feelings-why is that so important when you are complaining about the distress the underlying feelings are causing you?

This often seems more about self hating as modern femininity, yet pulling its punches by using fatness as a cushion for the impact. You want to reduce the impact, so you can keep on that way.

Often this is said to be a way female bond,  when it seems more- how to be a woman. Those told to knock it off and deal with their real issues feel as if something is being taken away from them. When they are not subject to endless slews of fat women whining tediously about how from this angle they thought his part looked a bit (((gasp))) thin and they was horryfied, horryfied, I tells ya!!!

Having a thin rope (hur, hur) of acceptance for yourself as a woman seems to be an indicator of female acceptability, self dissatisfaction the primary agent of action and change for women. Yet, we associate men with action, even though they are more encouraged to achieve things by seeing themselves as just dandy.
 
Self acceptance for many, fat people especially is often one of the greatest changes a person can make. Yet again that is erased pressing it into the indolence of fat people, making a nonsense and a bore of an emergent fat consciousness of self.

I really wish certain people would just stop enforcing this boredom as a means of shutting down the involvement of fat people as subjects rather than objects.

It feels more like self loathing stems action and enforces that as a state. If women don't cut themselves down, might they go too far?

Some of us are tired of all this and fear the torpor of self hate more than whatever trouble we might get ourselves into if we have to face our real problems and what we do with that anchor lessened or removed.

That perhaps is a feminist isshyoo of.

Thursday, 17 May 2012

Hurry up and Lose!

Yes it is true that Aishwarya Rai is known primarily for her outstanding beauty, but women like that are often criticized for seeking a return to their pre pregnancy weight at speed. Don't they know this puts pressure on all women, they are role models blah, blah, blah.

Take a look at this effort, from people admittedly seeking to live at the edge to see what just what they're avoiding;



Not fun.

She's said to be in no hurry to step on the diet merry go round wishing to "enjoy motherhood" instead. I wonder how much she's referring to WLD and how much to being seen as "the most beautiful woman in the world".

Thursday, 29 March 2012

Clueless

Much of the world has weaned its children via a method that inspired this. Pre chewing especially more challenging foods like meat or fibrous vegetables and fruits for instance, breaking them down enough to give an infant used to the breast a chance to manage them is probably still an international norm.

An infant has to get used to co-ordinating its teeth and mouth to chew properly on its own. Before the advent of things like blenders bypassed the need to turn foods into mush this way, it was probably the way.

Though hygiene may seem to be an issue, there is some evidence that in the womb and through being breast fed-if so-gives some kind of protection through a child being attuned to the mother's chemistry including that of her mouth, though it would be a clear route for the potential transmission of disease.

I love the ever so subtle pun on Alicia Silverstone's most famous role when this tiresome parochialism with attendant prissiness is the real cluelessness. Predictably they managed to get "experts" to insist danger, danger, red alert though actual quotes from actual experts were elusive, over and above someone in dentistry and a nutritionist.

It's about food and parenting isn't it? We have a policy to go ape whenever possible.

Though I'll say food can be chewed with the front teeth and then removed and put in the child's mouth by hand. Not that this would necessarily be more hygienic, but it doesn't always have to be passed mouth to mouth.

As the purpose is to soften and break down the food, not to reduce it to drool then "French Kiss" it to your kid. Which neatly brings me on to, what do people think the genus of that is?

Are we all still not supposed to notice the extensive overlap between sexual intimacy and certain themes of early childhood? Look at the absurdity over breast feeding and how tits are like only about sex and we're offended to see lactating milk ducts used to feed babes.

I don't wish to put this post click to agree to get naughty, so I won't spell it out any further. A cursory examination of the last time you got jiggy will I'm sure be enough.

I'm not trying to hate, if you're steeped in the parts of Western culture that elevate pointless squeamishness to an almost moral pose, it's not surprising that you may feel you don't know where to look.

But believe it or not, you can just decide to try and get over it, rather than invest it with an unnecessary permanence.  Breasts are designed to feed infants, men too can comfort infants.

What irritates in a so called global village is why so would it be so beyond the media to know or even sense enough to do a little research beyond going with ewwwwuh? All of this it's so out there so beyond yanno norm; well actually for many of the people who might be reading you, it isn't.

How can they be so out of touch that they think this is weird or somehow deeply eccentric? And note how it's invented by Silverstone, does it really look invented?

Absurd.