The WriteRunner: Writers Digest ’11 Conference Report
My husband, an aspiring author, wrote about his experience this weekend in which he traversed the country to attend a writer's conference. It's pretty darn exciting! :)
Monday, January 24, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Tragedy in Tuscon - gun violence, politics, and mental illness
It's taken me a few days to try and process my feelings about the violence that erupted when 22 year old Jared Loughner opened fire in a grocery store parking lot on January 8, 2011, wounding 14, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who remains in critical condition, and killing six.
This is such a complex issue. Whether politics was to blame, both the right and left are using this as a springboard to either deny any responsibility for the hateful rhetoric being cast around or to point fingers and lay blame. People for and against tightening of gun laws are using this tragedy to "support" their arguments. And many people are asking "why was this obviously mentally unstable young man not somehow treated and prevented from doing what he did?".
I'll try to tackle these three issues as best I can, but it's just not as cut-and-dried as we'd like, to be honest.
Politics, Rhetoric, and the Social Climate We Live In Today
While it's true that just because someone like Sarah Palin has targets over the politicians with whom she disagrees on her website, it's also true that she didn't actually commit this heinous crime personally. Glenn Beck spouting his beliefs doesn't equate to someone acting violently. However, when a person in a position of power (a politician, a television or radio personality, a popular musician, and so on), they MUST remember that words have an impact. Words have POWER. The Becks and Palins of the world have got to understand that they have a responsibility to not just their fans or supporters, but to the society as a whole.*
What good can possibly come from anger, from fear-mongering, from putting all of this negativity out there about our fellow Americans, our fellow human beings? Why not use those public voices to truly try to build bridges rather than tear them down, to work together for the good of the entire country and its citizens? Maybe they all just need to read and adhere to the concepts of this article, and learn how to fight in a way that actually accomplishes something, solves something.
When Rush Limbaugh uses this tragedy to say things like Democrats seek to profit from the shooting and that Jared Lee Loughner has the "full support" of Democrats, I have to wonder if anyone truly even WANTS to make things better, or if they just thrive on the drama and the chaos, the American public be damned.
Furthermore, while they are not directly responsible for the actions of one individual, they should at the very least have the decency to apologize for the possibility that their words or deeds might have influenced anyone to commit a violent act. Instead, some of them seem to fall back onto more finger-pointing, more rhetoric, more incendiary speeches and actions.
* I realize that both sides do this. It just happens that with the current political situation it's the right's turn to create this chaos.
The Right to Bear Arms
Gun ownership is another hot-button issue, with strong feelings of what's right and fair. In the aftermath of these sorts of violent events, the whole gun control conversation heats up. Some call for restrictions on certain types of guns or ammunition. Some call for tighter control over who can legally purchase a weapon. You may hear comments like "we should all have guns so we can take out guys like these", calling for what is essentially vigilante justice. You also might hear "only cops, soldiers, and other such people should have guns". There are plenty of variations on the theme from one extreme to the other.
Apparently, reacting in fear among gun buyers that changes in the current laws may be coming, gun sales in Arizona and other states have increased dramatically. Meanwhile, people like the folks at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence are actively working on making it more difficult to obtain and carry firearms in an effort to reduce gun violence.
While our Constitutional rights must be protected and upheld, it's hard to argue against tightened security measures for gun sales when you look at 9 year old victim Christina-Taylor Green, who was interested in becoming a politician herself one day.
Mental Illness, Personal Rights, and the Law
As we learn more about Jared Loughner, it becomes apparent to many of us that he was an increasingly mentally unstable young man. The community college from which he was suspended has released records that highlight the troubles he had while attending. According to friends from his youth and neighbors, his home life was one that became isolated over time. Even strangers on a message board urged Loughner to seek help.
It's important to note that not all violent people have mental illnesses, and not all people with a mental illness are violent. It's easy to say "he's clearly crazy, so why wasn't he locked up?", but it's much more of a complex situation with a much more complicated solution. Should we really consider locking people up because they might one day "snap"? Isn't that a slippery slope to start down?
