nwhiker: (Default)
Wow.

I first read this book as a teenager... in French. The cover was of a Martian landscape and a rocket, and as such, along with the title and the designation as SF, cemented it AS SF in my brain.

On re-read... NSM. This time I got more of short stories, with various thoughts and ideas, and the SF was just the hook, a common theme, but not the purpose.

Must mull more on that. That said, it wasn't as wonderful as I remembered it, and at times the stereotypes grated. The final "ouch" was that it was better to be alone than with a fat woman. Yes, she was an idiot, but his perception of her was very clearly fixed when she failed to live up to his physical expectations. The story, imo, crystalises the concept of "I'd not date a fat woman if she were the last woman on Earth!", though in this case Mars. Anyhow.

Glad I re-read. I'm more and more leaning towards NOT revisiting any more of the books I read so many years ago.
nwhiker: (Cottage Lake snow)
My doom is sealed. In a fun way.

We just signed up for our yearly bike rides, that we missed last summer. Flying Wheels, a nasty hilly metric century in early June, and the Seattle to Portland, 204 miles! It's just dh, Perry, and me this year, Anne-Chloe having said "oh hell no" about doing it again.

We need to buy Perry a bike (sigh.... decent road bikes are expensive, even if we buy used) and get training.

The three things I am not looking forward to:

-- Getting up early for STP Day 1. I hate hate hate the nauseated feeling of getting up too early.

-- The hill into Napavine at the end of the day, 110 miles in, on STP Day 1.

-- All the condescending Good Jobs! tossed at the fatty biking. Those hurt my soul in a way I'll never fully be able to articulate. Someone I know, when I was complaining about it, said it was the compliment giver's way to welcoming me to the biking community.... To which someone else pointed out, which really helped me in articulating my feelings on this, that this was seriously othering, because it assumed I needed welcoming into anything, it removed the default if you're doing this ride, you're a cyclist into something that can be bestowed by someone wanting to feel good about tossing a compliment the fatty's way. They are. I must be given. So blah.

Also, OMG, I'm going to be biking with a taller than me teenaged boy. Why do I sense he's going to just head to Portland and call us from the Finish Line? (He's not 18, so he can't do the one day solo, poor kid, or he'd be sure to try.)
nwhiker: (heart)
The Diet Fix by Dr Yoni Freedhoff.

Dr Freedhoff is also the author on my of my favourite blogs, Weighty Matters. He's an Ottawa physician who now specialises in weight loss, and was -for full wow! factor- one of the people behind Disney quickly dismantling their cruel-to-fat-kids Habit Heroes or whatever it was called exhibit.

This is perhaps the best book about dieting that I have ever read. Period.

To start with, it isn't a diet book. Most of those are, essentially, gimmicks. Don't eat after 8pm. No carbs! No grains! No fat! No fruit! Only fruit! No foods with the letter E! Subway three meals a day! Cabbage soup before every meal! All of those, each and every one of them, is a way to trick you into, in fact, reducing calories. Period. This is no magic there. Which is why these books sell and work, at least for a short time.

So. Not two-week-diet-plan at the end of the book. Oh there are some recipes, but they feel there just because, there is no OMG, these are the very best recipes that will help you...

What Dr Freedhoff did, in this book, is identify problems, and give solutions, and helps everyone find their own path as a dieter.

There is SO much in this book, and I'm going to only highlight the two things that I found the most helpful.

Dr Freedhoff is aware that some of us are what he calls survivors of "traumatic dieting". We're the ones who've tried and failed, tried to be perfect, and failed, whose self-esteem, if it were a geologic era, would be somewhere around the Cretaceous. His "solution"? A 10 day reset of expectations at the start of a diet.

Oh, for most of us, it would take more than 10 days, which is probably the only gimmick in the book. To do this right will take longer, because it is not just the planning of meals and trips to the supermarket, but the emotional breaking down of years of a crappy relationship with food, our bodies, and dieting. The tools are there.

This "10" days reset, btw, will work no matter what brand of weird diet you want to choose for weight loss, from Weight Watchers to South Beach. In his comments, btw, about "resetting" the Weight Watchers diet, he made something very clear to me, that I hadn't seen before about WW and my behaviour on the diet, and I'm slowly trying to correct that. Anyhow.

In a nutshell, the reset can be viewed as a recovery program, a way for those of us with multiple failures in our past, to break away from some of them, and perhaps to move on. Again, I've rarely felt this positive about a book that speaks of weight loss.

