Paranoia about macro-nutrients is so inevitable and predictable, it's hard to get worked up about. One can only stand back appalled watching people swinging in the corner they've made for themselves. The one that insists food is the absolute end of regulating seemingly every aspect of the human body.
Of course the overall sway of your emotions affects your appetite, digestion and your body's efficient use of them. How could it be anything else? We are not robots. Those emotions travel in something. Mostly the nervous system. That is the primary system running hunger and appetite mechanisms, d'uh.
Why do so many people feel the need to boast about not ingesting sugar as if it is some kind of a moral triumph? Most of our food has to be converted to sugar in order for our bodies to be able to use it. Which is why insulin the hormone which has a major role in our bodies being able to use that energy/sugar. Which is why diabetes, the condition where the pancreas either isn't making enough or the body is somehow 'resisting' the effects of insulin leads to a high level of sugar circulating in the blood. The body isn't using it up.
Memo to sucrophobes, due to the nature of our bodies, if you ingest sugar, it is easily usable and absorbable by the body. Can we not pretend this is sinister? Thanks.
It's also part of why our bodies can crave sugar under duress. Stress can be extraordinarily draining, physically and emotionally. We can crave a quick boost of energy. Also a factor in alcoholism.
Do we really think that hasn't been quite an enabler for the creepylicious obesity crock to slither into people's consciousness? Whether a soda tax would or would not affect me is irrelevant. Either it's wrong or it is right.
It is wrong, because it is a shame tax. It's wrong because it legitimizes the idea that food causes fat, it demonizes a perfectly natural foodstuff, rather than using intelligence to manage and deal with any issues. It's wrong, because the people running our governments already get enough of a proportion of income to run it decently enough.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Boneheaded misandry
I've just heard via this that there is skepticism about the concept of misandry. Apparently there is no such thing. I find this hard to believe. When you lift up the hatred of women there seems to be a loathing of maleness lurking underneath.
Misanthropy rules in the end.
Our ability as humans to use one part of our minds to abstract ideas about how we should be seems to be a vehicle for being ashamed of ourselves the whole time. Our current abstraction of calories in/out is an example of how our conception of how we are supposed to work doesn't match the reality of how we work. Too often, instead of adjusting our thinking, we attempt to adjust ourselves to what cannot be.
Not sure why.
I find there is boneheaded misandry, around in circles that are supposedly 'traditional' and supposedly respectful of men. Treating men as if they are children and need women to civilize them and so on. In fact that seems to be required in order for men to fulfill their role in that scenario.
I agree though that a lot of the cry of man hater directed at feminists is in the main deeply disingenuous. You can see this especially when women who fit into the more desired models often get a free run to be far more insulting to men than most feminists usually are.
However women cannot be, nor should they have to be perfect. Some don't like men or their influence over us, whether you feel that is an understandable reaction to what men put down is another story.
Misanthropy rules in the end.
Our ability as humans to use one part of our minds to abstract ideas about how we should be seems to be a vehicle for being ashamed of ourselves the whole time. Our current abstraction of calories in/out is an example of how our conception of how we are supposed to work doesn't match the reality of how we work. Too often, instead of adjusting our thinking, we attempt to adjust ourselves to what cannot be.
Not sure why.
I find there is boneheaded misandry, around in circles that are supposedly 'traditional' and supposedly respectful of men. Treating men as if they are children and need women to civilize them and so on. In fact that seems to be required in order for men to fulfill their role in that scenario.
I agree though that a lot of the cry of man hater directed at feminists is in the main deeply disingenuous. You can see this especially when women who fit into the more desired models often get a free run to be far more insulting to men than most feminists usually are.
However women cannot be, nor should they have to be perfect. Some don't like men or their influence over us, whether you feel that is an understandable reaction to what men put down is another story.
Monday, 28 September 2009
Making self-abuse feel right
A while back I got into a little contretemps with a long term weight loss dieter, who claimed that if you want to lose weight and keep it off, you need to be positive about it.
I was reminded of a certain well known (in some circles) fat person, who had regained lost weight, after a number of years. This fattie was very down on himself and was told if he expected to regain his former status as WLD success. Then he should keep his chin up.
I said this was incorrect because this negativity, over and above disappointment of such a reversal, the process of weight loss and keeping it off often required the development of an extremely negative countenance. Because it is essentially a form of self assault and it requires that sort of mood to be a constant, in order for that to make sense.
