One of the most common arguments I see in opposition of healthcare reform is that there are "not enough doctors" if everyone in the USA were to gain access to health care.
This argument irritates the hell out of me. What this really boils down to is, if those who currently do not have health insurance are, by way of reforms, finally able to access affordable (for them) health care, then those who are currently privileged enough to have health insurance may have to wait longer to get an appointment with a doctor.
In other words, "I got mine, screw everyone else, and don't you dare try to inconvenience me so that others can receive care."
Instead of trying to address the actual problem of potential doctor shortages, these people would rather deny healthcare to less privileged people. They will also say things like, "They should get a job and get health insurance like I do, by working for it*," all the while blinding themselves to the obvious fact that if that happened, there would still be the problem of not enough doctors; how those doctors are paid--by insurance companies or by single payer--is not going to matter a whole lot when there still aren't enough of them to care for all of our country's citizens. But of course, the teabaggers are counting on a significant portion of US citizens remaining in the position of not having health insurance. They aren't forward thinking enough to try to work on ways for the doctor shortage issue to be addressed, they just want to make sure they keep the status quo.
So what are some real solutions to this impending shortage of health care professionals (and, actually, despite our having the oh-so-fabulous system we have now, we actually have shortages right now, especially of general practitioners)? Now that we've established that denying health care to a large portion of citizens is NOT an acceptable solution, I have a number of suggestions for both increasing the number of physicians, and for reducing the demand on them:
1. Medical school enrollment hit an all time high in 2008. Obviously, there isn't a lack of interest in the medical profession. However, this makes me wonder how many well-qualified candidates didn't get accepted. Somehow, we need to increase the capacity of our medical schools so that many more good students are able to attend. I feel that anyone who feels a true calling to the profession, and who is intellectually capable, should have access to a spot in a medical school.
2. We also need to de-privilege medical school enrollment. Applicants who show great promise should be admitted regardless of their socioeconomic status, and we need to find ways to help less privileged applicants fund their education.
3. Regions that are experiencing the most severe shortages could offer grants to help a local student pay for medical school, with an agreement that they will return to the region to practice family medicine for a specified time period.
4. These same regions could ease family practitioners' overhead expenses by providing a city- or county-owned clinic facility. They would have an incentive to make these facilities comfortable and attractive so that the physician(s) will want to work there. I have seen some of the incredibly ornate and beautiful public libraries in some places, so why not create similar places for public clinics?
5. Offer similar incentives and opportunities to educate and recruit more nurse practitioners and physician's assistants; they can take a huge load off the doctors by serving patients. For those who are not in the US, people in these two jobs are able to see patients and perform most of the things a family practice physician does, but must practice under a supervising physician.
6. Adopt a single payer healthcare system! Our doctors currently spend an obscene amount of time and money trying to get insurance companies to pay their bills. Insurance companies currently spend an obscene amount of time and money trying to avoid paying doctors what they are due. Between arguing on the phone, filling out and faxing a ludicrous number of forms, and writing a bunch of letters explaining WHY Mrs. Jones really DOES need her lifesaving medication, doctors are cheated out of time spent with their patients and families. They either find themselves rushing through a double-booked schedule and not getting the chance to really connect with their patients, or they are cheated out of the income they would get by booking more patients in the time wasted wrangling with insurance. Many doctors report that Medicare and Medicaid don't give them the same headaches and runaround as insurance companies, and doctors in the UK and Canada often say that the single payer systems in those countries leave them with more time for patients and less overhead spent on staff needed to sort out insurance snafus.
7. Improve our education system so that gifted and talented kids of all socioeconomic backgrounds have a good shot at becoming doctors if that is their dream. Find more ways for our best and brightest to get into college and on the right track to med school. It's ridiculous that we have college recruiters for sports teams, but not for academics. Why isn't there a recruiter sitting in the back row of a biology classroom to pick out the best and brightest, to offer them incentives to pursue a pre-med career? Isn't creating more health care professionals more important than winning a few ball games?
There are surely countless other ideas out there to ward off the physician shortage that don't involve telling 47 million US citizens to suffer and die. What are your ideas?
---
* There is the fact that many people have jobs that don't give them health insurance--to which the teabaggers will often respond that it's the person's own fault for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and getting a better job. There are countless problems with that, however, with just a few of them being:
- Not everyone has the ability to become an engineer, or a lawyer, or some other profession that has decent benefits
- Teabaggers are anti-union, so they're actually against workers gaining access to better benefits
- They also vote for the corporate whores who send jobs overseas and sacrifice lower level jobs for CEO and upper management bonuses and (temporary and unsustainable) inflation of stock prices (which often end up eventually gutting the corporations for the sake of making a quick buck for investment bankers--and by the way, studies show the seven percent rule is a myth; GE and P&G pulled it off, but they're the exception, and companies trying to emulate their layoff tactics are not getting the results they wanted)
- There are not enough of these health-insurance-providing jobs for everyone; if there were, we'd all be working them
- Regardless of anything else, SOMEONE has to do the "less desirable" work that currently doesn't provide health insurance, and you know these selfish teabaggers are going to be the first to whine when there aren't enough checkout lanes open at Wal*Mart for their liking
- It's inhumane for a person to have to choose to stay with an abusive employer (or an abusive spouse whose employer provides health insurance) because they've got a health condition that would be impossible to manage without insurance (and impossible to get insurance coverage for outside of employer-offered).
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Invisible Crutch
The Invisible Knapsack of White Privilege, conceived by Peggy McIntosh, discusses the many things a white person takes for granted, in list form. As a white person, many of these things were uncomfortable to read, but I also saw reflected in them the things that men, wealthy people, and non-disabled people take for granted.
I've decided to build an invisible crutch from things that constitute abled privilege, without repeating too much of what is in McIntosh's list (so read her list, and substitute "disability" for "color" for many of those things).
1. I can, if I wish, arrange to attend social events without worrying if they are accessible to me.
2. If I am in the company of people that make me uncomfortable, I can easily choose to move elsewhere.
3. I can easily find housing that is accessible to me, with no barriers to my mobility.
4. I can go shopping alone most of the time and be able to reach and obtain all of the items without assistance, know that cashiers will notice I am there, and can easily see and use the credit card machines.
5. I can turn on the television and see people of my ability level widely and accurately represented.
6. I can be pretty sure of my voice being heard in a group where I am the only person of my ability level represented--and they will make eye contact with me.
7. I can advocate for my children in their schools without my ability level being blamed for my children's performance or behavior.
8. I can do well in a challenging situation without being told what an inspiration I am.
9. If I ask to speak to someone "in charge", I can be relatively assured that the person will make eye contact with me and not treat me like I am stupid.
10. I can belong to an organization and not feel that others resent my membership because of my ability level.
11. I do not have to fear being preyed upon because of my ability level.
12. I can be reasonably assured that I won't be late for meetings due to mobility barriers.
13. I can use most cosmetics and personal care products without worrying that they will cause a painful or dangerous reaction.
14. I can usually go about in public without other people's personal care products causing me painful or dangerous reactions.
15. My neighborhood allows me to move about on sidewalks, into stores, and into friends' homes without difficulty.
16. People do not tell me that my ability level means I should not have children.
17. I can be reasonably sure that I will be able to make it to a regular job every day.
18. I know that my income can increase based on my performance, and I can seek new and better employment if I choose; I do not have to face a court battle to get an increase in my income.
19. My daily routine does not have to be carefully planned to accommodate medication or therapy schedules.
20. I can share my life with an animal companion without my ability to care for them being called into question due to my financial and ability situations.
21. If I am not feeling well, and decide to stay in bed, I will likely be believed and not told that I am lazy and worthless.
I am sure there are more that I haven't thought of. Do keep in mind that I've tried NOT to copy Ms. McIntosh's work, because there's no need--most of what she says definitely applies to this list as well.
I've decided to build an invisible crutch from things that constitute abled privilege, without repeating too much of what is in McIntosh's list (so read her list, and substitute "disability" for "color" for many of those things).
1. I can, if I wish, arrange to attend social events without worrying if they are accessible to me.
2. If I am in the company of people that make me uncomfortable, I can easily choose to move elsewhere.
3. I can easily find housing that is accessible to me, with no barriers to my mobility.
4. I can go shopping alone most of the time and be able to reach and obtain all of the items without assistance, know that cashiers will notice I am there, and can easily see and use the credit card machines.
5. I can turn on the television and see people of my ability level widely and accurately represented.
6. I can be pretty sure of my voice being heard in a group where I am the only person of my ability level represented--and they will make eye contact with me.
7. I can advocate for my children in their schools without my ability level being blamed for my children's performance or behavior.
8. I can do well in a challenging situation without being told what an inspiration I am.
9. If I ask to speak to someone "in charge", I can be relatively assured that the person will make eye contact with me and not treat me like I am stupid.
10. I can belong to an organization and not feel that others resent my membership because of my ability level.
11. I do not have to fear being preyed upon because of my ability level.
12. I can be reasonably assured that I won't be late for meetings due to mobility barriers.
13. I can use most cosmetics and personal care products without worrying that they will cause a painful or dangerous reaction.
14. I can usually go about in public without other people's personal care products causing me painful or dangerous reactions.
15. My neighborhood allows me to move about on sidewalks, into stores, and into friends' homes without difficulty.
16. People do not tell me that my ability level means I should not have children.
17. I can be reasonably sure that I will be able to make it to a regular job every day.
18. I know that my income can increase based on my performance, and I can seek new and better employment if I choose; I do not have to face a court battle to get an increase in my income.
19. My daily routine does not have to be carefully planned to accommodate medication or therapy schedules.
20. I can share my life with an animal companion without my ability to care for them being called into question due to my financial and ability situations.
21. If I am not feeling well, and decide to stay in bed, I will likely be believed and not told that I am lazy and worthless.
I am sure there are more that I haven't thought of. Do keep in mind that I've tried NOT to copy Ms. McIntosh's work, because there's no need--most of what she says definitely applies to this list as well.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Bootstrap B.S.
For all those who exhort the disadvantaged to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", I ask that you take your damn bootstraps and shove them up your nose.
If you examine the origins of the phrase, they are rooted in variants of a tall tale (generally the Baron von Munchausen stories) where the protagonist finds himself in over his head, either in quicksand or a body of water, and he saves himself by bending down, taking hold of his bootstraps, and lifting himself up and out of his predicament. In other words, because this is a tall tale, he is doing something that is physically impossible--just like the actions of one Australian folk hero who cuts up mine shafts and sells them as post holes.
Telling someone who is in a disadvantaged state to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" is demeaning and dismissive. It assumes resources not in evidence, and places blame upon the person for their status. I see these assumptions made all the time, and it annoys the hell out of me. Let me share one small anecdote that illustrates why I feel this way:
Client T is a disabled woman in her fifties. Her monthly benefits are so low that she can only afford to live in an area that has high levels of crime. Because she is disabled, small-bodied, and female, she has been the target of robbery at least twice--and was beaten up both times, once very badly. When applying for a program that would help her pay for something she needed, she was asked to submit a photocopy of some paperwork.