The second thing that was good to read.. This is something that I've been trying to articulate over the years, to people online and at my Weight Watchers meetings but Dr Freedhoff has gone further and been more clear than I could ever dream of being.

That human beings rejoice in food. We celebrate with food, we share food, we enjoy it. And that any program that does not allow for that intimate participation in a fundamental part of human culture is bound to fail long term. That doesn't mean we have to eat out lavishly every night, but that celebrating with food is normal, and should not be viewed as obscene and disgusting, as it often is in the ascetic culture of rapid diets (which I'm part of at times!). To me, this mind shift is fundamental, because it acknowledges the shared humanity of fat AND thin people. Despite the mantra in many diet-places, eat like a thin person eats! does not translate to never celebrate your birthday, because thin people never do.

Those two things I was going to high light? Never mind, I'm moving on to a third, though I suppose it's part of the first in some ways.

The goal for weight loss, he says, is to eat as little as you can while still being happy with your life.

And that, my friends, is a fucking dramatic departure from every other book on dieting I have ever read. Happy. With. Your. Life. Dear god, that is NEVER mentioned elsewhere. You're fat, you're supposed to suffer every day, in order to hopefully attain thinness. If you can't suffer long term, it's because of your lack of willpower. And that breeds self contempt. That cycle is what Dr Freedhoff is giving the tools to help us break.

Happy with your life. Be at a weight where you can be happy, that you can happily maintain.
nwhiker: (Default)
How Washington lost the war on childhood obesity

What a stupid headline.

Because of course only the fat kids eat pizza and sugar laden foods! Thin kids must subsist on water and fresh veggies? Yeah right.

What we gave up was an opportunity to ensure healthy food for children. But of course it's so much more dramatic to play it as a war on something. Or someone, ie fat kids.

Crappy food is crappy food. And the government should know by now that their efforts to get the right thing done -healthier foods available to kids- is actually harmed by tying it to the war on fat (kids). People are repulsed by fat kids, and think it's their own fault and/or that of their parents. You're not going to get the public to care about improving crappy food by making fat kids your proxy. If anything is to happen, the government needs to show that all kids are hurt by this crud (they are), because people will protest when thin (ie virtuous) children are harmed. This current methodology hurts only the fat kids (who are blamed for the loss of cupcakes in the classrooms) and helps nobody.

In a nutshell, attempting to tie improvement in food marketing to children to Protect the FAT KIDS isn't going to ever work because most people really don't CARE about the fat kids. See the recent CNN story on how bullying about being fat only became important once kids who were not fat started being bullied: Fat is the new ugly.

By associating fat people = unhealthy = eat bad food, we are a) ignoring the fat people who -gasp!- don't, and b) ignoring the thin people who do, and who just may have bodies that don't show the evidence of their "sins".

By associating the cruddy foods with fat bodies, we are made the proxy for everything bad, and with the level of disdain (milder word that reality, actually) that the population has for fat people, there is a general feeling of "why bother to help those people?"

Again, you may get attention with OMG FATTIE FAT FAT, HEADLESS FATTY EATING CRAPPY FOOD OMG OMG! headlines, it will attract the people who gawk at accidents, the ones of who want to look on in curious disgust. It turns the issue of crappy food in school into those FATTY FAT FAT kids' parents problem, not a societal one.

We can barely move toward societal good for people we think deserve it (say, veterans or older people who've worked all their lives), there is NO way that we'll motivate any action when the perception is that it's for people who do not deserve anything but shame and scorn.
nwhiker: (Default)
Why did I read the comments? WHY? How stupid can I get? (Don't answer that. That was a rhetorical question.)

I was reading this little bit of revolting insanity: With Classroom Breakfasts, a Concern That Some Children Eat Twice

JesuseffingChrist. We're talking poor kids, who may be hungry, but cut off the food, because OMG! Obesity! OMG! FAT KIDS.

Give me a freaking break. Kids need nutrition to learn. Feeding them makes sense, and feeding them in the classroom has been shown to work. But OMG, there might be a fat kid getting some food! Mustn't have that.

The article's conclusion, bolding mine.

J. Michael Murphy, a psychology professor at Harvard Medical School who has studied free classroom breakfasts, said that he considered obesity to be only a minor concern with such programs. But he conceded that well-meaning policymakers, trying to feed as many children as possible, could face a dilemma.

“What are you going to do?” Dr. Murphy asked. “Have a scale and say you can’t have the free breakfast because you’re already overweight?


Actually, Dr Murphy, that is exactly what they'd like to do.