I myself did not realise this until a force pause after diet burnout revealed to me, that WLD no longer made sense to my mind and body, because I'd had a few weeks off. I hadn't even realized I was doing it. I thought my reaction was a scrupulously honest, i.e. harsh, assessment of my failings regarding dieting. Which I believed was logical, doable and that I must be failing.
What this person didn't realise, probably because she had the relief of a body that yielded to weight loss dieting's imperative, is this man's negative mood, reflected what he needed to diet. It was not the other way around-needed to diet, so what angry/resentful/felt greedy.
Well what do you know, it is now being claimed in a survey that negativity is a requisite for weight loss. Now obviously I should be a little wary, just because it agrees with what I said, doesn't mean that it isn't the usual tripe obesity peddlers like to trot out. Mind you, the fact that it goes against the usual, you fatties are sooo negative makes it worth a look.
I was reminded of a certain well known (in some circles) fat person, who had regained lost weight, after a number of years. This fattie was very down on himself and was told if he expected to regain his former status as WLD success. Then he should keep his chin up.
I said this was incorrect because this negativity, over and above disappointment of such a reversal, the process of weight loss and keeping it off often required the development of an extremely negative countenance. Because it is essentially a form of self assault and it requires that sort of mood to be a constant, in order for that to make sense.
I myself did not realise this until a force pause after diet burnout revealed to me, that WLD no longer made sense to my mind and body, because I'd had a few weeks off. I hadn't even realized I was doing it. I thought my reaction was a scrupulously honest, i.e. harsh, assessment of my failings regarding dieting. Which I believed was logical, doable and that I must be failing.
What this person didn't realise, probably because she had the relief of a body that yielded to weight loss dieting's imperative, is this man's negative mood, reflected what he needed to diet. It was not the other way around-needed to diet, so what angry/resentful/felt greedy.
Well what do you know, it is now being claimed in a survey that negativity is a requisite for weight loss. Now obviously I should be a little wary, just because it agrees with what I said, doesn't mean that it isn't the usual tripe obesity peddlers like to trot out. Mind you, the fact that it goes against the usual, you fatties are sooo negative makes it worth a look.
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Fat Privilege
When Peggy MacIntosh decided to unpack what she calls the knapsack of white privilege, it was her knapsack. Twas an insider's view. That original inspiration has morphed into people unpacking other people's knapsacks. The results have sometimes not been pretty.
For the same reason that some emit the edict to "check your privilege", it's not just the 'privileged' who have to check themselves out. It's those who are calling it out. They too are as capable of being full of shit and plain wrong as anyone else. Being disadvantaged/oppressed doesn't purify your character or mind OK? Nor should be expected to.
Peggy Mac's version of the concept has some use. But like any there's a point when it disintegrates and is overly or misapplied. Then it serves to obscure more than it illuminates. As I have said before, I feel that "thin privilege" is a brilliant example of where that line occurs. Whatever you feel about this kind of privilege-that of unfair, unearned advantages (whatever that means) as opposed to the Derridan sense of it as a certain condition or state that is accorded certain status over and above others, I wondered what about fat people, do we have any unearned advantage over others?
Now please do not think I'm doing this merely to be mischievous. It is a legitimate thing to consider. And as so many are telling others, privilege is nothing to get the hump about. So, what could possibly be the point of such a seemingly absurd proposition as fat privilege? Well, it's occurred to me for a while, but I've struggled to find a way to express that despite or sometimes because of the way society dogs fat people, there are things about it and the experience of it that are worthwhile.
The underlying problem I have with putting the fat experience into the category marked, oppression is-apart from the fact that I don't believe that we are, yet- and I think they should be named in case we do.
The fat as oppressed, takes us down a road that I can tell is not a good idea. It doesn't represent us realistically and I think after succumbing so long to the convenient lies of others, we not only deserve better. I do not believe that fat people are the poorest of the poor, disproportionately, I think that we are more likely to be the working or aspirant poor and a bit more.
So, back to a prospective list of fat privilege; physically is its potentially stabilizing effects on mood. From alleviating depression to an anti-psychotic effect etc., weight gain seems to stop or slow you from sinking into a mire. Without the side effects of alcohol and drugs which mess up your chemical balance and ability to function. This might be part of the reason why we are less likely to commit suicide than other weight groups.
It also seems to have potentially stabilizing effect overall in terms of life in general, though this could be partly repression. That smothers bad as well as good behaviour.
Having had less access to the product of the labour of today's version of indentured servitude- i.e. sweat shops, we have less of a burden of guilt about that kind of capitalist exploitation. We are more likely to be seen as approachable and non threatening. Less likely to be seen as a threat in terms of looks, less likely to be a recipient of that kind of hostility. Our gender identity is more likely to be seen as distinct, therefore convincing than thin people's. We are more able to be seen as an experience sexually, due to our size. We can be perceived as more responsible, solid citizens, especially at a younger age, when it maybe counts more. Less prone to niggling ailments, such as colds etc., More likely to be seen as a nicer person.
More likely to know the futility of the weight loss diet canard, therefore more likely to be liberated from mindless obedience to authority. Less likely to be an alcoholic =less likely to be an illegal drug user, therefore, less likely to have trouble with the law, be in prison.
There's a quality about fatness that can be hard to replicate, hence the french saying that a woman should look thin, but feel fat.
More likely to be seen as a force to be reckoned with, more intimidating. By this I mean that if your body instinctively uses it's capacity to gain weight to either help stave off potential or actual mental crisis, those who can't call on this option may have to pay for it.
Now for the reverse I'm speculating from what I've managed to glean from less fat people themselves. So it's up to them to correct me on this. They think, we're freer, from being liked for ourselves. Freer to eat what we want (projection). Freedom's a theme here.
For the same reason that some emit the edict to "check your privilege", it's not just the 'privileged' who have to check themselves out. It's those who are calling it out. They too are as capable of being full of shit and plain wrong as anyone else. Being disadvantaged/oppressed doesn't purify your character or mind OK? Nor should be expected to.
Peggy Mac's version of the concept has some use. But like any there's a point when it disintegrates and is overly or misapplied. Then it serves to obscure more than it illuminates. As I have said before, I feel that "thin privilege" is a brilliant example of where that line occurs. Whatever you feel about this kind of privilege-that of unfair, unearned advantages (whatever that means) as opposed to the Derridan sense of it as a certain condition or state that is accorded certain status over and above others, I wondered what about fat people, do we have any unearned advantage over others?
Now please do not think I'm doing this merely to be mischievous. It is a legitimate thing to consider. And as so many are telling others, privilege is nothing to get the hump about. So, what could possibly be the point of such a seemingly absurd proposition as fat privilege? Well, it's occurred to me for a while, but I've struggled to find a way to express that despite or sometimes because of the way society dogs fat people, there are things about it and the experience of it that are worthwhile.
The underlying problem I have with putting the fat experience into the category marked, oppression is-apart from the fact that I don't believe that we are, yet- and I think they should be named in case we do.
The fat as oppressed, takes us down a road that I can tell is not a good idea. It doesn't represent us realistically and I think after succumbing so long to the convenient lies of others, we not only deserve better. I do not believe that fat people are the poorest of the poor, disproportionately, I think that we are more likely to be the working or aspirant poor and a bit more.
So, back to a prospective list of fat privilege; physically is its potentially stabilizing effects on mood. From alleviating depression to an anti-psychotic effect etc., weight gain seems to stop or slow you from sinking into a mire. Without the side effects of alcohol and drugs which mess up your chemical balance and ability to function. This might be part of the reason why we are less likely to commit suicide than other weight groups.
It also seems to have potentially stabilizing effect overall in terms of life in general, though this could be partly repression. That smothers bad as well as good behaviour.
Having had less access to the product of the labour of today's version of indentured servitude- i.e. sweat shops, we have less of a burden of guilt about that kind of capitalist exploitation. We are more likely to be seen as approachable and non threatening. Less likely to be seen as a threat in terms of looks, less likely to be a recipient of that kind of hostility. Our gender identity is more likely to be seen as distinct, therefore convincing than thin people's. We are more able to be seen as an experience sexually, due to our size. We can be perceived as more responsible, solid citizens, especially at a younger age, when it maybe counts more. Less prone to niggling ailments, such as colds etc., More likely to be seen as a nicer person.
More likely to know the futility of the weight loss diet canard, therefore more likely to be liberated from mindless obedience to authority. Less likely to be an alcoholic =less likely to be an illegal drug user, therefore, less likely to have trouble with the law, be in prison.
There's a quality about fatness that can be hard to replicate, hence the french saying that a woman should look thin, but feel fat.
More likely to be seen as a force to be reckoned with, more intimidating. By this I mean that if your body instinctively uses it's capacity to gain weight to either help stave off potential or actual mental crisis, those who can't call on this option may have to pay for it.
Now for the reverse I'm speculating from what I've managed to glean from less fat people themselves. So it's up to them to correct me on this. They think, we're freer, from being liked for ourselves. Freer to eat what we want (projection). Freedom's a theme here.