It may be difficult to imagine that a photocopy would be a sticking point, but think about this:
- She is disabled, and cannot walk to the nearest place that has a photocopier--even if there were a place close by, which there isn't.
- She does not have a car, as they are expensive, and she is legally blind regardless.
- Take the bus?
- Okay, so how does she know the bus schedule?
- I've heard people say, "Oh she can go online". No, she can't. She's destitute. She doesn't have a computer nor could she afford internet even if she did.
- She can get them at the library, of course, but how does she get to the library? The bus? And thus we have a repeating loop. Yes, she can call the bus office and ask them; my personal experience with doing that was pretty frustrating, though. And she still has to come up with the money for the bus.
- Cabs are RIGHT out. She takes a cab, she doesn't eat that week.
- And, leaving the house can be problematic for her, because she is fearful of and at risk for being robbed and beaten again.
One solution, of course, is for the agency requiring the photocopy to acknowledge that it isn't a completely simple matter for everyone, and to help her in getting that photocopy, either by sending over a social worker with a portable copier (as my friend Nancy does when she helps people do their HEAP applications), or by simply requesting a fax or digital copy from the paperwork's originating agency.
Sometimes, folks, we need to lend a hand to people instead of kicking sand in their faces when they are down. We need to acknowledge that taking care of disadvantaged people is not a waste of resources; it is what makes us human. Survival of the fittest is NOT a human trait; it is beastly and cowardly. It is when we care for one another that we advance and evolve.
If you examine the origins of the phrase, they are rooted in variants of a tall tale (generally the Baron von Munchausen stories) where the protagonist finds himself in over his head, either in quicksand or a body of water, and he saves himself by bending down, taking hold of his bootstraps, and lifting himself up and out of his predicament. In other words, because this is a tall tale, he is doing something that is physically impossible--just like the actions of one Australian folk hero who cuts up mine shafts and sells them as post holes.
Telling someone who is in a disadvantaged state to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" is demeaning and dismissive. It assumes resources not in evidence, and places blame upon the person for their status. I see these assumptions made all the time, and it annoys the hell out of me. Let me share one small anecdote that illustrates why I feel this way:
Client T is a disabled woman in her fifties. Her monthly benefits are so low that she can only afford to live in an area that has high levels of crime. Because she is disabled, small-bodied, and female, she has been the target of robbery at least twice--and was beaten up both times, once very badly. When applying for a program that would help her pay for something she needed, she was asked to submit a photocopy of some paperwork.
It may be difficult to imagine that a photocopy would be a sticking point, but think about this:
- She is disabled, and cannot walk to the nearest place that has a photocopier--even if there were a place close by, which there isn't.
- She does not have a car, as they are expensive, and she is legally blind regardless.
- Take the bus?
- Okay, so how does she know the bus schedule?
- I've heard people say, "Oh she can go online". No, she can't. She's destitute. She doesn't have a computer nor could she afford internet even if she did.
- She can get them at the library, of course, but how does she get to the library? The bus? And thus we have a repeating loop. Yes, she can call the bus office and ask them; my personal experience with doing that was pretty frustrating, though. And she still has to come up with the money for the bus.
- Cabs are RIGHT out. She takes a cab, she doesn't eat that week.
- And, leaving the house can be problematic for her, because she is fearful of and at risk for being robbed and beaten again.
One solution, of course, is for the agency requiring the photocopy to acknowledge that it isn't a completely simple matter for everyone, and to help her in getting that photocopy, either by sending over a social worker with a portable copier (as my friend Nancy does when she helps people do their HEAP applications), or by simply requesting a fax or digital copy from the paperwork's originating agency.
Sometimes, folks, we need to lend a hand to people instead of kicking sand in their faces when they are down. We need to acknowledge that taking care of disadvantaged people is not a waste of resources; it is what makes us human. Survival of the fittest is NOT a human trait; it is beastly and cowardly. It is when we care for one another that we advance and evolve.
Monday, July 28, 2008
My Fatifesto
I strive toward a world in which:
- People are treated respectfully, regardless of their body shape or size,
- Medical personnel treat a person's actual medical problems and behave as professionals who set aside personal aesthetics when treating and diagnosing a patient,
- The answer to every problem does not involve weight loss,
- A person's body size or shape does not reflect their morality,
- Fat people are not scapegoated for all the world's ills,
- Fat is not an epithet,
- My body's shape or size is regarded as my business and no one else's,
- The life-giving act of eating is not regarded as shameful, weak, or dangerous,
- A fat person can be in public without fearing they will be abused in some way,
- The abuse--physical, verbal, emotional, psychological, or other--of fat people is regarded as morally wrong, with no exceptions or excuses,
- It is acknowledged that no one needs to "do something" about their body's shape or size,
- It is acknowledged that most fat people cannot significantly change their body size or shape, even if it were beneficial to do so,
- Fat people are not subjected to hard-sell, dishonest marketing tactics that shame and scare them into purchasing products and services they do not need, and which do not work,
- A food's merits are based on its nourishing qualities and good flavor, not on how few calories it has,
- Fat people are not discriminated against in the job market.
- People are treated respectfully, regardless of their body shape or size,
- Medical personnel treat a person's actual medical problems and behave as professionals who set aside personal aesthetics when treating and diagnosing a patient,
- The answer to every problem does not involve weight loss,
- A person's body size or shape does not reflect their morality,
- Fat people are not scapegoated for all the world's ills,
- Fat is not an epithet,
- My body's shape or size is regarded as my business and no one else's,
- The life-giving act of eating is not regarded as shameful, weak, or dangerous,
- A fat person can be in public without fearing they will be abused in some way,
- The abuse--physical, verbal, emotional, psychological, or other--of fat people is regarded as morally wrong, with no exceptions or excuses,
- It is acknowledged that no one needs to "do something" about their body's shape or size,
- It is acknowledged that most fat people cannot significantly change their body size or shape, even if it were beneficial to do so,
- Fat people are not subjected to hard-sell, dishonest marketing tactics that shame and scare them into purchasing products and services they do not need, and which do not work,
- A food's merits are based on its nourishing qualities and good flavor, not on how few calories it has,
- Fat people are not discriminated against in the job market.
Friday, July 25, 2008
God hates McDonald's
So, the religious right is boycotting McDonald's because they are supportive of gay rights.
Not only do I have a problem with people who fight tooth and nail for their "right" to treat an entire demographic as subhuman, I also have a problem with hypocrisy. The catalyst for the current whine-fest is McDonald's being listed as a "Corporate Partner" on the webpage of the NGLCC. You can see this list here:
http://www.nglcc.org/corporate/partners
They are targeting McDonald's, yet there are quite a few other partners listed that are not getting so much attention. One major example that stands out in my mind includes a few pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson. I don't see these bigots going without their Viagra, Zithromax, or Zocor. Or, in the case of Johnson & Johnson, their band-aids, baby shampoo, or Tylenol.
Other companies include airlines (Southwest and American), hotels (Hyatt, Hilton, and Wyndham), credit card companies (American Express, Capital One, and quite a few others), quite a few grocery chains (including Acme, Shop n Save, and Albertson's), realtor Century 21, and that obscure little shipping company, UPS. In fact, it seems that quite a few of the corporate partners are providers of services that most people would be hard pressed to do without.
McDonald's has taken a beating for years over many things, including environmental issues, health concerns, and not disclosing that their fries are not vegetarian. Now that they've done something right, something that promotes justice, I really hope they stand their ground against the bigots. It might even convince me to occasionally patronize them, even if it's just for a pie and iced tea once in a while, and I am going to roll my eyes at the hypocrite fundies who think that boycotting one corporate sponsor of a civil rights group is going to help them in their fight to keep gay people from being treated as human beings.
I watch these people freaking out, as if they are terrified that gay people are going to...what, exactly? Break into their houses and make them engage in gay sex? Wave a rainbow flag in their faces?
No, really, I want to know why people are so terrified. If gay people are allowed to live their lives without being harrassed, discriminated against, or otherwise treated like crap, what are the consequences homophobes are so afraid of? Gays currently are able to do many of those things in certain parts of the US, and it is very clear that they aren't out raping heterosexuals en masse.
Why are they so concerned with something that is none of their business, that doesn't affect them?
Not only do I have a problem with people who fight tooth and nail for their "right" to treat an entire demographic as subhuman, I also have a problem with hypocrisy. The catalyst for the current whine-fest is McDonald's being listed as a "Corporate Partner" on the webpage of the NGLCC. You can see this list here:
http://www.nglcc.org/corporate/partners
They are targeting McDonald's, yet there are quite a few other partners listed that are not getting so much attention. One major example that stands out in my mind includes a few pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson. I don't see these bigots going without their Viagra, Zithromax, or Zocor. Or, in the case of Johnson & Johnson, their band-aids, baby shampoo, or Tylenol.
Other companies include airlines (Southwest and American), hotels (Hyatt, Hilton, and Wyndham), credit card companies (American Express, Capital One, and quite a few others), quite a few grocery chains (including Acme, Shop n Save, and Albertson's), realtor Century 21, and that obscure little shipping company, UPS. In fact, it seems that quite a few of the corporate partners are providers of services that most people would be hard pressed to do without.
McDonald's has taken a beating for years over many things, including environmental issues, health concerns, and not disclosing that their fries are not vegetarian. Now that they've done something right, something that promotes justice, I really hope they stand their ground against the bigots. It might even convince me to occasionally patronize them, even if it's just for a pie and iced tea once in a while, and I am going to roll my eyes at the hypocrite fundies who think that boycotting one corporate sponsor of a civil rights group is going to help them in their fight to keep gay people from being treated as human beings.
I watch these people freaking out, as if they are terrified that gay people are going to...what, exactly? Break into their houses and make them engage in gay sex? Wave a rainbow flag in their faces?
No, really, I want to know why people are so terrified. If gay people are allowed to live their lives without being harrassed, discriminated against, or otherwise treated like crap, what are the consequences homophobes are so afraid of? Gays currently are able to do many of those things in certain parts of the US, and it is very clear that they aren't out raping heterosexuals en masse.
Why are they so concerned with something that is none of their business, that doesn't affect them?
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Feminism and the Draft
Note to trolls: The obscene and threatening comments flooding in from the post on reddit will NOT be approved. I suppose you think it's clever to try to make a woman afraid of you, or to try to hurt a person with words, but your presence here is not welcome. Also, a two year old blog post? Are you seriously that hard up for recipients of your bullying and hate? I truly fear for the emotional and physical safety of the women in your lives.
----
This will probably offend people who think terms like "feminazi" are reasonable and proper. And that's okay with me.
Opponents of feminism often bring up the subject of the draft--if women want equality so badly, then why aren't we asking to be included in the draft? After all, how fair is it that men have to be forced into combat, while women are excluded by default?
My answer to this is actually very simple: When women are represented in a realistic proportion in government, instead of being a token minority in a good ol' boys' club, we can talk about the draft. Until then, it is unconscionable to forcibly send women off to fight men's wars. The fact that women are not adequately represented in proportion to our demographics tells me that leveling the playing field in a negative fashion is not yet a fair thing to do. Additionally, I truly feel that, if our elected government were 50% women and 50% men (and, this would still give men an edge over the demographics--the population is about 49% male and 51% female), we probably would not even be doing this Iraq nonsense.
The fact is, only 16% of all convicted felons in State courts (in the USA) are women. A disproportionate amount of crime--especially violent crime--is committed by men. Yes, men are also crime victims, but they are most often victims of other men. For whatever reason, women aren't usually the ones responsible for rape, abuse, and murder, and they are quite a bit more often the victims of many of those crimes.
So, until women are making an equal wage, not disproportionately abused, raped, beaten, or murdered, and not disproportionately treated like sex objects, and adequately represented in all three branches of federal government, and in state governments, I don't want to hear whiny ass anti-feminists complaining about the draft. Sorry boys, but you just seem a bit too eager to send us off to die for your bullshit, and that is most definitely not okay.
----
This will probably offend people who think terms like "feminazi" are reasonable and proper. And that's okay with me.
Opponents of feminism often bring up the subject of the draft--if women want equality so badly, then why aren't we asking to be included in the draft? After all, how fair is it that men have to be forced into combat, while women are excluded by default?
My answer to this is actually very simple: When women are represented in a realistic proportion in government, instead of being a token minority in a good ol' boys' club, we can talk about the draft. Until then, it is unconscionable to forcibly send women off to fight men's wars. The fact that women are not adequately represented in proportion to our demographics tells me that leveling the playing field in a negative fashion is not yet a fair thing to do. Additionally, I truly feel that, if our elected government were 50% women and 50% men (and, this would still give men an edge over the demographics--the population is about 49% male and 51% female), we probably would not even be doing this Iraq nonsense.
The fact is, only 16% of all convicted felons in State courts (in the USA) are women. A disproportionate amount of crime--especially violent crime--is committed by men. Yes, men are also crime victims, but they are most often victims of other men. For whatever reason, women aren't usually the ones responsible for rape, abuse, and murder, and they are quite a bit more often the victims of many of those crimes.
So, until women are making an equal wage, not disproportionately abused, raped, beaten, or murdered, and not disproportionately treated like sex objects, and adequately represented in all three branches of federal government, and in state governments, I don't want to hear whiny ass anti-feminists complaining about the draft. Sorry boys, but you just seem a bit too eager to send us off to die for your bullshit, and that is most definitely not okay.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Focus on other people's genitals
So the gay-hating group Focus on the Family is up in arms about where people are using the toilet.
Not only are they fearmongering about "sexual predators", most of whom are heterosexual family members of those whom they assault, they are obsessing rather unhealthily over how and where people are using their genitalia.
To put it simply, if you are aware of what sex organs are possessed by the person in the restroom with you, then maybe you need to mind your own damn business and keep your nose out of the crotches of perfect strangers.
As a woman, I am going to be using a toilet in a stall, with the door closed, just like the other people in the stalls around me. If I am minding my own business, as I should be, then I will have no idea whether or not the person in the neighboring stall has a penis. The only case in which that would not be true is if that other person were engaging in harassing behavior, an instance already covered by existing laws.
Furthermore, if we're going to piss and moan (no pun intended, honest) about what gender is in what restroom, then I would like for someone to ban the little bratty boys from the women's rooms--I'm talking about the rotten little monsters that run wild, peeking under stalls at strangers. But that's just a minor point, really.
These "Focus on what's in everybody's pants" folks like to claim that the sexually oppressed are seeking "special" rights. "Well goshdarnit, they already gots the right to go into the bathroom that matches their DNA" is what they want us to believe. Transgendered people are not looking for a "special" right to go into all the restrooms; they are seeking the right to use the restroom that is proper for what they perceive to be their own true gender.
There is no "special" right about it; this is a matter of allowing people to decide for themselves what their proper gender is, according to how they feel about themselves. And that is the real problem, now, isn't it? It's something that a lot of people cannot really relate to, and therefore, it is regarded as wrong, or perhaps as purely imaginary.
What I really want in this world is for people to realize that, just because a characteristic is the result of neural activity, that doesn't make that characteristic not real. Whether we are talking about cisgendered people, neuropathic pain, depression, addiction, or sexual preference*, it doesn't matter. We have this overwhelming cultural meme which tells us that we should just be able to will ourselves to change these things, especially when the characteristics are inconvenient or upsetting to others. Well, it doesn't work that way, and even if you can make it appear to work by coercing or oppressing people with inconvenient or upsetting characteristics, all you're doing is damaging those people and marginalizing them. Stop--there is no excuse for doing so, and the sooner we accept people's differences, the better life will be for everyone involved.
* Please note that I am NOT implying that being cisgendered or having a minority sexual preference is a negative thing like depression, addiction, or other things. I am trying to say that these things are often perceived as choices--either a choice to consciously live in a depressed/pained/homosexual/addicted state, or a choice to refuse to change that about oneself (and by change, I am referring to people who just insist that depressed people "get over it" or "just be cheerful"). I do NOT consider sexual preference to be something that can or should be changed.
Not only are they fearmongering about "sexual predators", most of whom are heterosexual family members of those whom they assault, they are obsessing rather unhealthily over how and where people are using their genitalia.
To put it simply, if you are aware of what sex organs are possessed by the person in the restroom with you, then maybe you need to mind your own damn business and keep your nose out of the crotches of perfect strangers.
As a woman, I am going to be using a toilet in a stall, with the door closed, just like the other people in the stalls around me. If I am minding my own business, as I should be, then I will have no idea whether or not the person in the neighboring stall has a penis. The only case in which that would not be true is if that other person were engaging in harassing behavior, an instance already covered by existing laws.
Furthermore, if we're going to piss and moan (no pun intended, honest) about what gender is in what restroom, then I would like for someone to ban the little bratty boys from the women's rooms--I'm talking about the rotten little monsters that run wild, peeking under stalls at strangers. But that's just a minor point, really.
These "Focus on what's in everybody's pants" folks like to claim that the sexually oppressed are seeking "special" rights. "Well goshdarnit, they already gots the right to go into the bathroom that matches their DNA" is what they want us to believe. Transgendered people are not looking for a "special" right to go into all the restrooms; they are seeking the right to use the restroom that is proper for what they perceive to be their own true gender.
There is no "special" right about it; this is a matter of allowing people to decide for themselves what their proper gender is, according to how they feel about themselves. And that is the real problem, now, isn't it? It's something that a lot of people cannot really relate to, and therefore, it is regarded as wrong, or perhaps as purely imaginary.
What I really want in this world is for people to realize that, just because a characteristic is the result of neural activity, that doesn't make that characteristic not real. Whether we are talking about cisgendered people, neuropathic pain, depression, addiction, or sexual preference*, it doesn't matter. We have this overwhelming cultural meme which tells us that we should just be able to will ourselves to change these things, especially when the characteristics are inconvenient or upsetting to others. Well, it doesn't work that way, and even if you can make it appear to work by coercing or oppressing people with inconvenient or upsetting characteristics, all you're doing is damaging those people and marginalizing them. Stop--there is no excuse for doing so, and the sooner we accept people's differences, the better life will be for everyone involved.
* Please note that I am NOT implying that being cisgendered or having a minority sexual preference is a negative thing like depression, addiction, or other things. I am trying to say that these things are often perceived as choices--either a choice to consciously live in a depressed/pained/homosexual/addicted state, or a choice to refuse to change that about oneself (and by change, I am referring to people who just insist that depressed people "get over it" or "just be cheerful"). I do NOT consider sexual preference to be something that can or should be changed.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Good Fatty/Bad Fatty
Well, y'all, I covered that particular topic over a month ago, but it seems to be all the rage now. So let's do this thing.
Dividing people in acceptable and unacceptable examples of their oppressed demographic is a time-honored tactic by oppressors. If you can get at least part of the group to turn its back on the rest, by way of convincing them that the oppression is somehow their own fault, and that it can be relieved by behaving in a particular way and alienating those who do not, well, doesn't that seem a perfect strategy for not just getting as many of them to behave the way you want them to, but also to assist you in oppressing their own demographic?
This is a well-beaten path, and we need to look to the experiences of those who have gone before us in pursuit of human rights to guide us. Civil rights activists have long known that when oppressed persons engage in behaviors (such as "acting white") to please their oppressors and mitigate their circumstances, the only thing that changes is the form of oppression. You are not truly free if you must behave in particular ways in order to avoid being abused.
We must also not fall into the trap of believing that those who abuse us have our best interests in mind, no matter what they claim. The abuse is easier to accept when we believe we deserve it, and abusers frequently try to convince their victims that the abuse is the victim's fault, and they wouldn't be abused, if only they would have done certain things. The truth is, abusers have no right to abuse, and they do so because it satisfies some desire or need in them--NOT because their victims deserve it. If the victims did not have a certain behavior or quality that the abuser focuses upon, there would be some other behavior or quality that the abuser would use an excuse.
None of us deserves the poor treatment we get for being fat. Every single one of us deserves basic human rights and dignity. What we eat, how much we exercise, our vital stats? Those aren't even a factor. Being a living, feeling being should be enough to warrant dignity. Don't stand for any less.
Dividing people in acceptable and unacceptable examples of their oppressed demographic is a time-honored tactic by oppressors. If you can get at least part of the group to turn its back on the rest, by way of convincing them that the oppression is somehow their own fault, and that it can be relieved by behaving in a particular way and alienating those who do not, well, doesn't that seem a perfect strategy for not just getting as many of them to behave the way you want them to, but also to assist you in oppressing their own demographic?
This is a well-beaten path, and we need to look to the experiences of those who have gone before us in pursuit of human rights to guide us. Civil rights activists have long known that when oppressed persons engage in behaviors (such as "acting white") to please their oppressors and mitigate their circumstances, the only thing that changes is the form of oppression. You are not truly free if you must behave in particular ways in order to avoid being abused.
We must also not fall into the trap of believing that those who abuse us have our best interests in mind, no matter what they claim. The abuse is easier to accept when we believe we deserve it, and abusers frequently try to convince their victims that the abuse is the victim's fault, and they wouldn't be abused, if only they would have done certain things. The truth is, abusers have no right to abuse, and they do so because it satisfies some desire or need in them--NOT because their victims deserve it. If the victims did not have a certain behavior or quality that the abuser focuses upon, there would be some other behavior or quality that the abuser would use an excuse.
None of us deserves the poor treatment we get for being fat. Every single one of us deserves basic human rights and dignity. What we eat, how much we exercise, our vital stats? Those aren't even a factor. Being a living, feeling being should be enough to warrant dignity. Don't stand for any less.
Hatred becomes violence
According to Gina Kolata's Rethinking Thin, a survey indicated that 25% of fat men and 16% of fat women reported being hit or threatened because of their weight.
If you are one of the people who is against Fat Acceptance because you believe it is unhealthy to be fat, I really want to know whether you think it is okay or not to hit and threaten fat people because of their size. I also want to know how many people think that the solution to being abused for being fat is for the abused person to lose weight.
I often hear people telling others to lose weight so that they can fit in better socially--to gain a spouse, to have more friends, to get a better job. Do these fatophobes realize that condemning fat people to a lower social status can and does result in real physical violence? Once you accept that a demographic is not worthy of basic human dignity, you accept that demographic's inevitable mental and physical abuse. If you have ever vocally taunted a fat person, you bear some of the culpability when that person is eventually beaten by other hateful individuals, because you had a hand in fostering an environment of bigotry and hate.
There is no excuse for this. Change your attitude; don't become involved in verbal abuse of other people, especially when those people are an oppressed group. Speak up when you see other people engaging in the abuse. An environment of hate is no good for anyone, not even for those in the privileged group. Base your self-worth on your positive qualities, not on your imagined superiority over others.
If you are one of the people who is against Fat Acceptance because you believe it is unhealthy to be fat, I really want to know whether you think it is okay or not to hit and threaten fat people because of their size. I also want to know how many people think that the solution to being abused for being fat is for the abused person to lose weight.
I often hear people telling others to lose weight so that they can fit in better socially--to gain a spouse, to have more friends, to get a better job. Do these fatophobes realize that condemning fat people to a lower social status can and does result in real physical violence? Once you accept that a demographic is not worthy of basic human dignity, you accept that demographic's inevitable mental and physical abuse. If you have ever vocally taunted a fat person, you bear some of the culpability when that person is eventually beaten by other hateful individuals, because you had a hand in fostering an environment of bigotry and hate.
There is no excuse for this. Change your attitude; don't become involved in verbal abuse of other people, especially when those people are an oppressed group. Speak up when you see other people engaging in the abuse. An environment of hate is no good for anyone, not even for those in the privileged group. Base your self-worth on your positive qualities, not on your imagined superiority over others.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Fat-hating doctors
Someone asked me to write about this topic, and they linked this article about the doctor survey where a bunch of them admitted to severe prejudice against fat patients. At that friend's request, I am going to give my opinion about this topic.
"...I had one doctor who blamed me and told me I got PCOS from being fat."
The blog First Do No Harm contains story after story of people, mostly women, who have been treated so badly by doctors because of their fat that, in many cases, it took years for them to get a real diagnosis and treatment.
A recent survey of doctors showed that they had very negative attitudes and feelings toward their fat patients:
I'm not making this stuff up. These are the things that medical professionals actually admitted to thinking and feeling about fat patients. And I have this to say:
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR THIS.
I read the doctor blogs. I see doctors complaining that their patients get information off the internet and come in with a request to be tested for this or that. You know what, guys? Look at the above quoted paragraphs and tell me that we don't need to advocate long and hard to receive proper care when the only diagnosis many doctors can come up with is "fat", and the only treatment is "eat less and exercise", when someone is suffering from excruciating bursitis, appendicitis, or Cushing's disease.
It is malpractice to refuse to treat a person's medical condition(s) because you don't like how fat they are. It is arrogant to think that they aren't capable of seeing through your bullshit eventually, and figuring out that you caused them harm by withholding treatment. It's doubly arrogant to assume that, because you have a medical degree, that you know more about everything than a "common person". The less informed will not realize just how badly you're harming them, while the well-informed are not going to stand for this. If you are a doctor, and you dismiss fat patients as not worth your time, then you do not deserve the title. It's childish and cruel, and you fucking know it.
Also, this whole thing about doctors being gods who know all? Look, I worked in aquarium stores for over 10 years. Aquariums, being a luxury item, are a frequent purchase for doctors, and, that being the case, I had a number of them as regular customers. I have to say, for people whose job is knowing the functions of the human body, most of these guys had such a limited grasp of the very basic biology required to keep an aquarium that it really scared me to think that they were actually charged with the task of keeping humans alive and healthy. If I can explain how to keep fish to a high school dropout, and have that person be very successful at it, then it's damned frightening for someone with a medical degree to tell me repeatedly that they don't "get it" when I explain for the 10th time why their methods are killing their fish.
I do understand that many of today's physicians are overbooked, undereducated, and not well-compensated. I'm sorry for that, and I hope that something happens to change that situation. My last doctor wasn't too bad, really, but because he had all of three minutes to listen, talk, diagnose, and write prescriptions, things got overlooked--one of which ended in surgery that may have been prevented with earlier intervention. He was nice, and he was actually pretty realistic about my being fat. I happened to meet someone else, though, who charmed me into his practice by being a fantastic aquarium store customer, and chatting with me about how he treats fibromyalgia patients (he also happens to be partnered in his practice with THE fibro doc in this area, so he has a great resource if he needs to find anything out).
I'm very lucky; my doctor is down-to-earth, caring, and actually gives a damn about his patients, no matter what they look like. He is also an expert aquarist--and, when I gave him cat advice, we were able to talk about pheromones and their different functions, and he was able to talk about it intelligently*. I suppose he has a bit of an edge, though; he was a high school biology teacher for a while before he decided to become a physician and go to medical school. He really knows his stuff with treating fibromyalgia, thyroid disease, depression, and anxiety. He was the first one willing to do the full thyroid panel instead of just telling me that my TSH was "fine"--and, when I told him the TSH numbers I'd had with a previous physician, they apparently weren't fine.
This has rambled a bit, and I'm sorry for that, but my experiences have been difficult. Prior to both of the above mentioned doctors, I had some pretty stupid experiences, including one doctor who told me that my asthma was just anxiety, and that I needed to "learn to relax". Well, asthma is something that can be empirically measured on equipment. Did he do that? No. Have I had it done since then? Yes, and I don't think I need to tell you that the results were that I have moderate asthma. Anxiety is not something that can be measured, but it's also not controlled by "learning to relax". I apparently wasn't worth that guy's time, though, so I was dismissed and ignored. That's unacceptable. It's irresponsible. And it has to change.
* About doc and the cat advice: He was having trouble with his cat engaging in inappropriate urination. Since the cat tested negative for UTI or crystals, he thought it might be some anxiety due to family stresses in the house. The vet recommended Feliway, and Dr. D asked me why a pheromone would change inappropriate urination. I explained that it was a synthetic version of their cheek pheromones, which are calming to them. They're different from the pheromones used for marking territory or attracting mates. He was thrilled to have this explained, and I was thrilled that he was curious about the subject. He's pretty busy most of the time, and is really more into fish, so he isn't familiar with every cat product on the market. I've used Feliway in the past for a nervous kitty (she lives with my ex), and I use it in the foster room to help the scared kittens settle in.
"...I had one doctor who blamed me and told me I got PCOS from being fat."
The blog First Do No Harm contains story after story of people, mostly women, who have been treated so badly by doctors because of their fat that, in many cases, it took years for them to get a real diagnosis and treatment.
A recent survey of doctors showed that they had very negative attitudes and feelings toward their fat patients:
When researchers asked more than 400 physicians to name patient characteristics that provoked feelings of discomfort, reluctance, or dislike, one-third of the subjects mentioned obesity, making it the fourth most-common condition named after drug addiction, alcoholism, and mental illness. The subjects also linked obesity to negative qualities such as poor hygiene, hostility, dishonesty, and noncompliance with prescribed treatment. Another survey of family physicians found that two-thirds said their obese patients lacked self-control and nearly 40 percent characterized their obese patients as lazy. Nurses expressed similar attitudes—nearly half reported that they were uncomfortable caring for obese patients and 31 percent told surveyors they would prefer not to care for obese patients at all.
Puhl and Brownell found documented evidence that health professionals' deeply held negative stereotypes adversely affected their clinical judgment, diagnosis, and the quality of care delivered to obese patients. A survey of more than 1,200 physicians revealed that most were ambivalent about caring for overweight and obese patients, and did not intervene and treat them with the same determination they displayed toward normal-weight patients.
Source
I'm not making this stuff up. These are the things that medical professionals actually admitted to thinking and feeling about fat patients. And I have this to say:
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR THIS.
I read the doctor blogs. I see doctors complaining that their patients get information off the internet and come in with a request to be tested for this or that. You know what, guys? Look at the above quoted paragraphs and tell me that we don't need to advocate long and hard to receive proper care when the only diagnosis many doctors can come up with is "fat", and the only treatment is "eat less and exercise", when someone is suffering from excruciating bursitis, appendicitis, or Cushing's disease.
It is malpractice to refuse to treat a person's medical condition(s) because you don't like how fat they are. It is arrogant to think that they aren't capable of seeing through your bullshit eventually, and figuring out that you caused them harm by withholding treatment. It's doubly arrogant to assume that, because you have a medical degree, that you know more about everything than a "common person". The less informed will not realize just how badly you're harming them, while the well-informed are not going to stand for this. If you are a doctor, and you dismiss fat patients as not worth your time, then you do not deserve the title. It's childish and cruel, and you fucking know it.
Also, this whole thing about doctors being gods who know all? Look, I worked in aquarium stores for over 10 years. Aquariums, being a luxury item, are a frequent purchase for doctors, and, that being the case, I had a number of them as regular customers. I have to say, for people whose job is knowing the functions of the human body, most of these guys had such a limited grasp of the very basic biology required to keep an aquarium that it really scared me to think that they were actually charged with the task of keeping humans alive and healthy. If I can explain how to keep fish to a high school dropout, and have that person be very successful at it, then it's damned frightening for someone with a medical degree to tell me repeatedly that they don't "get it" when I explain for the 10th time why their methods are killing their fish.
I do understand that many of today's physicians are overbooked, undereducated, and not well-compensated. I'm sorry for that, and I hope that something happens to change that situation. My last doctor wasn't too bad, really, but because he had all of three minutes to listen, talk, diagnose, and write prescriptions, things got overlooked--one of which ended in surgery that may have been prevented with earlier intervention. He was nice, and he was actually pretty realistic about my being fat. I happened to meet someone else, though, who charmed me into his practice by being a fantastic aquarium store customer, and chatting with me about how he treats fibromyalgia patients (he also happens to be partnered in his practice with THE fibro doc in this area, so he has a great resource if he needs to find anything out).
I'm very lucky; my doctor is down-to-earth, caring, and actually gives a damn about his patients, no matter what they look like. He is also an expert aquarist--and, when I gave him cat advice, we were able to talk about pheromones and their different functions, and he was able to talk about it intelligently*. I suppose he has a bit of an edge, though; he was a high school biology teacher for a while before he decided to become a physician and go to medical school. He really knows his stuff with treating fibromyalgia, thyroid disease, depression, and anxiety. He was the first one willing to do the full thyroid panel instead of just telling me that my TSH was "fine"--and, when I told him the TSH numbers I'd had with a previous physician, they apparently weren't fine.
This has rambled a bit, and I'm sorry for that, but my experiences have been difficult. Prior to both of the above mentioned doctors, I had some pretty stupid experiences, including one doctor who told me that my asthma was just anxiety, and that I needed to "learn to relax". Well, asthma is something that can be empirically measured on equipment. Did he do that? No. Have I had it done since then? Yes, and I don't think I need to tell you that the results were that I have moderate asthma. Anxiety is not something that can be measured, but it's also not controlled by "learning to relax". I apparently wasn't worth that guy's time, though, so I was dismissed and ignored. That's unacceptable. It's irresponsible. And it has to change.
* About doc and the cat advice: He was having trouble with his cat engaging in inappropriate urination. Since the cat tested negative for UTI or crystals, he thought it might be some anxiety due to family stresses in the house. The vet recommended Feliway, and Dr. D asked me why a pheromone would change inappropriate urination. I explained that it was a synthetic version of their cheek pheromones, which are calming to them. They're different from the pheromones used for marking territory or attracting mates. He was thrilled to have this explained, and I was thrilled that he was curious about the subject. He's pretty busy most of the time, and is really more into fish, so he isn't familiar with every cat product on the market. I've used Feliway in the past for a nervous kitty (she lives with my ex), and I use it in the foster room to help the scared kittens settle in.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Formerly Fat, and their hatred of FA
It amazes me that some of the angriest comments come from formerly fat people. Fat acceptance bloggers often experience these folks marching into their blogs and leaving behind vitriolic remarks on all manner of subjects. Some say that fat acceptance is wrongheaded and dangerous, while others deny that being thin confers social benefits based on discrimination. Yet others just leave nasty insults with no real clue as to what they're disagreeing about.
So I have to wonder: Why are they so upset by us? Was becoming thin not the panacea they'd hoped for? Are they afraid we'll succeed in our quest to make life better for fat people?
One formerly fat person* was extremely agitated by the suggestion that thin fat-haters are threatened by the idea of fat acceptance. Yes, she came in here, huffed about being absolutely NOT being threatened, no sir, no way. What's that line about protesting too much? If you're not threatened by us, then why do we upset you so much? Why seek us out to berate and insult us?
I have to wonder if formerly fat people lost all that weight, only to find that it didn't make their lives perfect. Losing weight is something that you never stop doing once you get started. If you do manage to stay thin, you have to put a tremendous amount of time and effort into it. You are fighting against your body's very nature, battling hunger and pain to prevent the storage of energy in the form of fat tissue. Many people will never be satisfied; they'll always want just five more pounds, or they'll fret when they gain a little bit, because it feels like backsliding. Becoming thin is difficult, and many people go through hell and take significant risks to get there.
Why would a person put forth so much effort into becoming thin? Well, partly because the social rewards for doing so are enormous. If you are fat, you are treated really badly by other people. You're judged for eating, you're judged for not spending every spare moment running on a hamster wheel, and you're judged for just taking up too much space. It is really difficult to put up with that kind of pressure, and a lot of people choose weight loss over social stigma because of that.
So now, someone has put themselves through a gastric bypass, spends all of their free time exercising, and cannot eat anything larger than an iPod shuffle, if that. They've lost the weight and have a socially acceptable body. The rewards are often immediate and immense. And then, they find this whole group of fat people who think they ought to get for free all those things that they worked so hard to achieve. It just doesn't seem fair--those fat folks should have to put forth the effort that the formerly fat did in order to reap the reward of basic common decency. What's more, if the fat acceptance movement succeeds, then those in the currently privileged class will find themselves losing their advantage over that class. It's a lot easier to get ahead if you always have an oppressed group to which you will always be favorably compared.
I understand the frustration. I really do. But the fact that you worked hard to conform to a fucked up system does not mean that the system does not need to change. One person's past struggles should not hinder the progression toward a fair and just society.
Formerly fat folks, I am sorry that you feel that fat acceptance invalidates the struggle you underwent. I am sorry that the idea of people shedding their body issues in favor of self-acceptance reminds you that you could not do the same. But times are changing, as they absolutely must, and, regardless of your personal history, they should change for the better. Bigotry and oppression, whether based on physical characteristics or cultural ones, should always be fought against--and if you surrendered in the past, it is never too late to change your position.
* And you know, I've just done my best not to give this person the attention she craves, because she is so self-absorbed as to believe that I was referring to her in a post, when the information she was responding to could not even slightly be construed as to apply to her. I was talking about having written a thank-you note to someone (a donor), and mentioning one of the things I'd written in that note. Somehow, this paranoid, delusional fatophobe thought I was talking about her(?!) and a snotty comment she'd written to me in a previous post--when my response to that comment had been simply to delete her comment, and say something to the effect of, "Not getting enough attention lately?" Talk about your wackos.
So I have to wonder: Why are they so upset by us? Was becoming thin not the panacea they'd hoped for? Are they afraid we'll succeed in our quest to make life better for fat people?
One formerly fat person* was extremely agitated by the suggestion that thin fat-haters are threatened by the idea of fat acceptance. Yes, she came in here, huffed about being absolutely NOT being threatened, no sir, no way. What's that line about protesting too much? If you're not threatened by us, then why do we upset you so much? Why seek us out to berate and insult us?
I have to wonder if formerly fat people lost all that weight, only to find that it didn't make their lives perfect. Losing weight is something that you never stop doing once you get started. If you do manage to stay thin, you have to put a tremendous amount of time and effort into it. You are fighting against your body's very nature, battling hunger and pain to prevent the storage of energy in the form of fat tissue. Many people will never be satisfied; they'll always want just five more pounds, or they'll fret when they gain a little bit, because it feels like backsliding. Becoming thin is difficult, and many people go through hell and take significant risks to get there.
Why would a person put forth so much effort into becoming thin? Well, partly because the social rewards for doing so are enormous. If you are fat, you are treated really badly by other people. You're judged for eating, you're judged for not spending every spare moment running on a hamster wheel, and you're judged for just taking up too much space. It is really difficult to put up with that kind of pressure, and a lot of people choose weight loss over social stigma because of that.
So now, someone has put themselves through a gastric bypass, spends all of their free time exercising, and cannot eat anything larger than an iPod shuffle, if that. They've lost the weight and have a socially acceptable body. The rewards are often immediate and immense. And then, they find this whole group of fat people who think they ought to get for free all those things that they worked so hard to achieve. It just doesn't seem fair--those fat folks should have to put forth the effort that the formerly fat did in order to reap the reward of basic common decency. What's more, if the fat acceptance movement succeeds, then those in the currently privileged class will find themselves losing their advantage over that class. It's a lot easier to get ahead if you always have an oppressed group to which you will always be favorably compared.
I understand the frustration. I really do. But the fact that you worked hard to conform to a fucked up system does not mean that the system does not need to change. One person's past struggles should not hinder the progression toward a fair and just society.
Formerly fat folks, I am sorry that you feel that fat acceptance invalidates the struggle you underwent. I am sorry that the idea of people shedding their body issues in favor of self-acceptance reminds you that you could not do the same. But times are changing, as they absolutely must, and, regardless of your personal history, they should change for the better. Bigotry and oppression, whether based on physical characteristics or cultural ones, should always be fought against--and if you surrendered in the past, it is never too late to change your position.
* And you know, I've just done my best not to give this person the attention she craves, because she is so self-absorbed as to believe that I was referring to her in a post, when the information she was responding to could not even slightly be construed as to apply to her. I was talking about having written a thank-you note to someone (a donor), and mentioning one of the things I'd written in that note. Somehow, this paranoid, delusional fatophobe thought I was talking about her(?!) and a snotty comment she'd written to me in a previous post--when my response to that comment had been simply to delete her comment, and say something to the effect of, "Not getting enough attention lately?" Talk about your wackos.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The fat-hating boss from hell
The job was tempting because it offered full-time work, at a wage equal to what I was getting, and health insurance kicking in after a few months of employment. I was getting tired of my other job because, well, it sucked. Another story, another day. The employer seemed reasonable, his store was beautiful, and I did have a great time for a while. I loved most of my coworkers, except the European girl who treated me like garbage because I wasn't constantly on a diet like she was. She actually gave me a chocolate bar for a Christmas gift, saying, "You'll like it, because it's food." She also hated Americans, finding them disgusting, rude, and irritating. No, don't ask me why she immigrated here. I don't know either.
The worst part of that job, though, wasn't the snotty dieter, but the boss, who had a nasty temper, and would lose his shit at the smallest thing. I was screamed at--obscenities and all--for being too polite to a customer that he didn't like. He threw objects at his employees--if something didn't have a price tag, for example, he hurled it at the nearest person, screaming and accusing us of being lazy idiots. If something was too complicated for him to understand, we took the brunt of his rage--and it was ten times worse if we were able to figure it out. I got the shit end of that stick, having more experience than he did in the subject, and having been educated as well.
The worst part about this man was not just his abusive, nasty temper; it was his bigotry. He would say, "I'm not racist," then turn around and use the n-word to describe a black person he didn't like. He was one of those people who really thought that he wasn't racist as long as it was only the bad black people that he called n-word. He also called my Jewish doctor, a wonderful, intelligent, compassionate man (which made the boss hate him soooo damn much), a schmuck to his face, but he claims he didn't know what it really meant. Whatever.
Even that, however, pales in comparison to what he did to his sister. She was a very large woman who lived on the other side of the country. The boss was disgusted by his sister's size, and firmly believed that she was going to die within the next week if she didn't stop being fat RIGHT THIS MINUTE.
Now, let me sidetrack for a moment and talk about some customers we had. They were a married couple, both very fat, who had both undergone gastric surgery. They both had the "safer" band surgery, and boss-man thought this was the greatest thing. He talked to them at length about it to find out all kinds of information. About a week after he talked to them, one of them, then the other, ended up in the hospital with complications. They both had to be cut back open, and one had a pretty serious infection. They were absent from the store for quite a while because of this, and the item they'd had on layaway had to be postponed, then cancelled with money back because of their health problems. The boss did not even acknowledge that the gastric surgery had been problematic, and he was nicey nice to their faces when they came to get their money back, but skewered them behind their backs for being irresponsible with money, because he'd lost the sale. Yeah, the guy is a real schmuck.
Back to his sister, though! After getting hyped up about gastric surgery because of those two customers, he proceeded to write his sister a letter. He told her in this letter that it was time she did something about her weight, and that he wasn't going to let her ignore the "problem" any longer. He then said that if she did not get gastric surgery, he would disown her and never talk to her again. He then sent the letter Certified Mail so that she could not claim that she hadn't received it, and awaited her response. I did foolishly point out that gastric surgery had a lot of risks, and had a high rate of complications and death, but I should have just kept my mouth shut; I was pooh-poohed and told that the banding surgery was TOTALLY SAFE, and it was worth the risk for his sister to do it. And yes, he did do all of this letter writing and bitching behind the counter at the store, where we were all working, using his employees as an audience for his anger.
I'm sorry to say that I don't know how this resolved, because I quit very soon after that. I'd had it with his cruelty and hatred, and couldn't take it anymore when there was a final straw (long long story, and I promise to share it eventually). I do hope, however, that he made good on his promise to never speak to her again, because, if he were my brother, I'd consider it to be a blessing. Boss's sister, if you're out there, I want you to know that it's not your fault that he's a giant asshole, and you did not deserve what he did to you. Being fat is not a crime, and it is not an excuse for being treated inhumanely.
The worst part of that job, though, wasn't the snotty dieter, but the boss, who had a nasty temper, and would lose his shit at the smallest thing. I was screamed at--obscenities and all--for being too polite to a customer that he didn't like. He threw objects at his employees--if something didn't have a price tag, for example, he hurled it at the nearest person, screaming and accusing us of being lazy idiots. If something was too complicated for him to understand, we took the brunt of his rage--and it was ten times worse if we were able to figure it out. I got the shit end of that stick, having more experience than he did in the subject, and having been educated as well.
The worst part about this man was not just his abusive, nasty temper; it was his bigotry. He would say, "I'm not racist," then turn around and use the n-word to describe a black person he didn't like. He was one of those people who really thought that he wasn't racist as long as it was only the bad black people that he called n-word. He also called my Jewish doctor, a wonderful, intelligent, compassionate man (which made the boss hate him soooo damn much), a schmuck to his face, but he claims he didn't know what it really meant. Whatever.
Even that, however, pales in comparison to what he did to his sister. She was a very large woman who lived on the other side of the country. The boss was disgusted by his sister's size, and firmly believed that she was going to die within the next week if she didn't stop being fat RIGHT THIS MINUTE.
Now, let me sidetrack for a moment and talk about some customers we had. They were a married couple, both very fat, who had both undergone gastric surgery. They both had the "safer" band surgery, and boss-man thought this was the greatest thing. He talked to them at length about it to find out all kinds of information. About a week after he talked to them, one of them, then the other, ended up in the hospital with complications. They both had to be cut back open, and one had a pretty serious infection. They were absent from the store for quite a while because of this, and the item they'd had on layaway had to be postponed, then cancelled with money back because of their health problems. The boss did not even acknowledge that the gastric surgery had been problematic, and he was nicey nice to their faces when they came to get their money back, but skewered them behind their backs for being irresponsible with money, because he'd lost the sale. Yeah, the guy is a real schmuck.
Back to his sister, though! After getting hyped up about gastric surgery because of those two customers, he proceeded to write his sister a letter. He told her in this letter that it was time she did something about her weight, and that he wasn't going to let her ignore the "problem" any longer. He then said that if she did not get gastric surgery, he would disown her and never talk to her again. He then sent the letter Certified Mail so that she could not claim that she hadn't received it, and awaited her response. I did foolishly point out that gastric surgery had a lot of risks, and had a high rate of complications and death, but I should have just kept my mouth shut; I was pooh-poohed and told that the banding surgery was TOTALLY SAFE, and it was worth the risk for his sister to do it. And yes, he did do all of this letter writing and bitching behind the counter at the store, where we were all working, using his employees as an audience for his anger.
I'm sorry to say that I don't know how this resolved, because I quit very soon after that. I'd had it with his cruelty and hatred, and couldn't take it anymore when there was a final straw (long long story, and I promise to share it eventually). I do hope, however, that he made good on his promise to never speak to her again, because, if he were my brother, I'd consider it to be a blessing. Boss's sister, if you're out there, I want you to know that it's not your fault that he's a giant asshole, and you did not deserve what he did to you. Being fat is not a crime, and it is not an excuse for being treated inhumanely.
The Well Behaved Fatty
The hatred and derision I face as a fat person is painful. I admit to a knee-jerk reaction to some of the things thrown at me--a reaction of trying to show them that I'm not what they say I am, I'm not lazy, or gluttonous, or stupid. The social ape part of my brain wants me to do whatever it takes to be accepted, to stop being excluded from society. I know that this is a natural desire, and that it's not wrong to want to fit in. The problem, I eventually realized, was that, in trying to fit in, I was legitimizing the exclusion of others.
Maybe I don't eat a lot, and being able to prove that makes my fat more socially acceptable than someone who does. Maybe I have a thyroid condition (I do, and it sucks, and not because of the fat, but that's another entry another day), and that gives me a "free pass" for being fat. Fat Girl On A Bike exercises as much as an Olympic athlete, which proves that not all fat people are lazy, so she gets permission to eat food sometimes.
You know what though? That's all a bunch of CRAP.
I don't need an excuse for my body size. It doesn't matter if a person eats "too much", eats "the wrong stuff", doesn't exercise, is not very bright, doesn't have a glandular condition. You don't have to be a good little fatty who does all the right things and just can't lose weight. You're a human being, and that should be enough reason for someone to treat you as one. There shouldn't be a NEED for a "free pass". Thin people can be lazy, gluttonous, and stupid, and nobody attributes it to anything except individuality.
So screw it. If you see a fat person eating ice cream? That's their business. You see a fat person watching television? So what? Lots of people watch television. Fat people don't have to apologize for their bodies being fat. Everyone, fat or thin, should face the same consequences for being lazy or gluttonous (stupid isn't necessarily a malleable attribute). If you're lazy, you might have a dirty house, you might have a crappy job, or you might have a half-finished 7-foot-tall trebuchet* in your garage. If you're gluttonous, you might have a huge food bill. Big deal--those are the choices we make in our lives. They don't mean that a person doesn't deserve to be treated like a human being.
Similarly, a fat person who is not actively trying to become un-fat should not be regarded as a better person than one who has accepted his or her body and chooses to spend time and energy on other pursuits. Yet, I constantly hear, "At least I'm DOING something about my weight!" as if it is a virtue. Choosing to lose weight doesn't make you better; it just means that you have a personal preference to not be fat. Non-dieting fat people, though, are considered to be reckless fools who are responsible for the downfall of Western civilization. Meanwhile, the hate spewed in their direction for not being "well-behaved" seems a bit, well, uncivil to me.
* I am joking, honey, you are not lazy. For those who don't know, my dear husband enjoys building medieval siege weapons. We have a mini trebuchet that can be used to throw small objects, like cat toys. The 7-footer is designed to be taken apart and fit into his car so it can be tested at remote locations (we're good neighbors). The counterweight basket is not yet finished, though, because I moved in and took up all of his attention and time before he got to that part.
Maybe I don't eat a lot, and being able to prove that makes my fat more socially acceptable than someone who does. Maybe I have a thyroid condition (I do, and it sucks, and not because of the fat, but that's another entry another day), and that gives me a "free pass" for being fat. Fat Girl On A Bike exercises as much as an Olympic athlete, which proves that not all fat people are lazy, so she gets permission to eat food sometimes.
You know what though? That's all a bunch of CRAP.
I don't need an excuse for my body size. It doesn't matter if a person eats "too much", eats "the wrong stuff", doesn't exercise, is not very bright, doesn't have a glandular condition. You don't have to be a good little fatty who does all the right things and just can't lose weight. You're a human being, and that should be enough reason for someone to treat you as one. There shouldn't be a NEED for a "free pass". Thin people can be lazy, gluttonous, and stupid, and nobody attributes it to anything except individuality.
So screw it. If you see a fat person eating ice cream? That's their business. You see a fat person watching television? So what? Lots of people watch television. Fat people don't have to apologize for their bodies being fat. Everyone, fat or thin, should face the same consequences for being lazy or gluttonous (stupid isn't necessarily a malleable attribute). If you're lazy, you might have a dirty house, you might have a crappy job, or you might have a half-finished 7-foot-tall trebuchet* in your garage. If you're gluttonous, you might have a huge food bill. Big deal--those are the choices we make in our lives. They don't mean that a person doesn't deserve to be treated like a human being.
Similarly, a fat person who is not actively trying to become un-fat should not be regarded as a better person than one who has accepted his or her body and chooses to spend time and energy on other pursuits. Yet, I constantly hear, "At least I'm DOING something about my weight!" as if it is a virtue. Choosing to lose weight doesn't make you better; it just means that you have a personal preference to not be fat. Non-dieting fat people, though, are considered to be reckless fools who are responsible for the downfall of Western civilization. Meanwhile, the hate spewed in their direction for not being "well-behaved" seems a bit, well, uncivil to me.
* I am joking, honey, you are not lazy. For those who don't know, my dear husband enjoys building medieval siege weapons. We have a mini trebuchet that can be used to throw small objects, like cat toys. The 7-footer is designed to be taken apart and fit into his car so it can be tested at remote locations (we're good neighbors). The counterweight basket is not yet finished, though, because I moved in and took up all of his attention and time before he got to that part.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Privilege
A while back, I posted about thin privilege. I've had at least one person try to deny thin privilege by saying essentially, "Just because you are discriminated against, doesn't mean that I benefit from it."
Many of you just had the logic circuits in your brains overload. For those who don't get it, though, I will try to explain privilege, and how it affects everyone, for good or ill.
If the world is predominately run by people who regard a characteristic (in this case, fatness) as a reason to not hire someone, throw rocks at them, give them bad service, or otherwise treat them badly, then the people who do not have the characteristic (thin people, in this case) directly benefit from this situation by having reduced competition in all things. Thin people get included, while fat ones are excluded. If you don't consider being included in the "possible employee" pile of resumes to be a benefit over the people whose resumes go into the circular file based solely on the fact that they are fat, then I'm not sure how much plainer I can make this.
You also benefit by not having to carry the burden of being discriminated against based on your weight. If I need someone to believe that I am hardworking, smart, efficient, or experienced, I have to work twice as hard, because I first have to overcome the immediate perception that fat people are the opposite of those things. It is also believed that I am not entitled to desserts, or sometimes food of any kind, or taking the elevator, or being in a wheelchair. A thin person who is using any of those things is not questioned, while a fat person is judged negatively for doing so.
I'm not telling anyone that they should feel guilty for being thin. I am suggesting that we should work toward a more just society, and that starts with the individuals. When you find yourself in a grocery store, and you see a fat person using a motorized cart, think about your immediate reaction. Lots of people think, "Maybe if they would walk, they wouldn't be so fat." Some of them even say it, usually as anonymous online forum participants. Stop yourself, if you think that way, and consider the fact that you don't know that person, you don't know their history, and it isn't fair to judge them. Think about whether you'd judge a thin person the same way. Then ask yourself why a thin person is assumed to have a real disability, while the fat person is judged as lazy, and too stupid to know that walking is "healthy"?
Keep yourself honest. Be aware of the way you think, and aware of the things you may or may not gain from your privileged status as thin, white, male, wealthy, or whatever else gives you that advantage.
Many of you just had the logic circuits in your brains overload. For those who don't get it, though, I will try to explain privilege, and how it affects everyone, for good or ill.
If the world is predominately run by people who regard a characteristic (in this case, fatness) as a reason to not hire someone, throw rocks at them, give them bad service, or otherwise treat them badly, then the people who do not have the characteristic (thin people, in this case) directly benefit from this situation by having reduced competition in all things. Thin people get included, while fat ones are excluded. If you don't consider being included in the "possible employee" pile of resumes to be a benefit over the people whose resumes go into the circular file based solely on the fact that they are fat, then I'm not sure how much plainer I can make this.
You also benefit by not having to carry the burden of being discriminated against based on your weight. If I need someone to believe that I am hardworking, smart, efficient, or experienced, I have to work twice as hard, because I first have to overcome the immediate perception that fat people are the opposite of those things. It is also believed that I am not entitled to desserts, or sometimes food of any kind, or taking the elevator, or being in a wheelchair. A thin person who is using any of those things is not questioned, while a fat person is judged negatively for doing so.
I'm not telling anyone that they should feel guilty for being thin. I am suggesting that we should work toward a more just society, and that starts with the individuals. When you find yourself in a grocery store, and you see a fat person using a motorized cart, think about your immediate reaction. Lots of people think, "Maybe if they would walk, they wouldn't be so fat." Some of them even say it, usually as anonymous online forum participants. Stop yourself, if you think that way, and consider the fact that you don't know that person, you don't know their history, and it isn't fair to judge them. Think about whether you'd judge a thin person the same way. Then ask yourself why a thin person is assumed to have a real disability, while the fat person is judged as lazy, and too stupid to know that walking is "healthy"?
Keep yourself honest. Be aware of the way you think, and aware of the things you may or may not gain from your privileged status as thin, white, male, wealthy, or whatever else gives you that advantage.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Mississippi legislators attention whoring
Ah, Mississippi, that bastion of civil rights and body autonomy.
Now some attention-whoring legislators in that state have introduced a bill that would revoke the licenses of business who serve food to fat people. This bill will never get passed, and not because of a lack of fat hatred, and the authors know it. It's a stunt, authored by men whose bills often tend to be fluff bits naming highways after war heroes and commending dead soldiers on their military service.
We've basically got three old white guys who have seen the civil rights movement take away their right to treat people badly based on their skin color. What's a good ol' boy to do, but find some other group of people to bar from the restaurants? Hating fat people is not just socially acceptable; it's becoming government sanctioned!
Now, these guys know full well that their bill is not viable. The bureaucracy required to even get it started would be staggering, and enforcement would be impossible. The restaurant lobby would never stand for it. But, just the proposal of this bill may make some people feel that their treatment of fat people is legitimate. Some restaurants may start treating fat customers differently just to avoid future legal complications. It doesn't make good business sense, of course, but neither does the poor treatment we get from doctors.
One final note: Do you think that Representative Read is going to consider himself banned from restaurants by his own bill? Do you think he believes the rules apply to him? I would recommend that he ban himself from them voluntarily, if he feels this strongly about fat people eating food.
Now some attention-whoring legislators in that state have introduced a bill that would revoke the licenses of business who serve food to fat people. This bill will never get passed, and not because of a lack of fat hatred, and the authors know it. It's a stunt, authored by men whose bills often tend to be fluff bits naming highways after war heroes and commending dead soldiers on their military service.
We've basically got three old white guys who have seen the civil rights movement take away their right to treat people badly based on their skin color. What's a good ol' boy to do, but find some other group of people to bar from the restaurants? Hating fat people is not just socially acceptable; it's becoming government sanctioned!
Now, these guys know full well that their bill is not viable. The bureaucracy required to even get it started would be staggering, and enforcement would be impossible. The restaurant lobby would never stand for it. But, just the proposal of this bill may make some people feel that their treatment of fat people is legitimate. Some restaurants may start treating fat customers differently just to avoid future legal complications. It doesn't make good business sense, of course, but neither does the poor treatment we get from doctors.
One final note: Do you think that Representative Read is going to consider himself banned from restaurants by his own bill? Do you think he believes the rules apply to him? I would recommend that he ban himself from them voluntarily, if he feels this strongly about fat people eating food.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Big Buts, Part Six: The Godwin Diet
"But you don't see fat people in famines or concentration camps!"
Oh no, you didn't! You didn't! Surely you're not invoking the most horrific events in human history as justification for the persecution of fat people?
Oh, you are? Well then, I guess I'll tackle that one, but just remember that this was YOUR idea, not mine.
The shameful and sick use of this "but" is one that really sets my teeth on edge. People who were forcibly starved, many or most starved to death, did in fact use their fat reserves in order to prolong their lives. They lost fat tissue, muscle mass, and bone density. Their organs went into failure. The human body has evolved strategies for surviving food shortages for a period of time, but that does not mean such strategies can be used indefinitely. A more efficient body still has finite resources, even if they are used at a slower rate than a body with a fast metabolism.
People's bodies became emaciated when they went long periods of time without eating anything. It is true that this happens. However, that does not mean that it was a good thing for them to become emaciated. It does not mean that it is a good idea to induce famine when food is abundant. Yes, a fat person will become less fat when put on a starvation diet, but why should they have to endure that? Famine is a horror. It is suffering. It is damaging to the body and mind. Why do you think someone should voluntarily undergo that? Maybe because you're just being a smartass, and trying to prove the point that "dieting works"?
Sure, starving the human body results in fat reserves being utilized. But once that period of starving is over, the body wants to rebuild those reserves, plus some extra. So, in order to remain thin, the person who has lost a lot of weight will have to endure the pain and suffering of starvation for his or her entire life. And for what reason? Health? Would you rather live a shorter life feeling good, or live longer in misery? Appearance? Why should I have to suffer for the sake of other people's misguided aesthetics?
Another thing: Surely you don't think that emaciated famine victims are healthy? There is a great deal of damage done to them by starvation, and that same damage can be seen in people who deliberately eat very low calorie diets, including cognitive problems, infertility, and heart damage. Yes, a fat person with a slow metabolism, thyroid disease, and PCOS might lose weight if they reduce their intake to a ridiculously low amount, but that doesn't mean it's healthy for them to do so, or that it will improve their quality of life enough to offset the side effects of very low calorie diets.
Finally, I want to ask a very simple question: Which famine and Holocaust victims do YOU think were more likely to survive? The thin ones, or the fat ones? And, of those who survived and were able to build a stable life with an adequate food supply, how many of them do you think stayed emaciated?
Just stop using victimized people as an excuse to hate fat people. It's disrespectful, disgusting, and disingenuous. Enough already.
Oh no, you didn't! You didn't! Surely you're not invoking the most horrific events in human history as justification for the persecution of fat people?
Oh, you are? Well then, I guess I'll tackle that one, but just remember that this was YOUR idea, not mine.
The shameful and sick use of this "but" is one that really sets my teeth on edge. People who were forcibly starved, many or most starved to death, did in fact use their fat reserves in order to prolong their lives. They lost fat tissue, muscle mass, and bone density. Their organs went into failure. The human body has evolved strategies for surviving food shortages for a period of time, but that does not mean such strategies can be used indefinitely. A more efficient body still has finite resources, even if they are used at a slower rate than a body with a fast metabolism.
People's bodies became emaciated when they went long periods of time without eating anything. It is true that this happens. However, that does not mean that it was a good thing for them to become emaciated. It does not mean that it is a good idea to induce famine when food is abundant. Yes, a fat person will become less fat when put on a starvation diet, but why should they have to endure that? Famine is a horror. It is suffering. It is damaging to the body and mind. Why do you think someone should voluntarily undergo that? Maybe because you're just being a smartass, and trying to prove the point that "dieting works"?
Sure, starving the human body results in fat reserves being utilized. But once that period of starving is over, the body wants to rebuild those reserves, plus some extra. So, in order to remain thin, the person who has lost a lot of weight will have to endure the pain and suffering of starvation for his or her entire life. And for what reason? Health? Would you rather live a shorter life feeling good, or live longer in misery? Appearance? Why should I have to suffer for the sake of other people's misguided aesthetics?
Another thing: Surely you don't think that emaciated famine victims are healthy? There is a great deal of damage done to them by starvation, and that same damage can be seen in people who deliberately eat very low calorie diets, including cognitive problems, infertility, and heart damage. Yes, a fat person with a slow metabolism, thyroid disease, and PCOS might lose weight if they reduce their intake to a ridiculously low amount, but that doesn't mean it's healthy for them to do so, or that it will improve their quality of life enough to offset the side effects of very low calorie diets.
Finally, I want to ask a very simple question: Which famine and Holocaust victims do YOU think were more likely to survive? The thin ones, or the fat ones? And, of those who survived and were able to build a stable life with an adequate food supply, how many of them do you think stayed emaciated?
Just stop using victimized people as an excuse to hate fat people. It's disrespectful, disgusting, and disingenuous. Enough already.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Pro-choice
I believe that women and men should have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies. Whether that means having an abortion, using birth control, choosing sex partners instead of having sex forced upon them, deciding what foods they put into their bodies, and smoking cigarettes or marijuana.
We give up freedoms out of fear. Anti-abortionists fear women having control over their bodes instead of becoming enslaved to the product of sex, so they oppose abortion and birth control. Those who fear getting beaten or killed give in to rape as a lesser evil. Irrational fear of black men stealing white women was used to outlaw marijuana.
Now, we are being pressured to hand over our freedom to eat what we like out of fear of an epidemic of fat, with horror stories about health insurance costs and a nation filled with 500-lb citizens.
If you don't think the current fat hysteria isn't related to being pro-choice about what we do with our bodies, then you aren't paying attention.
We give up freedoms out of fear. Anti-abortionists fear women having control over their bodes instead of becoming enslaved to the product of sex, so they oppose abortion and birth control. Those who fear getting beaten or killed give in to rape as a lesser evil. Irrational fear of black men stealing white women was used to outlaw marijuana.
Now, we are being pressured to hand over our freedom to eat what we like out of fear of an epidemic of fat, with horror stories about health insurance costs and a nation filled with 500-lb citizens.
If you don't think the current fat hysteria isn't related to being pro-choice about what we do with our bodies, then you aren't paying attention.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Big Buts, part two: The 400-lb straw man
"But...people are like 400 pounds now! Epidemic! Epidemic!
My first reaction to this "but" is to say, "Are you one of them? No? Then it's none of your business." However, I know that isn't good enough for some people, because people who use "buts" are always but-ing in on other people's private lives. So, with apologies to those out there who ARE 400 pounds, and an invitation to you for input, I am going to kick this "but" right here and now.
First of all, the "obesity epidemic" does not, despite what the pictures next to the hysterical articles depict, mean that there is a majority of people who are, and I apologize for this, "super" sized. Yes, very large people exist, and they may or may not have problems because of their size, but the so-called epidemic is aimed at smaller people, while holding up images of 400 pound people (headless female ones, usually) to frighten us into thinking that we are all "doomed" to become that image if we don't toe* the thindustry line right away.
My friends (and foes), this is what we call a "straw man". People who bring up the subject of the very fat (and please, if anyone who fits this category can give me the most polite term, I would be grateful, and more than happy to edit this post to put it right) as a reason for 200-pound women to start eating in a disorderly fashion are being completely ridiculous. Yes, 400 pound people exist, but that does not mean that EVERYONE will become that large simply from eating too much--and the haters know it. They know perfectly well that there are thin people who eat huge volumes of food without gaining an ounce, and they are WELL AWARE that a moderately fat woman is not going to become 400 pounds just because she doesn't engage in calorie restriction.
But yet, they hold up those headless photos, wagging their fingers in our faces, and tell us that we'll sure be sorry when we LOOK LIKE THAT, because how else are they going to be able to claim that they're doing us a favor by being complete asswipes to us? How else are they going to excuse their hateful behavior without looking selfish (as with the "health care costs" argument, which IS a selfish argument)? It doesn't matter that they know it's not true, and that we know it's not true; as long as they can hold up the photos and be patronizing douchebags, they shut down the argument with hyperbole. I can say, "But I really don't eat Big Macs, I'm a vegetarian," and they can completely disregard what I just said, hold up the picture, and say, "DO YOU WANT TO LOOK LIKE THIS YOU FATTY FATTY MC FATTY? STOP EATING BIG MACS! AND IF YOU DON'T, YOU WILL DESERVE TO BE THE 400 POUND FATTY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE!" I mean, really, how do you respond to that, when the other side just keeps spraying spittle in your face, and refusing to engage in polite, meaningful discourse? You can't.
What you can do, though, is know the truth--that eating hamburgers isn't what makes a very fat person fat. There have to be other factors involved, including thyroid disease, insulin resistance, stuff like that. I mean, gosh, does anyone remember the woman who had a 900 pound (correct me if that's the wrong number; I don't have internet connection up here; just using the laptop) ovarian cyst removed? You don't diet away a cyst. Yet, because of the shaming and cruelty fat people have to endure, she did not get medical treatment to diagnose the cyst until it had grown to frightening proportions. Are you haters proud of yourselves for that one?
I'm a fat woman. I don't presume to speak for people who weigh significantly more than I do, but I do know that, unless a serious medical problem crops up, I am highly unlikely to become one of them, no matter how much cake I eat, no matter if I choose the real sour cream instead of the fat free stuff. If I eat more calories than usual, my metabolism rises to burn the extra energy so that I don't rise significantly above my setpoint. Trust me on this; I have had erratic eating behavior without a major change in weight beyond the normal fluctuations a woman's body goes through. So light a match and set that straw man aflame--and don't fall for the hysterical hand-wringing anymore.
Small addendum: I read on Sandy's blog that Celebrity Attention Whore Chef's goal in dissecting a 400-lb man on television is to show how bad the "average British diet" is. If that were true, he'd be dissecting an average British man--176 pounds. Using the gory spectacle of the 400-pound cadaver, however, is a very clear example of this ridiculous straw man that fatphobics are shoving in our faces. I, for one, am NOT fooled. How about you?
* "Toe the line" is the correct form of this phrase. People, please stop saying "tow the line", you aren't pulling it behind a boat, you're standing there with your toes along the line, all in a perfect row together, like good little soldiers.
My first reaction to this "but" is to say, "Are you one of them? No? Then it's none of your business." However, I know that isn't good enough for some people, because people who use "buts" are always but-ing in on other people's private lives. So, with apologies to those out there who ARE 400 pounds, and an invitation to you for input, I am going to kick this "but" right here and now.
First of all, the "obesity epidemic" does not, despite what the pictures next to the hysterical articles depict, mean that there is a majority of people who are, and I apologize for this, "super" sized. Yes, very large people exist, and they may or may not have problems because of their size, but the so-called epidemic is aimed at smaller people, while holding up images of 400 pound people (headless female ones, usually) to frighten us into thinking that we are all "doomed" to become that image if we don't toe* the thindustry line right away.
My friends (and foes), this is what we call a "straw man". People who bring up the subject of the very fat (and please, if anyone who fits this category can give me the most polite term, I would be grateful, and more than happy to edit this post to put it right) as a reason for 200-pound women to start eating in a disorderly fashion are being completely ridiculous. Yes, 400 pound people exist, but that does not mean that EVERYONE will become that large simply from eating too much--and the haters know it. They know perfectly well that there are thin people who eat huge volumes of food without gaining an ounce, and they are WELL AWARE that a moderately fat woman is not going to become 400 pounds just because she doesn't engage in calorie restriction.
But yet, they hold up those headless photos, wagging their fingers in our faces, and tell us that we'll sure be sorry when we LOOK LIKE THAT, because how else are they going to be able to claim that they're doing us a favor by being complete asswipes to us? How else are they going to excuse their hateful behavior without looking selfish (as with the "health care costs" argument, which IS a selfish argument)? It doesn't matter that they know it's not true, and that we know it's not true; as long as they can hold up the photos and be patronizing douchebags, they shut down the argument with hyperbole. I can say, "But I really don't eat Big Macs, I'm a vegetarian," and they can completely disregard what I just said, hold up the picture, and say, "DO YOU WANT TO LOOK LIKE THIS YOU FATTY FATTY MC FATTY? STOP EATING BIG MACS! AND IF YOU DON'T, YOU WILL DESERVE TO BE THE 400 POUND FATTY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE!" I mean, really, how do you respond to that, when the other side just keeps spraying spittle in your face, and refusing to engage in polite, meaningful discourse? You can't.
What you can do, though, is know the truth--that eating hamburgers isn't what makes a very fat person fat. There have to be other factors involved, including thyroid disease, insulin resistance, stuff like that. I mean, gosh, does anyone remember the woman who had a 900 pound (correct me if that's the wrong number; I don't have internet connection up here; just using the laptop) ovarian cyst removed? You don't diet away a cyst. Yet, because of the shaming and cruelty fat people have to endure, she did not get medical treatment to diagnose the cyst until it had grown to frightening proportions. Are you haters proud of yourselves for that one?
I'm a fat woman. I don't presume to speak for people who weigh significantly more than I do, but I do know that, unless a serious medical problem crops up, I am highly unlikely to become one of them, no matter how much cake I eat, no matter if I choose the real sour cream instead of the fat free stuff. If I eat more calories than usual, my metabolism rises to burn the extra energy so that I don't rise significantly above my setpoint. Trust me on this; I have had erratic eating behavior without a major change in weight beyond the normal fluctuations a woman's body goes through. So light a match and set that straw man aflame--and don't fall for the hysterical hand-wringing anymore.
Small addendum: I read on Sandy's blog that Celebrity Attention Whore Chef's goal in dissecting a 400-lb man on television is to show how bad the "average British diet" is. If that were true, he'd be dissecting an average British man--176 pounds. Using the gory spectacle of the 400-pound cadaver, however, is a very clear example of this ridiculous straw man that fatphobics are shoving in our faces. I, for one, am NOT fooled. How about you?
* "Toe the line" is the correct form of this phrase. People, please stop saying "tow the line", you aren't pulling it behind a boat, you're standing there with your toes along the line, all in a perfect row together, like good little soldiers.
I'll let you guys handle this one
Rick has left a new comment on your post "Your spouse is fat? Grow up and deal.":
Well, one thing is that when kids enter the equation, it is not that easy to "divorce" your spouse.
In your cherry-picking of facts, you omit that 1) the majority of poster on myfatspouse are women married to morbidly obese men and 2)morbid obesity, not a "mere" weight gain of twenty pounds.
I was fat, then exercised and ate healthy, and have stayed that way for thirty years.
But let's hear you go to the mat to find fat guys with beer bellies, wide butts, double-chins, manboobs, and sweaty skin "sexy." And shame women for not being eager to sleep with such guys. Fair is fair, after all.
Posted by Rick to She Dances On The Sand at January 18, 2008 8:25 AM
I guess it's okay in Rick's world to treat fat people badly as long as they are 1. male and 2. REALLY fat instead of a little chubby?
I reaaaaally want to see some good responses, friends :)
Edited to add:
I'm not "forcing" anyone to find me attractive. Somehow, my (omg) tall, lean, exceptionally good-looking spouse does so all on his own. But if he decided he wasn't attracted anymore, especially because I am fat? I want him to divorce me. Seriously.
And if he were to become fat, and grow man boobs? He's still my Brian, and nothing will change that.
I am, by the way, noting the grammar and spelling level on that site, and, as a result, realizing that many of the concepts of physiology, metabolism, and general biology are probably way too complicated for people who are at a third grade level of language arts. Oh noes, was that ad hominem? Tit for tat, children. Pun fully intended.
Second edit:
I just want to point out that I hadn't even HEARD of MFS until you nitwits linked to me. If you don't want the attention of size-positive bloggers, then you shouldn't link to us. Also, having read more of the site (and I'm so sorry I did, ugh), and seeing posts where someone focuses on her spouse's eating too much steak, and downplays his "punching walls and threatening me"? Dearie, fat isn't your problem, and you won't realize that until you have the good sense to get out of an abusive relationship. Good GOD.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
I am so disgusted that I won't be eating for the next week, thanks.
**Strong Language Warning--I am very (full fat mozzarella, fuck you very much) cheesed off*
What the HELL is wrong with [celebrity chef who is doing an autopsy of a 400-lb man on television, but I sure as hell won't give him the satisfaction of repeating his name, and adding to his google hits]?!
This has got to be the sickest form of attention whoring EVER. I think it tops tubgirl and goatse combined. Rabid Fatphobic Chef, get the FUCK over yourself and have a fucking cupcake; your apparent starvation-induced psychosis is really getting out of hand.
And, I'm sorry, but nobody who is 400lbs "eats himself to death". There had to be underlying causes for a person to gain that much weight--causes that probably went unchecked and untreated because of yet another goddamned idiot doctor who is too fucking bigoted to give proper care to fat patients beyond "eat less and exercise more."
Screw you, celebrity chef. I wish NAAFA could arrange to have five million cream pies thrown in your stupid smarmy little face, because that is the only way a person ACTUALLY is going to drown in fat.
And stay out of kids' lunches--you are only making them binge by trying to deny them treats, dumbass. There are studies to show that.
What the HELL is wrong with [celebrity chef who is doing an autopsy of a 400-lb man on television, but I sure as hell won't give him the satisfaction of repeating his name, and adding to his google hits]?!
This has got to be the sickest form of attention whoring EVER. I think it tops tubgirl and goatse combined. Rabid Fatphobic Chef, get the FUCK over yourself and have a fucking cupcake; your apparent starvation-induced psychosis is really getting out of hand.
And, I'm sorry, but nobody who is 400lbs "eats himself to death". There had to be underlying causes for a person to gain that much weight--causes that probably went unchecked and untreated because of yet another goddamned idiot doctor who is too fucking bigoted to give proper care to fat patients beyond "eat less and exercise more."
Screw you, celebrity chef. I wish NAAFA could arrange to have five million cream pies thrown in your stupid smarmy little face, because that is the only way a person ACTUALLY is going to drown in fat.
And stay out of kids' lunches--you are only making them binge by trying to deny them treats, dumbass. There are studies to show that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