From the comments, this little gem: Yeah, this is crazy. You can't make normal kids go hungry because fat kids eat too much.

Words fucking fail. I guess fat kids have pre-eaten all their food, according to this idiot, and should just be starved until they're thin? Ideally, I'm pretty sure some people would love to see all of us fatties rounded up like cattle and killed. Considering how many commenters to any article on fat use animal and/or object descriptors for fat people, our basic humanity is something they do put in question, but since that isn't possible, killing us all, I suppose individually starving kids would be a good start!

A year or so back, on a liberal forum, when similar things were mentioned (cutting food stamps to fund Michelle Obama's Let's Move Bully Fat Kids program), someone spoke of the "agony of thin children" who would be "starved" to pay for better cafeteria meals for the overeating fat kids.

So yeah. There is a definite feeling out there that fat kids actually don't deserve to eat. And it makes me sick.
nwhiker: (Default)
The Fat Trap.

This is why I knelt there, in the small bathroom with red linoleum in my apartment in France, with my wash basin filled with warm water in the shower stall and a razor blade in my hand, hating myself for not even having the courage to kill myself. I've never lost that hatred.

I've also never lost the feeling that people don't understand fat. They just don't. Oh, there are some glimmers now: "It's impossible to lose weight!" Well no shit, Sherlock, I could have told you that 20+ years ago when I realised that I'd never be thin and thought that dead was better ya know?

Add in the constant reminder that fat people are really not people, but just lard to be eliminated (read my fat tag for prior examples, I'm too depressed to look for them) and it's no wonder that most of us feel like we really would be better off dead.

Maybe I'm not making sense. And I gained 6lbs in a week, because of two days of eating holiday food. It won't come off. I've been on a plateau for 6 months... why should I expect my weight to do anything but go up.

I live my life in a war zone: me against my body. There is no truce possible.

And it's very very frightening to realise that nobody, not doctors of scientists or fuckwit journalists like Gary Taubes, has a freaking clue as to what to do, how to help. There is lip service paid to not getting fat in the first place... but I have a fat kid, and let me tell you, we did everything the experts said to do, and yet, here we are. Another generation cursed, and more guilt for me, for having dared to have children.

So I panic, consider gastric bypass, and remind myself that with three children and a spouse who love me, suicide is no longer on the table. And some part of me regrets that I didn't succeed, so many years ago.
nwhiker: (Default)
The concept of "privilege" is one that is, I think, difficult to see from the inside. I mean, I'm, pretty much, an upper middle class white woman. I have loads of privilege related to that. I'm fat, so I lose some. I have lived as a kinda non-privileged person (in France), so I know a bit about prejudice.

Still very aware of loads of privilege.

I know I've linked to Shakesville before because I love that blog. I love the political perspective, the unapologetic feminist view point, the respectful attitudes toward the concept of safe place, and the unfailing "calling out" on privilege. I don't comment much there, because I fear using a word they find offensive, or saying something that isn't ok. They aren't very tolerant of even slightly divergent view points when it comes to some things. Which is fine. (The one thing I despise about the blog is rather minor: the whole zie/hir bit. I much prefer s/he or whatever.) Anyhow.

I do like that they call out privilege when it asserts itself, because we often don't realise it. When a black woman comments about her hair being touched, to cite a recent example, saying OMG, when I was in Africa/Asia, people touched my blond hair too is irrelevant, it is NOT the same thing and it is offensive at the very least.

They're also very good about calling out thin privilege, and it's a fat accepting place. They strike for inclusiveness and respectful language. Overall, it's a pretty awesome group of bloggers/commenters.

With, imo, one pretty serious blind spot.

This post was made last week: Quote of the Day and since it's so short, I'll grab most of the post:



"By calling girls like me fat this is what you're doing to other people." — Miley Cyrus, on her twitter, responding to critics of her new, plumper body, by posting a picture of an emaciated woman. [...] Miley followed up with a tweet stating "I don't wanna be shaped like a girl I LOVE being shaped like a WOMAN."



Yay, Miley Cyrus, right? I mean, she's right: she isn't fat in the slightest, and skewing the perspective of what fat means is hurtful to many people. If someone like her is "fat", WTF are the rest of us?

Cyrus says that she loves being shaped like a woman.

And the pile-on at Shakesville started in the comments. The very thin women started to complain.

They're not fond of the "real women have curves" mantra. Yeah, I understand why. Real women are... women, they may or may not have curves. I get why the distaste.

But you know that? Fuck that.