Saturday, 26 September 2009
Taxing people
Rather than a shame tax on foods, some fantasize there should be a tax on the fat body itself. On fat people effectively.
Not only does this man think fatness is different from 'obesity'. The latter being fat beyond his wildest dreams. He thinks that fat people are like objects, like cigarettes.
The purpose of taxing fat people is of course to avoid taxing food that slim people like to eat. Even though they're supposed to be slim due to eating so well. As they're only occasional and rare indulgers of this kind of food. If ever. You'd think they wouldn't miss it if it was unavailable.
Especially as he insists, fat people use up 42% more in health care costs compared to the normal weighted. You'd think they'd be able to make no sacrifice, shut all fast food, soft drinks and confectionery down.
Ensuring slimness for all.
Problem solved.
But no, though slim people are rarely seen but dead eating any of this as we know. They remain remarkably attached to it. Seeking to avoid any infraction on it, despite moaning about what they consider to be the costs of fulfilling their wishes.
I say theirs, because I'm sure fat people's views will be disregarded as usual. If it wasn't for the only views that count. Hey, why not tax the slim until they get out of their own way.
Let's end their suffering, that of having people fat at them.
Not only does this man think fatness is different from 'obesity'. The latter being fat beyond his wildest dreams. He thinks that fat people are like objects, like cigarettes.
The purpose of taxing fat people is of course to avoid taxing food that slim people like to eat. Even though they're supposed to be slim due to eating so well. As they're only occasional and rare indulgers of this kind of food. If ever. You'd think they wouldn't miss it if it was unavailable.
Especially as he insists, fat people use up 42% more in health care costs compared to the normal weighted. You'd think they'd be able to make no sacrifice, shut all fast food, soft drinks and confectionery down.
Ensuring slimness for all.
Problem solved.
But no, though slim people are rarely seen but dead eating any of this as we know. They remain remarkably attached to it. Seeking to avoid any infraction on it, despite moaning about what they consider to be the costs of fulfilling their wishes.
I say theirs, because I'm sure fat people's views will be disregarded as usual. If it wasn't for the only views that count. Hey, why not tax the slim until they get out of their own way.
Let's end their suffering, that of having people fat at them.
Friday, 25 September 2009
Inhabiting the norm
I want to pick up on a point sweet machine made in a post about gay and bisexual teens yesterday.
When we depathologize states of being that are considered abnormal, we can reveal the normative structures that propped up our pathologizing in the first place.
Or when we stop using our own states of being as the starting point from which all must be measured against. There is also a difference between abnormal and unusual. That which is rare or unusual is by no means bad, and this is a category that should be able to be accepted both by those that are in that category and those who aren't.
I have a problem with this fighting to be included into the category 'normal' as opposed to fighting for equal acceptance and understanding; or dismantling the neurosis of normalcy, which is often a source and creator of injustice. Fighting for normal seems to underline the norm as an ideal, and that can be counterproductive.
There is that which is normal to each of us; however rare or unusual a flower we are, and that which is possibly a/the norm in general; either the main body of people, or the largest minority which people fit in to.
When we accept that the categories we’re accustomed to are not best described as X and not-X (straight and not straight, thin and not-thin, etc.) but as X and Y and probably Z too, we see that X was only considered “normal” because it was important to people who are X to view it that way.
X could be anyone, it could be those who are fighting for their rights, they are just as capable of seeing their state as the one by which all others should not only be measured, against, but all others shaped around. Or all other states should be shaped wholly to be pressganged into giving shape to their state, because it cannot be defined as they would like without turning others into an extension of that state.Some people might say that is the hallmark of the fractiousnes of normal itself.
When we look from a standpoint of celebrating human diversity, it seems bizarre to think of Z as abnormal or the “opposite” of X: Z is its own way of being.
Agreed, but again, this is not always a divide between those who suffer social injustice v. those advantaged in general or by injustice, it is an attitude of mind, and those fighting against the norm use that 'bizarre' stance themselves at times, yet still critique that same stance because they eitehr feel it does or it actually does, go against them. This undermines their own outrage at this stance -if not at the injustice itself.
Thin people and straight people aren’t required to explain away their bodies and desires; they’re not asked “How do you know you’re straight?” or “Have you ever thought about trying not to be thin?”