Everyone, including the mentally ill, have rights. The law is such that an adult cannot be involuntarily committed unless it's determined the person is an immediate danger to himself or others. Once upon a time, the mentally ill were stashed away in institutions. Nowadays, there are laws to protect civil rights - laws that can be frustrating when trying to have an adult involuntarily committed.
This sort of violent act leads to the question of whether, and how, should mental health care practices change. During a time when so many people are without jobs, when many insurance companies refuse to cover mental health treatment, and budget cuts from the local to national level limit the resources available to this segment of the country, it's hard to see how we can keep people from falling through the cracks. We must address the fact that we don't currently have adequate resources.
As a side note, I feel it important to mention that the National Alliance on Mental Illness not only functions to advocate for the mentally ill and their families. NAMI also provides information and support to individuals and families dealing with mental illness. If you or a loved one is struggling, please contact them.
Now What?
We, as a nation and as individuals, have some thinking to do.
What do we want to do in terms of our future as a country? Do we really want to keep on going down the path we're on - one of suspicion and vitriol, one in which nothing seems to get accomplished aside from a lot of fighting and not a lot of moving towards something better? Do we want to support the people who seem to want nothing more than to stir things up?
In terms of gun ownership, do we want more or less restrictions for those who want to purchase a weapon? Do we want to allow just anyone to have certain types of ammunition, or to restrict it to police and the like, or to ban it altogether? Do we want to require not only background criminal checks, but also checks for any history of personal or mental health issues? Do we want to insist that gun safety classes be a requirement for owning a weapon?
As for mental illness, do we insist on more funding, more resources and more afford-ability for everyone who needs treatment? Do we accept that some of this funding might necessitate a hike in our taxes? Do we lobby to have the rights of the mentally ill destroyed so that we can more easily have them forcibly institutionalized?
Ultimately, this is OUR country. Yours and mine. Ultimately, it's OUR voice, OUR support, and OUR money that decides the future of this nation. The big question is, will we strive for a better tomorrow by addressing the issues of today?
Our current President Barack Obama has encouraged civility in the wake of this tragedy. Will we be civil as a nation, or will we continue to up the rhetoric ante on both sides until we self-destruct?
This is such a complex issue. Whether politics was to blame, both the right and left are using this as a springboard to either deny any responsibility for the hateful rhetoric being cast around or to point fingers and lay blame. People for and against tightening of gun laws are using this tragedy to "support" their arguments. And many people are asking "why was this obviously mentally unstable young man not somehow treated and prevented from doing what he did?".
I'll try to tackle these three issues as best I can, but it's just not as cut-and-dried as we'd like, to be honest.
Politics, Rhetoric, and the Social Climate We Live In Today
While it's true that just because someone like Sarah Palin has targets over the politicians with whom she disagrees on her website, it's also true that she didn't actually commit this heinous crime personally. Glenn Beck spouting his beliefs doesn't equate to someone acting violently. However, when a person in a position of power (a politician, a television or radio personality, a popular musician, and so on), they MUST remember that words have an impact. Words have POWER. The Becks and Palins of the world have got to understand that they have a responsibility to not just their fans or supporters, but to the society as a whole.*
What good can possibly come from anger, from fear-mongering, from putting all of this negativity out there about our fellow Americans, our fellow human beings? Why not use those public voices to truly try to build bridges rather than tear them down, to work together for the good of the entire country and its citizens? Maybe they all just need to read and adhere to the concepts of this article, and learn how to fight in a way that actually accomplishes something, solves something.
When Rush Limbaugh uses this tragedy to say things like Democrats seek to profit from the shooting and that Jared Lee Loughner has the "full support" of Democrats, I have to wonder if anyone truly even WANTS to make things better, or if they just thrive on the drama and the chaos, the American public be damned.
Furthermore, while they are not directly responsible for the actions of one individual, they should at the very least have the decency to apologize for the possibility that their words or deeds might have influenced anyone to commit a violent act. Instead, some of them seem to fall back onto more finger-pointing, more rhetoric, more incendiary speeches and actions.
* I realize that both sides do this. It just happens that with the current political situation it's the right's turn to create this chaos.