Complaining like many people do, that "real women have curves" is a exclusionary vision because they're women, but they're flat chested/hipless/buttless is, imo, shit.

Because those poor skinny curveless women? Are the dominant paradigm of beauty in our society.

Whining that they don't have curves and they're women and it's not right to say to be a real women is to have curves because they don't, repeat ad nauseum, is about as offensive to me as a blue-eyed blonde with fair skin and straight hair complaining that "Black is Beautiful!" excludes her, because her skin is "pale as milk", and she can't sport an Afro in a million years because her hair is just too silky.

When you are the standard by which beauty is measured, screaming that you're be discriminated against by Real Women Have Curves, is, imo, hypocritical beyond belief, and to totally awash in privilege, I don't see how one can even unpick it.

Yes, I can see very thin, boyishly shaped women do get some negative stereotypes thrown their way, but nowhere near what happens to a curvier woman (Eat a sandwich vs Die fat pig!). Nobody takes their thin body shape to be a symbol of their morality (fat people are greedy gluttons, they're lazy and dirty). They are not prejudged in the same way. [eta] Nobody blames those thin boyish women for global warming and food prices. Just like nobody blames extremely thin kids for the economic crisis, like Michelle Obama did fat kids.

Curvier women have embraced "Real Women Have Curves" because it's one small fucking bit of positive light shone on curvier bodies. Whining that you, on whom the light of privilege shines brightly, are being excluded from this small bit of positivity, is like white men complaining that "women and blacks get it all". [eta] Or Christians complaining about "Happy Holidays" and calling themselves persecuted.

This has always bothered me at Shakesville, that they don't call out that bit of privilege, saying "yes, thin women, I understand that you are not overly endowed with curves... but a good percentage of the population would pick your body out as the archetype of a beautiful body, so please don't complain."
nwhiker: (phoenix)
Every day I get a mailing from Amu Garg (whom I've seen at my local library, he lives near here..)'s A.Word.A.Day. I've been getting that email, on one account or another, for almost as long as it's been going on, since 94 (They started in March, I got on that summer.). Anyhow, they used to include what they called the X-Bonus, a short quote, but you only saw that if you had a certain type of email reader, and later changed it to be part of the message. The words are fun, and I wish I could remember even 1% of them, and I love the quotes.

Here is today's:

The Potter books in general are a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry, and I think it's one of the reasons that some people don't like the books, but I think that it's a very healthy message to pass on to younger people that you should question authority and you should not assume that the establishment or the press tells you all of the truth. -J.K. Rowling, novelist (b. 1965)


It is perhaps no secret that I've long immersed myself in the Potterverse, and aside from the last one, I really do love the books.

Rowling has flashes of genius, I think, but is also self=deluded about her world in a way... well, pretty badly, actually.

The question authority and the press and all that? Yeah. However, just as an aside, since it's not the point I want to make today, if you're going to go against the establishment, be very careful who you listen to. Because if you choose your alternate source of information poorly, you'll end up as misinformed and on as poor a path as the people who listen to the establishment, and you'll think you're right because you're not sheeple. No, you're just an idiot. Anyhow, that isn't the point I wanted to address.

No, that point was the first part of her little self-congratulatory little quote there: [t]he Potter books in general are a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry[.] WTF, JKR?

A world where you are "tracked" based on the utterings of a talking hat is tolerant? Where 1/4 of a school community is assumed to be evil and bad, treated accordingly, and nothing is done to bring them back into the mainstream? Oh yeah, Crabbe and Goyle and Malfoy are pretty awful even before they're sorted, but puleeze. There is acceptance that it's fine to literally throw away 1/4 of your children. 25% are just evil and we'll deal with them later, kthxbai? That's tolerance? A plea for tolerance in a world where it is never questioned that the best course of action for these kids who apparently come to school with less than perfect character (ie to be sorted into Slytherin) is to throw them all together and let them stew in their lack of upstanding moral character. There is no attempt to change, to teach, just an assumption of bad=slytherin=toss-them-into-their-dungeon-and-don't-attempt-to-teach-them-better-values.

Hermione is mocked for being outraged at the enslavement of house elves. Mocked. Constantly. And we're shown house-elves who, except for the exceptional one, appear to like their enslavement. See everyone? Hermione really is silly, they like to be slaves, why bother with changing that? The ok-ness of this is understated by the fact that Ron, with Harry's unsaid approval, I think, comments on how his mum would love a house-elf. The Weasleys are pretty run-of-the-mill wizards, they're poor but mainstream. They accept slavery as a matter of course. As does Harry. Unless there is abuse of the slave, then of course, Harry doesn't like that. So there is a problem for me there.