In general terms, no they aren't required to justify themselves as much, but the neurosis that overspills into prejudice also puts it's own impositions on the X's, but it's not backed up by the mechanical weight of those who operate the levers of the societal machine. But plenty of those who aren't straight, feel exactly that straight = bullshit- and I'm sure it's not entirely wrong for straights to ask themselves these kinds of questions or be asked them. For instance, just how 'straight' can female sexuality be? Does it even really exist in it's own right in mainstream terms? It seems that the 'straight' is male heterosex and female het, is just an adjunct of that.
Witness how many women 'suffer' from female sexual dysfunction, or sorrily misused/ misunderstood/ semi existent female sexuality imploding under the weight of it's own hollowed outness. The term seems to be about men- gay talking about other men 'straight'. It's like in joke mockery than a category for women. Or thin shaming, hardly backed up by the sort of official power that gets behind the obesity crisis.
Social justice movements aren’t simply trying to flip things around and make it so that those questions do get asked of “normal” people, too; they’re trying to get rid of these demeaning, eliminationist questions in the first place.
Um, not necessarily, it depends on their requirements, but I think you'll find that plenty within social justice movements are just trying to flip things around, with them in the driving seat instead. They may feel that what they have is a better way and that others ought to have to answer to that way.
It's like Kera's mother, some people truly want to understand diversity, some do not, or are constutionally unable to, the lines don't divide. Those who fight for extention of rights versus those who enjoy them.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
The screaming neurosis of normal
I've been wanting to write about this for a while. It's been brought to my mind by sweet machine quoting a lady called Thea Hillman, who is intersex and identifies as female.
Ms Hillman talks about "normal as a weapon of mass destruction" in the context of it being aimed at the bodies of people who do not fit mainstream idealized notions of sexuality or gender.
Normal though imprisons us all. One of the more shocking things for me, and it seems to be very much an American thing to date, is the fight for normal. No one is allowed to describe themselves thus, no matter how conventional their experience. This is seen as a major infraction. An assault against those who are unusual or rare, because somewhere along the line, it was decided that normal must be for all.
There are different ways of seeing the norm. In terms of overall number and in terms of your own personal norm. They aren't the same thing. No one should oppress others with the idea that they do not fit in or are substandard due to not being what everyone's used to. Or is expected.
Yet, I cannot help seeing this need to be called normal when you aren't or the sense of threat toward those who are as an ominous sign. It feels like the wrong target for so much energy.
Embracing difference fully feels like the one. Coming to terms with the idea that it is as real and as vital as similarity. It is inevitable. To see that every person has a place and it isn't nor does it have to be the same as others. One sees in the cosmetic surgery, and even to an extent the fitness industry a slide towards an excessive uniformity that can be quite eerie.
Normal is itself a conglomeration of many things. It is a range even more than it is a specific person. Many are faking, playing normal and their neurosis about this often screams so loudly, showing at times even more distress than those deemed misfits. Fueling the aggression against aimed at others. Thus submerging the evidence of what they wish to hide in themselves.
Wishing to be included in the norm is probably an extension of that impulse. It is a part of us, but we should consider resisting its pull. Normal should not mean the same as accepted.
Ms Hillman talks about "normal as a weapon of mass destruction" in the context of it being aimed at the bodies of people who do not fit mainstream idealized notions of sexuality or gender.
Normal though imprisons us all. One of the more shocking things for me, and it seems to be very much an American thing to date, is the fight for normal. No one is allowed to describe themselves thus, no matter how conventional their experience. This is seen as a major infraction. An assault against those who are unusual or rare, because somewhere along the line, it was decided that normal must be for all.
There are different ways of seeing the norm. In terms of overall number and in terms of your own personal norm. They aren't the same thing. No one should oppress others with the idea that they do not fit in or are substandard due to not being what everyone's used to. Or is expected.
Yet, I cannot help seeing this need to be called normal when you aren't or the sense of threat toward those who are as an ominous sign. It feels like the wrong target for so much energy.
Embracing difference fully feels like the one. Coming to terms with the idea that it is as real and as vital as similarity. It is inevitable. To see that every person has a place and it isn't nor does it have to be the same as others. One sees in the cosmetic surgery, and even to an extent the fitness industry a slide towards an excessive uniformity that can be quite eerie.
Normal is itself a conglomeration of many things. It is a range even more than it is a specific person. Many are faking, playing normal and their neurosis about this often screams so loudly, showing at times even more distress than those deemed misfits. Fueling the aggression against aimed at others. Thus submerging the evidence of what they wish to hide in themselves.
Wishing to be included in the norm is probably an extension of that impulse. It is a part of us, but we should consider resisting its pull. Normal should not mean the same as accepted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)