An Open Letter to Fat Acceptance Bloggers
Dear Fat Acceptance Bloggers,
Believe me when I say, hooray for you. It’s great you’re working in any way to get all shapes and sizes accepted in society. As a fat gal myself, I appreciate the work that goes into this.
However, over the past few weeks I’ve seen some startling things in FA blogs, and frankly I can’t not mention this to you and to any of your readers.
I’ve seen claims that people should not try to lose weight. This is fair enough if a person is at their natural weight level, is eating well and moving enough. For some people that weight level is higher than for others, and that’s okay. Working to help people accept and embrace these larger sizes is fantastic, but blogging on the net doesn’t give you the right to guilt or harass people who – for whatever reason – decide they wish to lose weight.
I’ve seen claims that body weight cannot cause joint pain. Fact is, it can. For example, when I am at my heaviest, my knees and ankles are incredibly painful. My frame is not made to carry the weight I do, hence the pain. When I lose weight, no more pain. And before you say “but there might be another reason” I’ve had X-Rays and scans it’s simple trying to make my frame do more than it should. End of story.
I’ve seen claims that lifestyle is not a factor in weight. I’m sorry, but that is just out and out bullshit. Certainly for many people, it isn’t. For many people genetics, medical conditions or medications are the deciding factor, but at the same time you cannot tell me that someone who is eating nothing but junk food couldn’t be healther and, yes, thinner, if they changed their lifestyle.
Claims that are based purely on your own beliefs, with no medical or proven backup should be labeled as such. You are more than doing your readers a disservice by publishing your opinions as fact, you are being dangerous. It’s not okay to tell people to stay fat if their bodies are meant to be thinner. It’s not okay to enable unhealthy living, simply because YOU think it’s okay.
Body acceptance is important, I fully endorse the concept in every way, but there needs to be an understanding from you and from anyone else that all bodies are different, that some people are naturally fat and some people aren’t. By telling people that it’s really okay to just be as fat as they can be, you’re risking their health. It’s one thing to decide your own lifestyle, it’s totally another thing when your lifestyle choices are pushed onto other people as fact and the only way.
For the most part, fat acceptance bloggers are a reasonable and wise lot, but like any group on the internet, there’s rogues with their own agendas. I urge each and every fat blogger on the net to review their blogrolls from time to time. If you see dangerous or upsetting behaviour from someone on your blog roll, take them off. Don’t endorse them.
Finally, think about some full disclosure. Are you, FA Blogger, fat because of a medical condition, genetics, medications or something else? Let your readers know WHY you are over weight, so they can see where you’re coming from. If it doesn’t work for YOU to work out or whatever, that doesn’t mean you should discourage others from doing so, and it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work for anyone.
Thanks.
PS. I also know many of you delete comments you disagree with. Apart from obvious trolls, there’s no reason to do this at all. Certainly you have the power to do it, and it’s your blog and therefore your rules, but if you aren’t able to actually discuss your opinions, then there’s something wrong.
The Martha Machine
I can’t say I am a giant fan of Martha Stewart. Oh I know, she’s done great things to encourage craftiness, which I’m always in approval of, but as a presenter, she’s pretty lacking. Now that Australia has digital TV, in amongst the Corrie repeats we have the Martha Stewart Show, and I don’t get the fuss. I tried to get the fuss, and I can’t.
First of, uh, all she’s uh.. um not.. uh that eloquent with uh her presentation uh style. I know public speaking is a tricky deal, especially when you’re being internationally broadcast. I know also that “keeping it real” often means skipping the autocue, but seriously, if you can’t get through one sentence without an “uh” “um” or “ooh” then maybe you should be working from notes.
I can overlook that as a personal style, I really can. What I can’t get my head around is how wealthy she is, and how she reminds her audience of her wealth. “I had guests over for dinner, and it was a disaster. I had to send them out to look at the stables while I fixed it”. “Today we’re looking at peonies, which are a beautiful flower and so easy to grow – here’s one of my gardening team from my farm to explain” “This is my property in Maine, it’s about 600 acres…”. Okay we get it, you’re rolling in cash. I suppose if you’ve got it, then flaunt it, but it does get old really fast.