Shall we even talk about the kick to the stomach to any fat kid that the descriptions of Dudley Dursley are? JKR has made some very accepting statements herself about fat and young women but in the books? She has fallen into the fat/evil/venal/lazy/etc rut, with Dudley and Slughorn. Dudley especially. I wish I could find the blogpost about a fat mother reading the first book out loud to her young, and fat son, and how she trailed off into tears, and didn't know what to do. It was heartbreaking to read. Fat as an symbol of lower moral character isn't tolerance. I'm fat, not venal, not (too) lazy, not evil, not greedy, not...

Oh yeah, it's a plea for tolerance... one kind of tolerances, towards the impure of blood. Everyone else? Not so much.

[eta] [livejournal.com profile] cassandra7 left a comment that is very relevant and adds much to what I wrote above:

She certainly doesn't consider squibs (the name is such a giveaway) equal to wizards, nor does she consider muggles human at all. The treatment of muggles by "good" wizards is totalitarian--just walk into their heads and tamper with their reality any time it's convenient to you to do so. Hermione even does it to her parents. The only people JKR really takes seriously are male, white Gryffindors, who are excused anything, including endless bullying (George and Fred, Sirius and James) and Unforgivable Curses (Harry). But, oh, the points she gives herself for her alleged "tolerance."
nwhiker: (Default)
Study: Healthful diet may be too costly for some Americans.

Really? I'm shocked! Fruit, and veggies are more expensive than processed crap? And -OMG I can hardly beleive that!- people with the less money were furthest from meeting daily nutrient recs, and the people who spent the most? Were closer! Whoa! Can you imagine?!!!

One more study states the obvious...

Seriously, though. I read the comments at the Seattle Times website, and the "if they were virtuous poor people, they'd eat rice and beans! Cheap and filling and healthy too!"

Yeah. And you know what else? Taste like crap if not properly prepared.

Damn it. People just don't get it. It's SO easy, from our MC, UMC positions of privilege to ignore everything it really takes to put a cheap healthy meal on the table, a meal that is also, oh, vaguely appealing to kids.

It's so easy to say 10 lbs of potatoes = $2.50, and how much are potato chips? when, oh, good potatoes? 25c a pound? Not around where I live. Sometimes the russets can be had for 40c, but that's about as cheap as they get. And plain? Umm.. yum? Not! Yeah, a good potato, roasted, with some salt? Delicious, right? Yeah, when it's a novelty, part of an otherwise varied diet. It's not so good when it's what's for dinner because you can't even freaking afford some butter or yogurt or whatever to put on top.

Fruit and veggies are expensive. I do the shopping for my family. We eat a lot of fruit and veggies, and it isn't cheap. I buy at Costco, because I have the extra money for a membership, the fridge space to store 15 lbs of fruit while we eat it, enough cash for the initial outlay. This is a luxury for many people.

It's so easy to condemn, to blame, and not to see that when time and money are at a premium, when it's more important to make sure the kids eat period than it is to think too much about what they eat, that when that's the case... some types of foods are going to show up on people's tables more often than the health gurus would like. But that's reality. Unless we make sure that minimum wage is a living wage, that there are supermarkets available, with fresh fruit and veg, in all neighbourhoods, help people learn to make cheap food palatable etc, nothing much is going to change.
nwhiker: (Default)
Horrifying new product alert - body fat scales for children.

It's a blog post by Dr Yoni Freedhoff. Dr Freedhoff is, imo, not much into HAES, however from his blogging, I'd say he is one of the more reasonable people out there, aware that being fat isn't quite as simple as some people like to claim. He is also not a victim of the moral panic about obesity. His concern feels, at least to me, like genuine concern, not the prurient, gawk at the fat-lady-at-the-circus, faux concern that attempts to mask fat hatred that many others display (yes, Michelle Obama, I'm looking at you and your despicable campaign.).

This post? He misses the point. Or perhaps, he misses the opportunity to make two very good points. It's even more annoying because he is about 9/10s of the way there.

First I want to say is... what the fish do we expect? We're say over and over that OMG! FAT KIDS!!!! GONNA DIE!!! NOW! DIABETES! FAT FAT FAT! We make it clear to parents that it is THEIR FAULT (mothers, really, who don't stay home to prepare healthy dinners every night, but for the sake of not going into that argument, I'll just say parents here.), that they and their children are moral failures. We imply that parents of fat kids are stupid in that they don't "realise" that their kid is fat. In bullying cases, we blame the victim ("If he'd just lose some weight, the other kids wouldn't pick on him as much"). I could go on, but I think I've given enough examples of what society does: we pretty much hate on fat kids and their parents ALL THE FREAKING TIME.

