Thin Women Are Not, And Never Have Been The Enemy

Dear fatphobes,

Kindly cease and desist from using thin bodies to attack fat ones, thanks.

I know you can do this with ease, seeing as you constantly tell us how much self-control you have.

And to clarify, when I say thin I mean thin, not slim-though they aren't the enemy either. Tbh, neither are you really, you're just messing yourself up in the head to the extent of entering your own special needs category.

Anybody who cannot recognise that a person cannot be 'disease' and the "host" of a disease that is themselves, because of defining humans as slim only, isn't entering the game with a full deck.

The notion that the kind of very slender usually very young women who appear on the catwalk harm impressionable gels by their appearance has never been mine for an instant. It has always been a convienient scapegoat and distraction for those who define humanness purely in terms of slimness.

I've never believed nor accepted the sight of a woman as the causal agent of anorexia or any other hunger response issue [yeah, I said that]. But even if it was the case that seeing a thin women triggered young girls to lose weight, proto-anorexia is the only option available. It's not far removed from saying a woman's appearance triggered a sexual assault on them or somone else. And that women's bodies should be covered/not appear to avoid such "provocation."

This from other women has always been largely mischevious, a way of getting back at women who are a size slim women often can't attain due to the punishing privation of the only route of lowering weight. 

That this should be the sole means of inducing weight loss, has been decided by, medical and health care professionals and by societies, acting under their direction, wishing to use proto-anorexia and forced labour to punish fat people and their bodies.

Punishing fat people, means punishing these young girls too. Supporting the former, is supporting the latter.

This is the major cause of revealing the anorexic susceptibility out there, spreading anorexia to become a prescence in demographics where it was largely absent.

Search it.

Anybody who doesn't mention this unequivocally, any time they mention 'eating disorders' or 'body image problems' is at best a lightweight-in the metaphorical sense- or a bullshitter and at worst, in active collusion with unearthing anorexia nervosa in as many people as possible.

Possibly a combination or all of them. 

The price paid for sentencing fat people to starvation and hard labour penance is mainly paid by them, but collateral damage of this is paid by the thinnest people, not least the always forgotten and ignored people who are battling illness and dying because they cannot retain sufficient weight to keep going. 

Medical doctors can go on the media all they want legitimising their eating/exercise disordered, proto-anorexia prescriptions all they want. And before any one tries to play on any pretence of their undivided saintliness on this issue, remember they are currently colluding with and pushing the  mutilation of healthy organs, for the aim of trying to make their favoured practise of dieting stick.

Relying on their politics of respectability-of the his versus her word variety, will only last so long for them. It will catch up with them eventually, hopefully, before too many more people are damaged by their mass sulky quack-ridden brainfart.

In the end, even if seeing a thin woman's body does make a young girl miss a meal, the burden cannot be placed on the often young woman who is often not much older than the young woman with the disorder, or her image.

The burden should be on efficient means of restoring hunger and a sense of balance to the ones suffering from the disorder. The only issue with thinness in the media is if the professional model or actor is under pressure to starve or in other ways abuse themselves to attain or retain and overly low weight for them.

"The Economy Must Take Priority"

The current Prime Minister Theresa May recently released a paper on her government's policy on "childhood obesity". It was much criticised as weak and she was effectively said to have bowed to the pressure of big fud rather than to the plucky quangocrat public health grifters.

That's suppose to be choosing ill over good if you're unsure.

I simply cannot make myself give a fleck about that mess, but I was mildly diverted by her comments. I decided to read them in context, to get a feel of what made her back peddle even on plans already deemed by 'obesity' wallahs to fall short of their demands.

I can't pretend to have a secure sense of what Theresa May's about, but one thing I do get from her is she appears to be nobody's fool.

I trotted off, still ropey search skills in hand and was justifiably taken aback. I could find no further comment from the UK Prime Minister in any of the numerous farticles I had to hold my nose through.

Found a deluge of Jamie Oliver though. The sorority might want to consider the potential for knicker-twisting, revealed by journalistic standards.

Every article, at least the early on in a story's life-cycle should quote the PM's comments on her own government's policy before responding to them with opinion and editorial. No-one needs the whinging of mostly male "experts"who had nothing of any real value to say.

Especially as this fragment rose above the senseless dirge as an actual cogent response-share it or not. The economy comes before "childhood obesity". Now maybe the context was more conciliatory, I wouldn't know.

Does she know what a lot of child hating shit 'childhood obesity' is? Or is it just her pro biz instincts speaking? Either way, she's giving voice to what people call "real talk".

It's a bit like gyms who have more subscribers than they could accommodate if they all turned up at once. Continuation of the 'obesity' contrivance depends on not acknowledging the unviability of its failure of a 'cure'- that failure being defined as the failure of the individual.

Even the astute Gina Kolata's recent interesting piece on that biggest loser study was framed as "...why so many people fail to keep off the weight they lose."

May's response is why even if you saw things only in the mainstream way fat people are and have always been set up to fail and blamed for both that and the failure of the means of regulating weight.

Usually what appears to be sides of 'obesity' debating are phony polarities. In this case, those who demand calorie restriction comes about through "individual responsibility" and those who demand the regulation of business.

It's a faulty distinction, regardless all the real toxic stress falls on the individual. It's just anything less than 100% assault on the mind's and bodies of people, including children, is deemed soft. An unacceptable let up on the unconscionable. Like complaints about criminal justice; prison's are too much like holiday camps, if they do not grind the person down with systemic punishment.

May like others of her political cast responds to entreaties to regulate business as they would an assault on a person. I cannot say the reverse is true of those who are seeking to curtail business, they're too disconnected by their use of the de or should I say, unhumanizing 'obesity' moniker.

They just feel it might be more effective to price people into starvation rather than persuade them that anorexia performance isn't the acme of personal and parental achievement.

Neither are bothered by the notion of a life of battling self induced starvation.

May is correct in letting that cat out of its bag. The food and restaurant industry replaced heavy industry. Dismantling the former to replace with the expanding service industry has been the policy of many governments. Without it, it is hard to imagine how many even well off economies could have embarked on this course.

That is why no government, Labour or Conservative is stupid enough to go down that road. They're happy to talk the talk though.

Setting pathologized bodies, devalued bodies against these odds explains a lot of why fat people cannot get out from under being pathologized in the style of rage or phony pity. Blaming fat people holds this together.

It's called having your cake and eating it too. Keep the (de)industrial strategy encourage its replacement, yet insist on something that would require a curtailment of its replacement that would be economically speaking an unknown quantity. Whilst I know beyond doubt few give a damn about fat people, young or not, I doubt the economy could have stood it at any point. Even now, what seems doable only seems that way due to allowing food-commerce to get the hold it has. 

That is what Theresa May means when she says, the economy comes before any pretence of concern about child welfare. It always has and it always will. Forcing that into capitulating to business interests convinces only those who want to kid themselves that they don't know this.

There's not and has never been any reason why children need to be exposed to the psychological conditioning of scotty burger inc. That was about selling the children for the economy, stupid.

Pro-biz or more pro-prospect of employment for people who would otherwise be even more employment-challenged than they are?

Keeping society together right now depends on what the 'obesity' activists are attacking, precisely because they know neither fat children nor adults matter.

That my friends is the class angle on 'obesity' and the food industry.

Fat phobes dream of people under eating in a thriving food sector, through "willpower" or "discipline". Public healthists think they can have both if the calories get stripped out of prepared foods. Ironically the business friendly right are too dizzy on punishing someone to even make that airy-fairy concession to reality.

The economy will always take priority.

Britain's nuclear weapon system recently came up for review. Arguments where openly made that not renewing nuclear weapons would cost jobs. Never mind any other consideration of having those weapons.

On the one side fat people are boxed in by the desire of white coat brigade to evade what will have to be a professional reckoning. On the other, by people who've developed a neurotic compulsion to starve fat people, of any age.

Using Dead Infants to Promote Calorie Restriction

Using percentages

The headline reads;

"Weight gain between pregnancies linked to stillbirths and infant deaths"

Linked is always a word to watch out for when it comes to "obesity related". It usually means-linked to being noticed in a fat person- (it only takes one). The sub-heading is;

Swedish research shows women who put on weight after first pregnancy increase risk of stillbirth by 30-50% and likelihood of infant death by up to 60%

There's the use of percentages. It means the starting figure is not impressive enough even for 'obesity' wallahs, used to speaking with at best a microscopic level of critical scrutiny. 

To be fair, they know some of us are wise to their phoned-in manoeuvres;

Because infant death and stillbirth are relatively rare, the increased risk does not equate to large numbers of deaths.

You know it.

Carry on bullshitting in the face of fact

Next we have carry on regardless.

But experts say stillbirths and infant deaths are already unacceptably high and that it is important to look for ways to help women who become pregnant keep their weight down.

That's a big "But".

The death of an infant is tragedy, though not enough to overcome the urge to control people's eating. These tragedies are to be prostituted for the purpose of dieting, same as anything. Despite the fact that it usually increases the effect being reported. Women should be anorexic a lot anorexic, though not to the extent of dying, because that would be "going too far."

Back to metabolic function

Let's go back a tad.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the study is referring to women who gain weight after their first pregnancy.

They're said to be more likely to have a subsequent child whose stillborn or dies within their first year- whatever their starting weight.

This is genuinely intriguing.

Pregnancy is a time when many if not most women find they gain weight easily. This is due to the body often increasing its energy conservation-rather like when re-gaining weight after diet induced weight regression. The body instinctively lowers its output in order to protect the energy supply, in this case, to the foetus.

Rebounding to the mean

The body can vary tremendously in its ability and extent of reverting back to pre-pregnancy levels of expenditure and storage (of fat and supporting tissue). Restoration to the (prior) mean can happen partially, or (seemingly) hardly. Ditto the period of time over which any metabolic reversion occurs.

Women who lost weight between the first and second birth were at lower risk of having a stillbirth or infant death.

If this is as read, reversion is likely to signal the body's sensitivity to calorie restriction, which is also dependent on the state and response of ones metabolism. As readers of this blog know, weight is all about metabolic function-basically, the rate at which the body generates/replenishes and destroys its own cells. This stillborn/early death effect appears to be related to those bodies whose metabolism is less exact in its restoration of pre-pregnancy function. Potentially reducing the stream of energy available to the developing foetus and/or its ability to meet any extraordinary needs.

Energy conservation

It's somewhat speculative, but the energy conservation displayed in this weight gain could conceivably deny a subsequent foetus a high enough degree of sensitivity it may require to be fully viable at birth or up to its first year. That could also include an issue of timing in that the (slightly?) inexact energy stream may tell at some points of foetus's formation than at others, as in affecting some body systems more than others.

Metabolic manipulation

I used to say back in the day that if men got pregnant, they'd be a whole discipline dedicated to restoring them and their function to pre-pregnancy states. I was thinking as much in terms of appearance as anything.

Why some women, if not many or most women do not "snap back" more readily to their pre-partum state, has always puzzled me. In the same way that the overwhelming majority of people's bodies, thin to fat alike, return to their pre-diet weight over time. So too should women bodies return more to pre motherhood state with such momentum. Perhaps they do more than appears from our vantage point.  Homoeostasis if you will, works both ways.

It exists to maintain a consistency of function. The expected completely different looking body after giving birth is yet another example of the rules being made by a lack of intervention, rather than some assumed hard and fast rules of nature-as in "I'm meant to be 12/15/ 25 stones." Too deterministic, there's just no clear route to reversing weight.

The price of anorexia worship

This could well be, along with the much forgotten people who cannot retain weight, yet another example of the price paid for refusing to approach weight honestly, as a metabolic issue, rather than via a stupid crime and punishment angle. You must serve a life sentence of anorexia for your crime of in this case, mere weight gain.

If the white coat mafia could have just treated fatness via metabolism, heaven knows what they could have achieved by now.

As this list grows ever longer, we have to marvel at how much knowledge we are sacrificing to the dominance of these lifestyle anorexia promoting wing-dings.