As for WHY she’s rolling in cash, I suggest you go look at the Martha Stewart Range in any craft supply shop. I can get glitter at my local discount store for a buck. OR I can buy the exact same glitter with “Martha Stewart” written on it – same size box, same quality glitter – for $4.95. I can get plain, flat fabric flowers for less than half the price of Marthas’ range. A burnisher – used for making crisp folds in paper is $14.95 from Martha. Christ on a cactus, no wonder she’s got gardening staff.
Finally, I take issue with her “crafting”. I totally agree that making hand made items should be accessible for anyone. Crafting should not be an elitist activity. Anyone should feel that making something is something they can do. However, when you’re the “crafting queen” and your idea of “making easter baskets” involves hot gluing premade birds to premade nests with premade eggs…
So there’s why I don’t watch the Martha show. Coz she shits me with her expensive supplies and her 47 farms and her gardening team. If anyone needs me, I’ll be up to my elbows in fabric, making stuff.
Don’t flatter yourself, Akker.
Jason Akermanis of footballing fame has stated that gay footballers shouldn’t go around telling people they’re gay, because it will make everything uncomfortable in the change rooms, what with all the naked men and whatnot.
It reminds me somewhat of a conversation between two male friends who had just finished High School. I shall call them Henry and Steve. So Henry tells Steve that a third guy, Wayne, is gay. Steve freaks out and says “No way, I spent HOURS with him in the edit suite!”. Henry replies “Yes, and he was probably thinking of your cute butt the whole time”. Steve cries. Well not really, but almost.
See, the thing about homophobia that stems from “I don’t want some gay guy looking at me” is this: Pretty big ego you have on yourself there, isn’t it? Let’s clear up some factoids.
Gay men do not just jump on anyone.
Okay some do, but so do some straight men. See, just as being a straight man doesn’t mean you figure every woman wants a ride, being a gay man means you don’t figure every MAN wants a ride. Do you see?
You might not even have to worry.
Why assume that a gay man will even find you attractive enough to look at twice? Do you find every single member of the opposite sex attractive? No, of course not. It works JUST the same way for gay people you know.
It’s a compliment, actually.
If a woman looked you over, you’d be all tingly. Gay men are just as good at checking out hotties as women are, so take it as a compliment. Someone thinks you’re hot enough to check out! Doesn’t mean you have to go home with them.
How doubled are your standards?
If you have no issues with two women getting it on in a bedroom setting, then you should have no issues with two men doing the same. Seriously, it shits me up the wall that lesbians are “hot” and gay men are “disgusting”. Think about it, you doofus.
As for Akker, well I really hope he gets himself sorted out, the man has some issues.
Theme Song
This isn’t actually a song. I can’t sing. I’m sorry to have raised your hopes. What I am currently doing is looking for a new theme, one for a newish blog (revisited) and one for this blog.
Now, a blog theme says a lot about the tone of the blog. Is it sleek and professional or is it a bit like a worn out pair of slippers? I lean to the second, so here’s why I’ve rejected the 10,000 or so themes I’ve seen today:
Huge RSS Buttons
I get that having an RSS button or link is a handy thing for when people see you as a kind of mini messiah of the subject, but if it’s the biggest most obvious thing in the theme, then blah.
Huge Headers
I’ve seen a lot of themes with headers so big that you need to scroll to start to see the content. That’s fine if you like it, but I feel it’s a bit of a space waste.
Too Too Two Point Oh
I know I know, we’re all supposed to be shiny buttons and slidy menus and various other trappings of 2.0, but this is my splodge of the web and since I am not a very 2.0 sort of a person (one could hardly call me glossy) I’m most certainly looking for something a bit less shiny.
Too Unchangeable
I don’t much care if you’ve called your theme “Grunge HeadShot” or whatever, if you’ve got it on the header image and don’t include a blank for people to add their blog name to, you suck. It’s not unreasonable to assume that some people might want to make the theme a little bit more personalised.
Too Black
This might be more personal preference, but I cannot stand reading light text on a dark background. I usually have to highlight the whole lot so it’s dark blue on white so I can read it.
Other variations of personal preference: too pink, too flowery, too 1998, too small, too big, too boxy, too fluffy.
So I go back to the theme pages, avoiding the ones that now embed spam in the footers (you bastards) and hope to find something nicely breakable for fun and… well no profit.
Shut up, naughty woman.
Catherine Deveney has been fired from her column at the Age newspaper for tweeting jokes about the Logies.
For my American readers, let me explain the Logies. The TV Week Logie Awards are held annually and celebrate Australian Television. Good so far. There are two types of award, the “Outstanding” type (eg, “Outstanding New Talent”, “Outstanding Actress in a Drama”) and the “Most Popular” type (eg “Most Popular New Talent”). The Outstanding awards are decided by peers and critics and other people who know what they’re talking about. The Most Popular type are voted for by people who buy TV Week Magazine.
TV Week Magazine is a glossy, sloshy publication that is purchased by people who don’t want to do too much thinking, and probably feel that soap operas are real. You can tell this by the winners of the Most Popular awards – they are generally pretty insubstantial.
I digress. Catherine Deveney is a ranting, feminist, athiest, euthanasia supporting firecracker. I don’t always agree with her, and I don’t always agree with her way of expressing herself, but overall I find her to be the kind of dynamite we need to spark discussion, thought and consideration of ideas that are generally not touched on in mainstream media. She’s passionate, loud and expressive. She is not afraid to say “This is wrong!” or “this is right!”.
During the logies, she tweeted some jokes. Some off colour, some funny (some both) and as a result has lost her position at The Age Newspaper. She’s also having all kinds of shit flung at her by readers and commentators. Why? She made a joke about Bindi Irwin (OMG NOT BINDI).
My friend Deb posted this to Facebook “more shit is being thrown at Deveney than ever gets thrown at Andrew Bolt. I guess you have to have a penis in this town to be outrageous.”.
She makes a good point. Andrew Bolt has said some stunningly horrendous things over the years, yet no one really touches him. He’s a repellent little so and so, but that’s his right to expression. If he had tweeted anything offensive, upsetting (or funny) it would have been okay, I’m pretty sure of this. People would have been upset, he would have told them to shove it, and the world would move on.
So is it because Catherine is a woman that makes her so “unbearable” to people? Women are still not expected to be loud, passionate and angry about society? Well, fuck that.
As I said, I don’t always agree with her opinions, and I don’t always agree with her statements, but as a society we need women like Catherine Deveney to light a firecracker under people, to make them think, consider and wonder about their opinions, to validate or shatter or to simply express new and dangerous ideas.
Screw YOU, The Age.
Let’s talk about chests.
Boobs, tits, jugs, devils dumplings, fun bags, bazoombas, norks, The Girls, yabbos, dirty pillows, ding dongs, breasts, boulders, mozzie bites, milk bars.
Let’s talk, universe, about the female chestal area. Nature has seen fit to provide women with a means of feeding babies – just as all mammals do – with milk. Thankfully, we skipped the 6 nipple variation and went with two. For whatever reason, breasts are also a sexual thing which I don’t deny, even if I can’t explain why. Women spend hundreds of dollars on bras that lift, support, separate, squish, enlarge or flatten their mammaries. Other women just like them held in place. Some women, curse them, don’t even need a bra. Of course, some of THOSE women wish they did need a bra, so really no one is that happy with what nature gave them.
In many cultures (as any teenage boy with a copy of National Geographic can tell you), women are not required to cover their breasts. I suppose it’s just never occurred to them that boobs are evil and must be stopped, so they get about with a bit of a belty thing and a basket and all is good. In western culture, where we don’t have to worry about things like getting enough to eat, we have ample time to be concerned with the ampleness ladies carry about. Apart from the occasional topless beach, or nude beach, or commune or whatever, women are expected to keep their top half covered at least enough to prevent any public nipple exposure. While some places have no laws to say women can’t go topless like men, other places would explode in a blast of horror if a lass got her goods out in the street.