So NO DUH marketers are going to exploit that and use this climate! Hello? They're out to make money, and here they can make money on parents. Both the parents of fat kids, who are desperate to help, and the parents of normalweight kids, who FEAR TEH FAT more than they do Type I diabetes.

So don't be disingenuous, Dr Freedhoff, and say this is a horrifying product: you have -through genuine concern, granted- contributed to the climate in which making sure a 5 year old has an appropriate body fat percentage is something that parents might actually go for.

The next point. Dr Freedhoff writes an awesome list of suggestions, bolds mine:

5 year olds don't need to have their body-fat or their weights measured, they need healthy food and parental role modeling.

So instead of punishing your child by buying them a body-fat percentage scale, may I suggest that if you're not already doing so you:

- Cook healthy meals from whole ingredients for each and every meal.
- Have sit down family dinners each and every night (remembering they don't need to be gourmet - kids do love peanut butter sandwiches).
- Involve your children in meal (and school lunch) preparation.
- Track the added sugars in your childrens' diets and try to limit to no more than 45 grams daily (remembering that some days should be exceptions too - sugar's part of childhood, it just needn't be a daily part).
- Ensure that the only fruit they eat is actual fruit - no juices, rollups, chews, or mashes.
- Make their milk white and skim, not brown and sugary.
- Ensure your children eat protein with every meal and snack, and that they start their days off with a wholesome, protein inclusive, breakfast.
- Make restaurant meals and take out (including supermarket prepared takeout meals) exceedingly rare events.
- Engage your family in family based physical activity - weekend hikes, nightly walks, signing up for community races, landscaping, home improvement projects, push lawnmowers, snow shoveling, etc.

[...]

If you want your kids to change the way they're living, you're going to have to change the way your whole family's living - and frankly it isn't about weight. All of those behaviours up above? Doesn't matter if your kids are heavy or thin, those strategies will benefit each and every family, though the likelihood is, if weight's an issue in your family, those changes will help far more than any scale ever could.


Sigh. That really is great, isn't it? And he's right. That's an awesome way to look at raising and feeding kids.

But what he misses, and I think this is crucial: this is not going to result in no fat kids. Even if you do all these things from day 1, you might still have a fat kid. And if you have a fat kid already? This is (in all probability) not make them thin.

So I do this, my kid is still fat, or doesn't lose weight, we've failed, may as well go back to our old ways?

We still haven't, short of cutting out a perfectly good stomach, found a way to permanently make fat people thin. More and more researchers are realising that eat-less-exercise-more model is simplistic and that calories-in-calories-out doesn't provide a full picture (spend an afternoon reading posts at Dr Sharma's blog if you dont' beleive me). Fat kids? We don't understand why some kids end up fatter than others.

So while Dr Freedhoff suggestions truly are excellent, I'm sorry he didn't go all the way to say something like,

This may not make your fat kid lose any weight, or even prevent your kid from being fat, but your whole family, irrespective of body weight, will be healthier, and will have learned to enjoy eating fresh food that is good for you, and moving your bodies in a way that will bring you much joy in your life.
nwhiker: (Default)
Found via Harriet Brown.



She stopped eating for three days. At 11. She stopped eating. Despite what the fat-haters would like you to believe, you stop eating, you die. Of course, judging by some of the virulent fat hatred I've seen on the internet, that might actually be the preferred outcome as far as the haters are concerned.

This little girl was set on a journey of self-hatred. She'll never see herself the same way, she'll never be the same. If she wants a healthy relationship with her body and with food, she'll have to work at it. It will be painful. And she may never get there. Most people don't.

Fuck the haters.

And this is why Michelle Obama's program is just flat out cruel. She's ruining children's lives with her program, and not a single one of them will be one whit thinner. Just miserable, more bullied than before, and with worse self image than they started out with.

You can't hate fat people thin, but the haters keep on trying.

I was a chunky 7 or 8 year old when I became fat. It was in a dressing room, and I'd walked out of the curtained off area to see how I looked in the mirror in the Brownie uniform I'd been trying on. The salesguy -I can still see his face- told my mother 'She's too fat for that, try this one'. And from that day on, I was fat. My actual weight didn't matter, and I wasn't actually fat for a long while after that, or at every subsequent time in my life, but it doesn't matter. I was fat. That single comment precipitated almost 40 years of hating my body, some very close brushes with suicide, eating disorders, and a strong conviction that I'm really not a worthy human being.