The Right to Bear Arms
Gun ownership is another hot-button issue, with strong feelings of what's right and fair. In the aftermath of these sorts of violent events, the whole gun control conversation heats up. Some call for restrictions on certain types of guns or ammunition. Some call for tighter control over who can legally purchase a weapon. You may hear comments like "we should all have guns so we can take out guys like these", calling for what is essentially vigilante justice. You also might hear "only cops, soldiers, and other such people should have guns". There are plenty of variations on the theme from one extreme to the other.
Apparently, reacting in fear among gun buyers that changes in the current laws may be coming, gun sales in Arizona and other states have increased dramatically. Meanwhile, people like the folks at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence are actively working on making it more difficult to obtain and carry firearms in an effort to reduce gun violence.
While our Constitutional rights must be protected and upheld, it's hard to argue against tightened security measures for gun sales when you look at 9 year old victim Christina-Taylor Green, who was interested in becoming a politician herself one day.
Mental Illness, Personal Rights, and the Law
As we learn more about Jared Loughner, it becomes apparent to many of us that he was an increasingly mentally unstable young man. The community college from which he was suspended has released records that highlight the troubles he had while attending. According to friends from his youth and neighbors, his home life was one that became isolated over time. Even strangers on a message board urged Loughner to seek help.
It's important to note that not all violent people have mental illnesses, and not all people with a mental illness are violent. It's easy to say "he's clearly crazy, so why wasn't he locked up?", but it's much more of a complex situation with a much more complicated solution. Should we really consider locking people up because they might one day "snap"? Isn't that a slippery slope to start down?
Everyone, including the mentally ill, have rights. The law is such that an adult cannot be involuntarily committed unless it's determined the person is an immediate danger to himself or others. Once upon a time, the mentally ill were stashed away in institutions. Nowadays, there are laws to protect civil rights - laws that can be frustrating when trying to have an adult involuntarily committed.
This sort of violent act leads to the question of whether, and how, should mental health care practices change. During a time when so many people are without jobs, when many insurance companies refuse to cover mental health treatment, and budget cuts from the local to national level limit the resources available to this segment of the country, it's hard to see how we can keep people from falling through the cracks. We must address the fact that we don't currently have adequate resources.
As a side note, I feel it important to mention that the National Alliance on Mental Illness not only functions to advocate for the mentally ill and their families. NAMI also provides information and support to individuals and families dealing with mental illness. If you or a loved one is struggling, please contact them.
Now What?
We, as a nation and as individuals, have some thinking to do.
What do we want to do in terms of our future as a country? Do we really want to keep on going down the path we're on - one of suspicion and vitriol, one in which nothing seems to get accomplished aside from a lot of fighting and not a lot of moving towards something better? Do we want to support the people who seem to want nothing more than to stir things up?
In terms of gun ownership, do we want more or less restrictions for those who want to purchase a weapon? Do we want to allow just anyone to have certain types of ammunition, or to restrict it to police and the like, or to ban it altogether? Do we want to require not only background criminal checks, but also checks for any history of personal or mental health issues? Do we want to insist that gun safety classes be a requirement for owning a weapon?
As for mental illness, do we insist on more funding, more resources and more afford-ability for everyone who needs treatment? Do we accept that some of this funding might necessitate a hike in our taxes? Do we lobby to have the rights of the mentally ill destroyed so that we can more easily have them forcibly institutionalized?
Ultimately, this is OUR country. Yours and mine. Ultimately, it's OUR voice, OUR support, and OUR money that decides the future of this nation. The big question is, will we strive for a better tomorrow by addressing the issues of today?
Our current President Barack Obama has encouraged civility in the wake of this tragedy. Will we be civil as a nation, or will we continue to up the rhetoric ante on both sides until we self-destruct?
Friday, January 7, 2011
Something pretty personal - miscarriage
I'm lucky to have two relatively healthy, happy kids.
My daughter, Emily, has grown into an incredibly artistic and intelligent young lady at 16 years old. My son, Noah, is 11 and already showing glances of the kind, smart young man he will be some day.
Two children - one girl and one boy. A husband. A dog. It's the perfect family.
However, there should have been three children.
I was very sick during both of my pregnancies, and my doctors used ultrasounds at about 13 weeks to see if it was just one little peanut in there making mommy so ill. Emily was the only troublemaker in the womb. Noah, though, had a twin. At this early stage, the amniotic sac was visible for both, but his potential twin was already being absorbed into my body.
Logically, I knew that this was nature's way of saying "this fetus isn't viable". Logically, I knew that having twins would've been a difficult path. But emotionally, it was hard to handle. When we got home from the ultrasound that night, my husband and I lit a candle. He said a prayer for the little spirit that wouldn't be growing inside me. We cried.
And we moved on. We had to - there was still one baby on the way, still a little girl to care for, still life going on all around us.
I think it would've been so much harder had it been a single pregnancy and I'd miscarried. I know so many women who've endured miscarriage, and I know it's something they never fully get over.
I guess what's bringing this up is revisiting some of my ancestry information, and looking over the family history of my husband. There are entries for infants who were born and died on the same day, of children who died so very young. So I have been thinking of the little twin that never was, wondering if it would've been a girl or a boy, what she or he would've been like, how all our lives would've been different. Wondering about this third child is the only thing that ever makes me think, for the briefest of moments, about trying for one more.
Then I consider the fact that our family is pretty complete just the way we are, and I remember how horrible my body responds to pregnancy, and the horrors of postpartum depression and anxiety.
Time mutes the hurt, but I don't think time will ever erase it.
My daughter, Emily, has grown into an incredibly artistic and intelligent young lady at 16 years old. My son, Noah, is 11 and already showing glances of the kind, smart young man he will be some day.
Two children - one girl and one boy. A husband. A dog. It's the perfect family.
However, there should have been three children.
I was very sick during both of my pregnancies, and my doctors used ultrasounds at about 13 weeks to see if it was just one little peanut in there making mommy so ill. Emily was the only troublemaker in the womb. Noah, though, had a twin. At this early stage, the amniotic sac was visible for both, but his potential twin was already being absorbed into my body.
Logically, I knew that this was nature's way of saying "this fetus isn't viable". Logically, I knew that having twins would've been a difficult path. But emotionally, it was hard to handle. When we got home from the ultrasound that night, my husband and I lit a candle. He said a prayer for the little spirit that wouldn't be growing inside me. We cried.
And we moved on. We had to - there was still one baby on the way, still a little girl to care for, still life going on all around us.
I think it would've been so much harder had it been a single pregnancy and I'd miscarried. I know so many women who've endured miscarriage, and I know it's something they never fully get over.
I guess what's bringing this up is revisiting some of my ancestry information, and looking over the family history of my husband. There are entries for infants who were born and died on the same day, of children who died so very young. So I have been thinking of the little twin that never was, wondering if it would've been a girl or a boy, what she or he would've been like, how all our lives would've been different. Wondering about this third child is the only thing that ever makes me think, for the briefest of moments, about trying for one more.
Then I consider the fact that our family is pretty complete just the way we are, and I remember how horrible my body responds to pregnancy, and the horrors of postpartum depression and anxiety.
Time mutes the hurt, but I don't think time will ever erase it.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
TSA and their "enhanced pat-downs"
FOURTH AMENDMENT
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
There's been a great deal of controversy in the news regarding the new security measures the Transportation Security Agency has put in place at airports across the nation. The TSA has a blog post about one part of the new procedures, entitled "Enhanced pat-downs".
Here's one commenter's question and comment:
You see, while there is a blog that one would think might explain the procedure, it essentially just says "yeah, so this is the thing we're doing. Don't worry. We're cool." Others may disagree.
The following is a response I wrote for the TSA blog "Enhanced pat-downs". I thought I'd post it here just in case it didn't get approved by the moderators. Oh, and I'm not making up the name Rapiscan - that's the ACTUAL name. Wonder if it's pronounced "rape-i-scan".
So what do YOU think of the new scanning machines? Of the enhanced pat-downs? Have you seen any of the footage of the toddler getting a pat-down? How do you feel about the prospect of you or someone you love getting essentially sexually assaulted?
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
There's been a great deal of controversy in the news regarding the new security measures the Transportation Security Agency has put in place at airports across the nation. The TSA has a blog post about one part of the new procedures, entitled "Enhanced pat-downs".
Here's one commenter's question and comment:
Very simple question: Does TSA pat-down training involve placing of the hands in any position where contact with the breasts, vagina, penis or scrotum will occur?
Regardless of intent, if the screener does not ASK and OBTAIN verbal or written permission prior to making contact with the genitals, a sexual assault has taken place. That is the law in all 50 states.
You see, while there is a blog that one would think might explain the procedure, it essentially just says "yeah, so this is the thing we're doing. Don't worry. We're cool." Others may disagree.
The following is a response I wrote for the TSA blog "Enhanced pat-downs". I thought I'd post it here just in case it didn't get approved by the moderators. Oh, and I'm not making up the name Rapiscan - that's the ACTUAL name. Wonder if it's pronounced "rape-i-scan".
TSA needs to give a VERY SPECIFIC, step-by-step description of the new "enhanced pat-down" procedure on the official TSA website. I want to read the truth of what one can expect if one "opts out" of the Rapiscan in explicit detail. It might read something like this.:
First, we will have you stand with your legs spread. Then, we will touch the inner and outer areas of your ankles, calves, thighs, buttocks and genitals. We will continue by touching your torso, including your breasts. If you have big breasts, we will lift them up so we can feel under them. We may squeeze your breasts "for the sake of security" as well. We will intimately touch your face and hair. We don't know why in the hell we have to caress your face, but the boss is making us do it, so there you go. If you are a child, you are not exempt from our touching you intimately.
We will essentially touch you in ways that, were we someone else, anywhere else, we would be arrested for assault. However, we are above the law here at the airport security line, and cannot be charged with sexual assault.
Furthermore, if you refuse to let us fondle your "private" areas, you will not only be unable to proceed to your flight, you are also required to not leave until we allow you to do so. And even when you leave with some of us escorting you, we can fine you.
Really, we just want everyone to be safe. We don't care if you are traumatized. We don't care that you are losing your freedoms as an American citizen. George W. Bush put this in place so 9/11 could never happen again, and even though technically we really haven't stopped any terrorists with these procedures we will keep tightening security until the airlines go out of business because no one wants the hassle and the indignity of going through security. And in that way, we will ensure our safety. No operating planes means nobody can hijack planes. So see? We WILL win the war against terror! Huzzah!
So what do YOU think of the new scanning machines? Of the enhanced pat-downs? Have you seen any of the footage of the toddler getting a pat-down? How do you feel about the prospect of you or someone you love getting essentially sexually assaulted?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Fat - the last "acceptable" prejudice?
The interwebs are all abuzz about a recent blog on the Marie Claire magazine website. Go read it before continuing - it will help you understand just WHY there has been such an uproar.
There have been many VERY good counter blogs, including ones at Fatshionista, The Polymath Chronicals, and Blogger Body Calendar.
There have also been bloggers who've written, essentially, "it's not okay to make fat people feel bad, BUT being fat is a bad thing". I don't think the latter group of bloggers truly GET IT. In these sorts of blogs I've read lines like "obesity is a death sentence". (Hint: LIVING is a death sentence, as death is the natural conclusion to life.) People have blamed fat on everything from asthma to strokes. According to the Mayo Clinic website, obesity is a risk factor for stroke. However, so are things like a family history of strokes, being in your mid-50s or older, smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, heart defects or infections, and using birth control pills or hormone therapies that include estrogen. The Mayo Clinic site lists factors beyond obesity for asthma such as being a smoker, being exposed to secondhand smoke, having a mother who smoked while pregnant, and having a blood relative with the disease. So yes, obesity is on the list for these and other conditions. But it is by no means necessarily THE CAUSE.
Fat has become the last "acceptable" prejudice. I've no doubt in my mind if one substituted a race or religion or sexual orientation in the place of the word "fat", Marie Claire would NOT have okay'ed that blog to be published online.
I have pretty intimate knowledge of how it feels to be FAT. I have also been, at my anorexic thinnest, practically skeletal. So I know, without any doubts, that thin and fat people ARE treated differently in a myriad of ways.
I know what it's like to diet healthfully (portion control, making healthy food choices). I know what it's like to do fad diets. I know what it's like to use diet pills. At one point in my life I lived, or should I say "existed", on a handful of crackers a day! I know what it's like to exercise for 2 to 4 hours daily. To the people who say fat people have no self control, I offer up all the people who've subsisted on the grapefruit diet, the vinegar diet, and so on. Of all the people on the planet, those who've dieted - seriously dieted - have more self-control and willpower than anyone else I can think of, frankly.
My sister-in-law wrote a blog about all of this hubbub, too. She asks "Obesity: are we too accepting?" The content is well-written and comes from her heart, but I've got to admit, as much as I'm okay with myself "as-is" these days, the title set my teeth on edge as memories of the "acceptance" I've experienced in my life washed over me.
I remember walking down main street as a teenager and a pickup truck with a few boys drove by. They stuck their heads out the window to oink and moo at me.
I remember many of the times I was told - by family, by people I knew, and by strangers - that I had such a pretty face, and I'd be pretty if only I lost weight.
I remember asking people to accept that disparaging talk about size was not a topic that was okay with me, only to have them recount a story about a disgusting fat person daring to eat in public, in a restaurant, where people would have to witness this fat person eating. Eeew.
I've felt the sting of having to look for clothing in a department store whose plus size section was a couple of racks hidden in a corner, lest the thin people see us fatties shopping.
I still remember being in a maternity store who proudly claimed having "plus sizes" available, learning that their definition of plus size meant a very small selection of barely 1x items. (I was so frustrated I loudly proclaimed as I left the store "apparently fat people don't have sex and make babies!".)
I know what it's like to walk into places like Victoria's Secret and have the clerks look at you as if you were crazy to enter their domain. Of course, Vicki's "Secret" is that she doesn't make clothes for fatties.
I know what it's like for a child to point and say "Mommy, why is she so fat", and hear the mother respond with something like "because she eats too much".
On the other side of the coin, I remember the beginnings of my anorexia, when I honestly just skipped lunch so I could pocket the lunch money. I lost a few pounds for skipping meals, and I got praised for my "hard work to lose that fat". Upon finally getting praise instead of criticism, I started skipping breakfast. Then I started skipping dinner. I got down to a size 11/12, which would STILL be considered borderline overweight for my height of 5'11". I remember how it felt to go into a store and not have to ask where they'd hidden the bigger sizes. Where I'd been either invisible or the target of cruelty when I was fat, my newer, thinner, starved and sick self was suddenly a person of worth.
So, no, I DON'T think we're too accepting of obesity. Some airlines want to charge me for a second seat, even though I can still fit my fat ass into their tiny seats. I can still be discriminated against when looking for work based on my size. I can still go into a doctor's office with a medical complaint such as a sore elbow, and come away with (yet another) admonition to lose weight. Kids still deal with bullying, teasing and shunning if they are fat. Many of them consider suicide, because (news flash) diets don't work. (I certainly considered suicide as a fat kid, because the teasing felt so relentless and the prospect of losing weight seemed so hopeless.)
People need to understand something very important. Fat does NOT necessarily equal unhealthy or inactive. Fat definitely does NOT equal unworthy or unacceptable. I know what it's like to CRAVE seeing people on television and in movies and in magazines that represent the real America I live in. I crave an honest media where people come in all shapes and sizes and races and religions and so on and so on. I long for a day when a size 2 actress doesn't get called fat because she's become a size 4, for heaven's sake! (And while we're on the subject, what the hell is up with size 0? Are we telling those women that strive for a size 0 that they are striving to be invisible?)
Are we promoting or okay-ing obesity if we show on television and in magazines the actual variety of humanity? Is it better to have ribcage and hip-bone showing models on the covers of magazines that our girls will see and try to attain in spite of their genetics or their health? Does having a fat person on a magazine cover or a television show mean that chubby little kids everywhere will start to scarf down whole pizzas? Maybe, just maybe, showing a variety of shapes and sizes on television and in movies and in magazines won't "encourage" obesity or anorexia or any sort of disordered thinking at all. MAYBE if we had a slice of real, attainable, average people in the media, more young people would grow up realizing that we come in all shapes and sizes and colors and THAT IS NORMAL AND OKAY.
There are people who are very thin and can't gain weight despite their best efforts. There are fat people who can't lose weight. And, GASP, there are fat and thin and in-between people who like themselves JUST THE WAY THEY ARE, too.
The author of the blog that started it all has stated that she's a recovered anorexic, and that certainly does help understand why she personally has such an aversion to fat people. (It doesn't excuse her cruel words, of course, but does offer some insight.) My hope is that she will get into therapy, as she very obviously has a lot of disordered thinking in terms of bodies and health.
Sadly, however, that doesn't explain the overt exclusion and bigotry towards fat people in the "real world".
Clearly, the blog resonated with a lot of people. The last time I checked, her blog had around 1,950 comments, and I'm sure the number will grow. So perhaps good has come from this whole debacle. Perhaps people will evaluate their own thoughts, acknowledge their own prejudices, educate themselves, and act kindly towards others regardless of size.
Are you prejudiced against people of size? If so, what will you do to improve yourself and address your personal bigotries?
There have been many VERY good counter blogs, including ones at Fatshionista, The Polymath Chronicals, and Blogger Body Calendar.
There have also been bloggers who've written, essentially, "it's not okay to make fat people feel bad, BUT being fat is a bad thing". I don't think the latter group of bloggers truly GET IT. In these sorts of blogs I've read lines like "obesity is a death sentence". (Hint: LIVING is a death sentence, as death is the natural conclusion to life.) People have blamed fat on everything from asthma to strokes. According to the Mayo Clinic website, obesity is a risk factor for stroke. However, so are things like a family history of strokes, being in your mid-50s or older, smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, heart defects or infections, and using birth control pills or hormone therapies that include estrogen. The Mayo Clinic site lists factors beyond obesity for asthma such as being a smoker, being exposed to secondhand smoke, having a mother who smoked while pregnant, and having a blood relative with the disease. So yes, obesity is on the list for these and other conditions. But it is by no means necessarily THE CAUSE.
Fat has become the last "acceptable" prejudice. I've no doubt in my mind if one substituted a race or religion or sexual orientation in the place of the word "fat", Marie Claire would NOT have okay'ed that blog to be published online.
I have pretty intimate knowledge of how it feels to be FAT. I have also been, at my anorexic thinnest, practically skeletal. So I know, without any doubts, that thin and fat people ARE treated differently in a myriad of ways.
I know what it's like to diet healthfully (portion control, making healthy food choices). I know what it's like to do fad diets. I know what it's like to use diet pills. At one point in my life I lived, or should I say "existed", on a handful of crackers a day! I know what it's like to exercise for 2 to 4 hours daily. To the people who say fat people have no self control, I offer up all the people who've subsisted on the grapefruit diet, the vinegar diet, and so on. Of all the people on the planet, those who've dieted - seriously dieted - have more self-control and willpower than anyone else I can think of, frankly.
My sister-in-law wrote a blog about all of this hubbub, too. She asks "Obesity: are we too accepting?" The content is well-written and comes from her heart, but I've got to admit, as much as I'm okay with myself "as-is" these days, the title set my teeth on edge as memories of the "acceptance" I've experienced in my life washed over me.
I remember walking down main street as a teenager and a pickup truck with a few boys drove by. They stuck their heads out the window to oink and moo at me.
I remember many of the times I was told - by family, by people I knew, and by strangers - that I had such a pretty face, and I'd be pretty if only I lost weight.
I remember asking people to accept that disparaging talk about size was not a topic that was okay with me, only to have them recount a story about a disgusting fat person daring to eat in public, in a restaurant, where people would have to witness this fat person eating. Eeew.
I've felt the sting of having to look for clothing in a department store whose plus size section was a couple of racks hidden in a corner, lest the thin people see us fatties shopping.
I still remember being in a maternity store who proudly claimed having "plus sizes" available, learning that their definition of plus size meant a very small selection of barely 1x items. (I was so frustrated I loudly proclaimed as I left the store "apparently fat people don't have sex and make babies!".)
I know what it's like to walk into places like Victoria's Secret and have the clerks look at you as if you were crazy to enter their domain. Of course, Vicki's "Secret" is that she doesn't make clothes for fatties.
I know what it's like for a child to point and say "Mommy, why is she so fat", and hear the mother respond with something like "because she eats too much".
On the other side of the coin, I remember the beginnings of my anorexia, when I honestly just skipped lunch so I could pocket the lunch money. I lost a few pounds for skipping meals, and I got praised for my "hard work to lose that fat". Upon finally getting praise instead of criticism, I started skipping breakfast. Then I started skipping dinner. I got down to a size 11/12, which would STILL be considered borderline overweight for my height of 5'11". I remember how it felt to go into a store and not have to ask where they'd hidden the bigger sizes. Where I'd been either invisible or the target of cruelty when I was fat, my newer, thinner, starved and sick self was suddenly a person of worth.
So, no, I DON'T think we're too accepting of obesity. Some airlines want to charge me for a second seat, even though I can still fit my fat ass into their tiny seats. I can still be discriminated against when looking for work based on my size. I can still go into a doctor's office with a medical complaint such as a sore elbow, and come away with (yet another) admonition to lose weight. Kids still deal with bullying, teasing and shunning if they are fat. Many of them consider suicide, because (news flash) diets don't work. (I certainly considered suicide as a fat kid, because the teasing felt so relentless and the prospect of losing weight seemed so hopeless.)
People need to understand something very important. Fat does NOT necessarily equal unhealthy or inactive. Fat definitely does NOT equal unworthy or unacceptable. I know what it's like to CRAVE seeing people on television and in movies and in magazines that represent the real America I live in. I crave an honest media where people come in all shapes and sizes and races and religions and so on and so on. I long for a day when a size 2 actress doesn't get called fat because she's become a size 4, for heaven's sake! (And while we're on the subject, what the hell is up with size 0? Are we telling those women that strive for a size 0 that they are striving to be invisible?)
Are we promoting or okay-ing obesity if we show on television and in magazines the actual variety of humanity? Is it better to have ribcage and hip-bone showing models on the covers of magazines that our girls will see and try to attain in spite of their genetics or their health? Does having a fat person on a magazine cover or a television show mean that chubby little kids everywhere will start to scarf down whole pizzas? Maybe, just maybe, showing a variety of shapes and sizes on television and in movies and in magazines won't "encourage" obesity or anorexia or any sort of disordered thinking at all. MAYBE if we had a slice of real, attainable, average people in the media, more young people would grow up realizing that we come in all shapes and sizes and colors and THAT IS NORMAL AND OKAY.
There are people who are very thin and can't gain weight despite their best efforts. There are fat people who can't lose weight. And, GASP, there are fat and thin and in-between people who like themselves JUST THE WAY THEY ARE, too.
The author of the blog that started it all has stated that she's a recovered anorexic, and that certainly does help understand why she personally has such an aversion to fat people. (It doesn't excuse her cruel words, of course, but does offer some insight.) My hope is that she will get into therapy, as she very obviously has a lot of disordered thinking in terms of bodies and health.
Sadly, however, that doesn't explain the overt exclusion and bigotry towards fat people in the "real world".
Clearly, the blog resonated with a lot of people. The last time I checked, her blog had around 1,950 comments, and I'm sure the number will grow. So perhaps good has come from this whole debacle. Perhaps people will evaluate their own thoughts, acknowledge their own prejudices, educate themselves, and act kindly towards others regardless of size.
Are you prejudiced against people of size? If so, what will you do to improve yourself and address your personal bigotries?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)