Which brings me, eventually, to the two things I found very super interesting. One of them is quite old, actually. I would have blogged it at the time but I was taking a nap. Anyway, in 2006 (told you), a magazine called Baby Talk featured a cover photograph of a baby being breastfed. The outcry was immediate and intense. Women complained it was “gross” and “disgusting”. Many women said they had destroyed the cover before their husband or sons could see it. It wasn’t the act of breastfeeding which was upsetting them, it was the fact there was a breast on the cover. You can see the cover here, where you will note there is no nipple and not really even a lot of breast.
According to this article, the concern was that men – being the animalistic dorks they are – would see this picture of a baby feeding and instantly be turned on to the point of passing out. Which is a load of old balls, if you’ll pardon the expression. Not wanting your husband to see it? Has he never seen a boob before? Not wanting your 13 year old to see it? Honey, the internet is full of boobs and I assure you, your son has seen a few by now. The fact is, that while they are very sexual, they are basically milk delivery systems, that’s the point of them even existing, so if the idea of someone seeing a picture of a baby feeding at the breast is so disgusting, then clearly something is not right.
Moving along swiftly to the website Cute Overload, who recently posted a photo of a hamster tucked inside his owners bra while she cleaned his cage out. You’d honestly be amazed at how much rage there is on a blog dedicated to adorable animals in the first place, but this really pushed a ton of people over the edge. More “gross!” and “disgusting!” and “Ewww!” with a few “Get over it!” thrown in for good measure, but the overwhelming feel from the comments on this page is “Breasts are nasty, let us never speak of them again”. The owner of said breasts came in and told everyone off, and the owners of the site repaid stupid comments in kind, so kudos to them.
The “Breasts are disgusting” mindset is dangerous for three reasons (mine gott but this post is getting long. Feel free to grab a cuppa).
1. Teaching women that boobs are disgusting and should be hidden away from the world and never talked or thought about means less of a chance these women will be doing breast self exams. The key point of breast exams is not just finding lumps or bumps, but it’s spotting changes in your breasts. Women who consider breasts to be evil or dirty are far less likely to be watching for these changes, and that is a dangerous thing. Every female from the teens onwards should be checking regularly for changes, and yes young women do get breast cancer. There needs to be open acceptance and discussion of methods, times and what to do if you happen to find a lump or a change, not a blanket “Ew, icky, let’s talk about daffodils”. Women need to be familiar with their breasts, and the changes in shape, size and texture that happen throughout the month.
2. If the concept of breastfeeding is seen as nasty or gross, or something to be ashamed of, less women will attempt breastfeeding. Now I’m not saying that every woman SHOULD breast feed, for some women it’s not possible for a variety of reasons and there’s never a reason to shame or blame these women. However, those who are able to should be encouraged to do so. Nature grants human babies with the ideal food, and telling women they should be ashamed of taking advantage of that is a terrible crime.
3. Women have long been taught that their bodies are wrong and disgusting anyway. Natural things like cellulite, body hair, padded hips etc are held up as signs of disgrace and ugliness. Surely we deserve a break, and if that break is boob shaped then so be it. Regarding the Cute Overload drama, my boy said “It’s amazing how many of the offended people are women”, and it’s true. A lot of the people screaming “Gross!” on both the CO post and the magazine cover are women. Women, far more than men, are being taught to be ashamed of their bodies unless they are able to meet an impossible ideal. To add breast hate to that list is just too too much.
I’m not saying that women should wander the world topless, but I am saying it’s time we dragged our arses out of the dark ages and realised that breasts are just skin and fat. They were not sent by the devil to tempt men, they were not designed to cause the downfall of society. They exist, on a purely biological level, to assist in the raising of babies. And, in my case, to get in the way a lot, but that is a blog post for another time.
Who’s for a cup of tea?
News Flash: Women have hairy legs.
I admit I wouldn’t be able to spot Mo’Nique in a line up, so out of touch am I with anything that’s happening in the world of hollywood, however she seems to have caused a bit of a bruhaha with her choice to not shave her legs.
Commenters on this here internet have branded her “disgusting” “gross” “a pig” “unclean” “lazy”. Wow. Harsh old internet, innit?
So here’s a news flash for everyone, ever: Women do actually grow hair on their legs. And their arms. And their stomachs, chests, chins, upperlips, feet and infact everywhere. Just like men. Some women grow a fine peach fuzz, some women grow a dark forest – amount and type of body hair depends on things like race, colouring and hormonal levels.
There’s a multi-billion dollar industry based on telling women that their body hair is disgusting and needs to be plucked, waxed, shaved, bleached, lasered etc etc. As a result, western society now decides that a woman who dares to have hair anywhere on her body that is not her head is really just lazy and disgusting, and doesn’t choose to attend to personal hygiene.
Let’s back it up a bit. As recently as 100 years ago, it was perfectly normal for a woman to maintain a crop of hair on her legs. Then magazines started showing shorter hemlines and sleeveless tops and it all went to hell. I know, it’s a shock to hear that fashion mags were telling women they were fuzzy freaks. That would never happen now. Cough.
Here’s a confession for you, I don’t always shave my legs. I don’t always shave my armpits. I do tend to maintain a smooth upperlip, but that is purely because I find it more comfortable to do so. I rarely do anything with my eyebrows apart from raise them in disbelief. I have hair on my chin, my chest and my stomach as well as my back. I could, it’s true, spend a good chunk of time shaving or waxing it all off, but frankly I have better things to do with my time.
Is it lazy to not remove body hair? No, I don’t think so. It’s certainly tedious (though to be fair some women love doing it, and that’s their choice). It’s also painful, even shaving can be painful if you happen to sneeze while doing your shins (ask me nicely and I’ll show you the scar).
However, airbrushed perfection as presented to us in magazines and movies dictates that women need to be 100% smooth 100% of the time. And apparently a lot of men are shocked and disgusted by a women who might have something more interesting to do with her time and money than invest a ton of it in hair removal.
For any men reading this who think “God, hair on a woman is so disgusting, I’d leave a woman who didn’t shave” then I want you to do this for at least two months: Make sure there is NO hair on your legs, chest, underarms, pubic area, stomach, back and hands. I mean it. Shave that shit if you hate it so much, if you think it’s disgusting on women then it’s time to see why some women decide not to bother. Keep it shaved. Even if that means doing it every day, do it. You could also go for waxing. But you’ll probably only do it once. However you decide to do it, keep it up for a couple of months, then figure out that time spent over an adult lifetime.
Boring, isn’t it?
Water
The State Government has started running adverts saying “Look, we know the desalination plant is kinda touchy on an environmental level, but we need the water because of population growth and drought and stuff, so if you could stop complaining about it, that’d be great, thanks”. Not in those words, of course.
Victoria (my state) has just had the driest 10 years on record, and it honestly doesn’t look as though we’re going to ever return to the old days when rain happened a lot and we were able to sit under a sprinkler on a hot day without worry or care. We are now mostly all in the habit of saving, reusing and catching water however we can, from a bucket in the shower to a sink liner to rain tanks to even bucketing out the bathwater for reuse on the garden. A friend of mine catches the water from the hot tap before it’s hot enough to use and adds it to her drinking water filter (a nifty idea I intend to steal).
It’s turning into a no win situation. Too many tanks equals less vital run off that feeds the creeks and streams, leading to those already suffering eco systems to die out. There’s a required balance which is being lost, but that’s a blog post for another time.
There’s two things to address here with our lack of water. The first is the mindset which was aired on the radio this morning – “I pay for my water, I’ll use it however I want to”. People still consider a nice green lawn to be a thing of beauty and desire, regardless of how much water it takes to maintain. People still, staggeringly, would prefer to hose their paths than use a broom. All that needs to change. Water needs to be treated as the vital and finate resource it is, with as much resuse as possible. My ideal set up would use shower water to wash clothes, clothes water to flush the toilet and kitchen water for the garden. Not to much hassle really, quite a bit of plumbing though.
The other is population. While the government wants more people, lots of breeding please, the country just cannot keep sustaining a growing population. I’m not saying we should institute a One child policy or anything like that, but people should be encouraged to keep families small. We probably have a while to go yet before Australia simply breaks down, but in the meantime a shift in attitude to smaller families and better use of resources will save us a lot of heartbreak in the future. A level population, or a slow growth, will give us a much better chance of making it into a long future.