This is what Michelle Obama, and the NHS program et al are doing. They're breaking children, breaking lives.
nwhiker: (Default)
Found via Harriet Brown.



She stopped eating for three days. At 11. She stopped eating. Despite what the fat-haters would like you to believe, you stop eating, you die. Of course, judging by some of the virulent fat hatred I've seen on the internet, that might actually be the preferred outcome as far as the haters are concerned.

This little girl was set on a journey of self-hatred. She'll never see herself the same way, she'll never be the same. If she wants a healthy relationship with her body and with food, she'll have to work at it. It will be painful. And she may never get there. Most people don't.

Fuck the haters.

And this is why Michelle Obama's program is just flat out cruel. She's ruining children's lives with her program, and not a single one of them will be one whit thinner. Just miserable, more bullied than before, and with worse self image than they started out with.

You can't hate fat people thin, but the haters keep on trying.

I was a chunky 7 or 8 year old when I became fat. It was in a dressing room, and I'd walked out of the curtained off area to see how I looked in the mirror in the Brownie uniform I'd been trying on. The salesguy -I can still see his face- told my mother 'She's too fat for that, try this one'. And from that day on, I was fat. My actual weight didn't matter, and I wasn't actually fat for a long while after that, or at every subsequent time in my life, but it doesn't matter. I was fat. That single comment precipitated almost 40 years of hating my body, some very close brushes with suicide, eating disorders, and a strong conviction that I'm really not a worthy human being.

This is what Michelle Obama, and the NHS program et al are doing. They're breaking children, breaking lives.
nwhiker: (Default)
I despise Michelle Obama's hate-fat-kids program, since I suspect it won't work (we still don't know how to make people in general and kids in particular, thin), and that it will only single out fat kids for more abuse without actually accomplishing anything positive. Oh. And it'll be the first of many hits against these poor kids' self-esteem, a failure that they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

Study just came out and.... and wow! Yeah, as expected: focusing on diet-and-exercise... make anti-fat bias/fat hatred worse. Teaching About Diet and Exercise Promotes Anti-Fat Bias.

So thanks, Michelle, for making life more difficult for a bunch of kids who already don't have it easy. There were plenty of things you could have done to make life better for all kids, instead you chose to focus on the one that will make life worse for some of them.

For those who think that singling out fat kids won't hurt, who don't understand that this stupid focus on weight loss and being thin won't ruin lives, I'll quote a blogger named Lesley who wrote in A long-delayed missive on “childhood obesity”, from a onetime obese child:

It’s fair to say I worked as hard as I could, then, and still I couldn’t make my dream of thinness — the only dream I had, and let’s not dwell on the tragedy of a teenage girl dreaming not of becoming an astronaut or the President, but only of becoming thinner, as I was neither the first nor the last to spend my formative years in this state — come true.

Michelle Obama and any other war-on-fat program won't make that dream come true. Neither will Jamie Oliver, or anyone else. What they will do, however, is make fat children -remember that unlike the war on drugs, which even if you take them are external to you, the war on fat which is a war on a part of a human being- hate themselves more, be hated more, and be exposed as failures. Because that is how they will see themselves, and they know, we know, that society sees them that way.
nwhiker: (Default)
I despise Michelle Obama's hate-fat-kids program, since I suspect it won't work (we still don't know how to make people in general and kids in particular, thin), and that it will only single out fat kids for more abuse without actually accomplishing anything positive. Oh. And it'll be the first of many hits against these poor kids' self-esteem, a failure that they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

Study just came out and.... and wow! Yeah, as expected: focusing on diet-and-exercise... make anti-fat bias/fat hatred worse. Teaching About Diet and Exercise Promotes Anti-Fat Bias.

So thanks, Michelle, for making life more difficult for a bunch of kids who already don't have it easy. There were plenty of things you could have done to make life better for all kids, instead you chose to focus on the one that will make life worse for some of them.

For those who think that singling out fat kids won't hurt, who don't understand that this stupid focus on weight loss and being thin won't ruin lives, I'll quote a blogger named Lesley who wrote in A long-delayed missive on “childhood obesity”, from a onetime obese child:

It’s fair to say I worked as hard as I could, then, and still I couldn’t make my dream of thinness — the only dream I had, and let’s not dwell on the tragedy of a teenage girl dreaming not of becoming an astronaut or the President, but only of becoming thinner, as I was neither the first nor the last to spend my formative years in this state — come true.

Michelle Obama and any other war-on-fat program won't make that dream come true. Neither will Jamie Oliver, or anyone else. What they will do, however, is make fat children -remember that unlike the war on drugs, which even if you take them are external to you, the war on fat which is a war on a part of a human being- hate themselves more, be hated more, and be exposed as failures. Because that is how they will see themselves, and they know, we know, that society sees them that way.
nwhiker: (Default)
Size deflation or how to convince women that our bodies are just wrong, no matter what.

I've long suspected that an unsaid policy of retail/retailers is to convince women, especially fat women, that our bodies are wrong and that it's our fault, that their clothing is perfect and if the clothes doen't fit it's because our bodies are flawed.

That was made very clear to me a while back, as detailed in this post. Shame early, shame often was my conclusion then.

It was brought home yet again this week.

As everyone here probably already knows, Perry wears girl leggings, that we purchase at Target.

Perry is an 8 -almost 9- year old boy. He is, to say the least, thin. He has no hips -boy, remember!- and there is no way it's a 'well, it's his hips, he's developping early, the little slut' problem. (Girls who develop early are sluts. Brought home once again recently by someone -a woman- who referred to them as 'walking boobs').

Perry wears a size 10/12. Target sizes small.... AC can't get herself in a 14/16 so... yeah, small. Still, the 10/12s fit him nicely, and have since last year.

But.

I bought him an other pair last week, again size 10/12, and he put them on today.

They are the limit of too small. Seriously. I checked with some of the others: the 10/12 this year are smaller than the 10/12 of last year, and about the same size as the 7/8s of two years ago.

So a very thin 8 year old child needs... a size 14/16? Give me a fucking break!

And then again, the suspision of 'my daughter is too big' will creep up on mother's, who of course know their own bodies are wrong wrong wrong. My 8 year old needs 14 year old's clothing. My 9 year old must be getting hips. What's wrong with my 7 year old, I didn't think she was that big!

Because it would never occur to most of us to just flat out think 'what a total fucked up thing that an 8 yo needs a size 14/16'. It occurred to me because Perry is... a boy, and a thin one at that. Had it been AC? I'd have swallowed my tears for her, been reminded again that she was 'big', and felt like a guilty failure for the rest of the week. But it's Perry. So I'm not the failure. Target, and their crappy clothing sizes, is.
nwhiker: (Default)
Size deflation or how to convince women that our bodies are just wrong, no matter what.

I've long suspected that an unsaid policy of retail/retailers is to convince women, especially fat women, that our bodies are wrong and that it's our fault, that their clothing is perfect and if the clothes doen't fit it's because our bodies are flawed.

That was made very clear to me a while back, as detailed in this post. Shame early, shame often was my conclusion then.

It was brought home yet again this week.

As everyone here probably already knows, Perry wears girl leggings, that we purchase at Target.

Perry is an 8 -almost 9- year old boy. He is, to say the least, thin. He has no hips -boy, remember!- and there is no way it's a 'well, it's his hips, he's developping early, the little slut' problem. (Girls who develop early are sluts. Brought home once again recently by someone -a woman- who referred to them as 'walking boobs').

Perry wears a size 10/12. Target sizes small.... AC can't get herself in a 14/16 so... yeah, small. Still, the 10/12s fit him nicely, and have since last year.

But.

I bought him an other pair last week, again size 10/12, and he put them on today.

They are the limit of too small. Seriously. I checked with some of the others: the 10/12 this year are smaller than the 10/12 of last year, and about the same size as the 7/8s of two years ago.

So a very thin 8 year old child needs... a size 14/16? Give me a fucking break!

And then again, the suspision of 'my daughter is too big' will creep up on mother's, who of course know their own bodies are wrong wrong wrong. My 8 year old needs 14 year old's clothing. My 9 year old must be getting hips. What's wrong with my 7 year old, I didn't think she was that big!

Because it would never occur to most of us to just flat out think 'what a total fucked up thing that an 8 yo needs a size 14/16'. It occurred to me because Perry is... a boy, and a thin one at that. Had it been AC? I'd have swallowed my tears for her, been reminded again that she was 'big', and felt like a guilty failure for the rest of the week. But it's Perry. So I'm not the failure. Target, and their crappy clothing sizes, is.

July 2017

M T W T F S S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920 212223
24252627282930
31      

My writing

Fanfic

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Heavily Modified Style Inspired By

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 28 Jul 2017 12:49
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios