![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
...here is something that is truly piss-your-pants funny.
The trul gold is the user reviews. I laughed until my chest hurt.
The trul gold is the user reviews. I laughed until my chest hurt.
(go here for an explanation of the title)
So, we are finally gonna start with this conversation, mainly because it seems to be the hugest issue that your average non-Muslim westerner will bring up regarding women in Islam. This took forever to actually put together, so pay attention.
Welcome to the first section of Part One in my Veiled Contempt series.
The veil.
This particular subject in itself is huge, and how it is addressed is rarely unproblematic for the people actually faced with the prospect of wearing something that has so many shades and degrees of meaning from place to place.
Very often, at least in a good deal of the popular culture that I have seen, the concept of veiling is either painted as absolutely oppressive, all the time, no matter what, or as an object of ridicule.
This part of this series will serve as a sort of primer on basic veiling names and facts, as well as dispelling some myths about the practice itself. I will add a disclaimer, this information should not necessarily be considered comprehensive. It is based on a few years of research on my part but there is a huge wealth of information on this topic. This piece barely scratches the surface.
First thing that must be understood: not every Muslim women veils. Not every predominantly Muslim country requires it either. Most don't require anything in the way of head covering for women, in some Muslim countries the practice is discouraged or outright banned in certain areas and even in the countries where it is required, veiling as it is recognized by non-Muslim westerners, and even some Muslim westerners, is a largely urban and recent phenomenon that has a huge variance from country to country, ethnic group to ethnic group.
Next thing that must be understood: there are many different variations of veil, all of which have their own name, and their own history, locality and meaning.
The headscarf, or hijab, is the most ubiquitous symbol of female Muslim identity to outsiders. There is no doubt in your mind when you see a woman wearing any one of the possible variations of the veil as to how this woman identifies herself. However, there are a multitude of questions as to why a woman would identify herself so openly in this way. In response to that, there is a multitude of reasons for wearing it, dependent on factors such as location, culture and interpretation of religious texts. Depending on where the woman is currently located, and where she is originally from, the veil can have many meanings, many purposes and many “why’s” attached to it. In today’s world, the veil has significant social, religious and political implications.
( cut for length )
So, we are finally gonna start with this conversation, mainly because it seems to be the hugest issue that your average non-Muslim westerner will bring up regarding women in Islam. This took forever to actually put together, so pay attention.
Welcome to the first section of Part One in my Veiled Contempt series.
The veil.
This particular subject in itself is huge, and how it is addressed is rarely unproblematic for the people actually faced with the prospect of wearing something that has so many shades and degrees of meaning from place to place.
Very often, at least in a good deal of the popular culture that I have seen, the concept of veiling is either painted as absolutely oppressive, all the time, no matter what, or as an object of ridicule.
This part of this series will serve as a sort of primer on basic veiling names and facts, as well as dispelling some myths about the practice itself. I will add a disclaimer, this information should not necessarily be considered comprehensive. It is based on a few years of research on my part but there is a huge wealth of information on this topic. This piece barely scratches the surface.
First thing that must be understood: not every Muslim women veils. Not every predominantly Muslim country requires it either. Most don't require anything in the way of head covering for women, in some Muslim countries the practice is discouraged or outright banned in certain areas and even in the countries where it is required, veiling as it is recognized by non-Muslim westerners, and even some Muslim westerners, is a largely urban and recent phenomenon that has a huge variance from country to country, ethnic group to ethnic group.
Next thing that must be understood: there are many different variations of veil, all of which have their own name, and their own history, locality and meaning.
The headscarf, or hijab, is the most ubiquitous symbol of female Muslim identity to outsiders. There is no doubt in your mind when you see a woman wearing any one of the possible variations of the veil as to how this woman identifies herself. However, there are a multitude of questions as to why a woman would identify herself so openly in this way. In response to that, there is a multitude of reasons for wearing it, dependent on factors such as location, culture and interpretation of religious texts. Depending on where the woman is currently located, and where she is originally from, the veil can have many meanings, many purposes and many “why’s” attached to it. In today’s world, the veil has significant social, religious and political implications.
( cut for length )
Dear US, US based mainstream media, and various other information outlets,
Please stop it with the judgments of Nadya Suleman. I am so sick of hearing about this that I could puke. Asking if she should be "allowed" to give birth to octuplets when she already has six children is an irresponsible question. Her body, her life and her choice. So they may end up on some sort of public assistance. Who the fuck cares? no really, who cares? Some of y'all think you shouldn't have to pay for her choices because you think they are irresponsible. I get it. I also think thats a pretty fucking cold Regan-esque thing to say. These are children, they are here and they are alive, and they deserve a chance at a decent life, regardless of how desperately you want to judge their mother. Unless you really think your self-righteous posturing about how this woman is a leech, insane or worse is more important than feeding children who haven't done anything but be born. And seriously, Yahoo news...the whole family may end up costing a whole 1.3 million dollars as a scare tactic? That means one dollar from a million taxpayers. How many taxpayers do we have in this country, hmm? Purposefully inflating that number to feed into the welfare wank? THATS fucking irresponsible.
Honestly, judging women for their reproductive choices is so fucking old-meme I don't even know where to begin. Besides, if she were a white woman with a husband everyone would be cooing over the pwecious widdle babies and TLC would be falling all over itself to give her a TV show and years worth of free shit.
Just cut it the fuck out already.
love and kisses,
me
Please stop it with the judgments of Nadya Suleman. I am so sick of hearing about this that I could puke. Asking if she should be "allowed" to give birth to octuplets when she already has six children is an irresponsible question. Her body, her life and her choice. So they may end up on some sort of public assistance. Who the fuck cares? no really, who cares? Some of y'all think you shouldn't have to pay for her choices because you think they are irresponsible. I get it. I also think thats a pretty fucking cold Regan-esque thing to say. These are children, they are here and they are alive, and they deserve a chance at a decent life, regardless of how desperately you want to judge their mother. Unless you really think your self-righteous posturing about how this woman is a leech, insane or worse is more important than feeding children who haven't done anything but be born. And seriously, Yahoo news...the whole family may end up costing a whole 1.3 million dollars as a scare tactic? That means one dollar from a million taxpayers. How many taxpayers do we have in this country, hmm? Purposefully inflating that number to feed into the welfare wank? THATS fucking irresponsible.
Honestly, judging women for their reproductive choices is so fucking old-meme I don't even know where to begin. Besides, if she were a white woman with a husband everyone would be cooing over the pwecious widdle babies and TLC would be falling all over itself to give her a TV show and years worth of free shit.
Just cut it the fuck out already.
love and kisses,
me
As I am poor, yet somewhat talented, I have begun to make and sell clothing items and accessories.
Introducing:
Leila Majnoona Designs
We offer snoods, headbands, little odds and ends, and I am willing to take custom orders. So come on over and check us out.
Edited to add: The Etsy store isn't really up yet, and the blog itself doesn't have much on it. I ran out of time to post. However, I should have more projects up tomorrow.
Introducing:
Leila Majnoona Designs
We offer snoods, headbands, little odds and ends, and I am willing to take custom orders. So come on over and check us out.
Edited to add: The Etsy store isn't really up yet, and the blog itself doesn't have much on it. I ran out of time to post. However, I should have more projects up tomorrow.
I GOT MY WISH!
Well, one of them anyway, the Global Gag Rule is fucking GONE! At least until the next anti-choice president reinstates it. Seriously, can we get some legislation on this already? We are talking about women's lives here, not some fucking ideological disagreement.
There has been some annoyance on my side of this issue about why President Obama (GOD but writing that feels good!) waited til the day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (when this was initially scheduled) to do this. While I can understand that annoyance, I don't share it. He fucking DID it people, and he did it in a way that doesn't have anti-choice assholes losing their shit.
As painful as I know this is, because we have been waiting for 8 fucking years for this, we can't afford to just upend the power structure that has been built over that time. Why the hell should we subject those who disagree with us to the same treatment we have been subjected to? What purpose does that serve except to foster more resentment that there already is? That and the bat-shit crazies that feel threatened by a liberal president who is also a POC don't need any more encouragement at this point.
Compromise doesn't have to mean what we have been told it means for so long. Progressives are regularly told to back down a little bit so we and vicariously, our message, will be more acceptable. The demand of compromise has regularly been used to silence us and block our efforts. So-called compromises have been made on their terms, and usually include us giving us the very issue that is central to our struggle (Example: civil unions instead of marriage for queers) while trying to placate us with crumbs from the table. That is not true compromise, and it never has been, but this troll's bargain has been dressed in the language of "reasonable compromise" for so long and used to paint progressives a rigid and inflexible, that any compromise is suspect. Any admonition to respect the other side is possibly a way to get us to shut our collective face and know our collective place.
This DOES NOT have to be the case. We can define compromise as well, in a way so that our needs and rights are respected. We don't have to become what we despise, and we don't have to become what the other side wishes we were.
We won this one for now. I am content with that and ready to keep working.
Polish those teaspoons people, we have an ocean to deal with.
(and thanks Sady for getting my wheels spinning on this)
Well, one of them anyway, the Global Gag Rule is fucking GONE! At least until the next anti-choice president reinstates it. Seriously, can we get some legislation on this already? We are talking about women's lives here, not some fucking ideological disagreement.
There has been some annoyance on my side of this issue about why President Obama (GOD but writing that feels good!) waited til the day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (when this was initially scheduled) to do this. While I can understand that annoyance, I don't share it. He fucking DID it people, and he did it in a way that doesn't have anti-choice assholes losing their shit.
As painful as I know this is, because we have been waiting for 8 fucking years for this, we can't afford to just upend the power structure that has been built over that time. Why the hell should we subject those who disagree with us to the same treatment we have been subjected to? What purpose does that serve except to foster more resentment that there already is? That and the bat-shit crazies that feel threatened by a liberal president who is also a POC don't need any more encouragement at this point.
Compromise doesn't have to mean what we have been told it means for so long. Progressives are regularly told to back down a little bit so we and vicariously, our message, will be more acceptable. The demand of compromise has regularly been used to silence us and block our efforts. So-called compromises have been made on their terms, and usually include us giving us the very issue that is central to our struggle (Example: civil unions instead of marriage for queers) while trying to placate us with crumbs from the table. That is not true compromise, and it never has been, but this troll's bargain has been dressed in the language of "reasonable compromise" for so long and used to paint progressives a rigid and inflexible, that any compromise is suspect. Any admonition to respect the other side is possibly a way to get us to shut our collective face and know our collective place.
This DOES NOT have to be the case. We can define compromise as well, in a way so that our needs and rights are respected. We don't have to become what we despise, and we don't have to become what the other side wishes we were.
We won this one for now. I am content with that and ready to keep working.
Polish those teaspoons people, we have an ocean to deal with.
(and thanks Sady for getting my wheels spinning on this)
Its Blog For Choice Day.
The 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade is traditionally marked by anti-choice(I categorically reject the term "pro-life" to describe these people. Anyone who supports laws that kill women and do not save fetuses is not "pro-life.") advocates widely protesting the fact that women are still worth more than an unborn fetus. Today, there are anti-choicers marching in DC showcasing "Women Who Regret Their Abortions." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Not only are these... people... doing just that, they are running this campaign on faulty information.
Say it with me kids: THE NOTION THAT WOMEN ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED MENTALLY BY HAVING AN ABORTION HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DISPROVED.
Saying otherwise over and over again with no solid proof is the same as smashing your head against a brick wall: its pointless, and proves no other point than that you are a moron.
The concept of medical choice covers more than just abortions, more than just reproduction. It means that as human being we have the right to decide what will medically be done to our bodies. It all comes down, as Liss at Shakesville put it, to trust. I trust people to make their own medical decisions. I apply this universally: I trust people to decide when to have children, I trust people to decide if ther bodies are right for them, and I do not trust someone who doesn't know me or mine to make that choice for me.
What I want to see from our new pro-choice President is the end of the Global Gag Rule that pulls American federal funding from any organization that dares to think the word abortion and results in the maternal mortality rate world-wide going up. I want to see the end of the DHHS regulations that allow medical providers to refuse necessary services based on being offended. I want to see the end to the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban. I want safe, affordable access to contraception, and abortion, as well as comprehensive sex-education programs.
Its not enough, but dammit, we deserve to be treated like people, not fucking brood mares.
The 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade is traditionally marked by anti-choice(I categorically reject the term "pro-life" to describe these people. Anyone who supports laws that kill women and do not save fetuses is not "pro-life.") advocates widely protesting the fact that women are still worth more than an unborn fetus. Today, there are anti-choicers marching in DC showcasing "Women Who Regret Their Abortions." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Not only are these... people... doing just that, they are running this campaign on faulty information.
Say it with me kids: THE NOTION THAT WOMEN ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED MENTALLY BY HAVING AN ABORTION HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DISPROVED.
Saying otherwise over and over again with no solid proof is the same as smashing your head against a brick wall: its pointless, and proves no other point than that you are a moron.
The concept of medical choice covers more than just abortions, more than just reproduction. It means that as human being we have the right to decide what will medically be done to our bodies. It all comes down, as Liss at Shakesville put it, to trust. I trust people to make their own medical decisions. I apply this universally: I trust people to decide when to have children, I trust people to decide if ther bodies are right for them, and I do not trust someone who doesn't know me or mine to make that choice for me.
What I want to see from our new pro-choice President is the end of the Global Gag Rule that pulls American federal funding from any organization that dares to think the word abortion and results in the maternal mortality rate world-wide going up. I want to see the end of the DHHS regulations that allow medical providers to refuse necessary services based on being offended. I want to see the end to the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban. I want safe, affordable access to contraception, and abortion, as well as comprehensive sex-education programs.
Its not enough, but dammit, we deserve to be treated like people, not fucking brood mares.
The first five people to respond to this post will get something made by me! My choice. For you.
This offer does have some restrictions and limitations:
- I make no guarantees that you will like what I make!
- What I create will be just for you.
- It'll be done in the next 12 month.
- You have no clue what it's going to be.
- I reserve the right to do something unusual.
The Catch? If anyone asks you where you got it, you send them to me. BE MY ADVERTISING DAMMIT! (catch added by me and for me)
This offer does have some restrictions and limitations:
- I make no guarantees that you will like what I make!
- What I create will be just for you.
- It'll be done in the next 12 month.
- You have no clue what it's going to be.
- I reserve the right to do something unusual.
The Catch? If anyone asks you where you got it, you send them to me. BE MY ADVERTISING DAMMIT! (catch added by me and for me)
Its finally happened...
Its over.
The nightmare is over.
For eight years I have been watching a sad, petty little man and his friends destroy everything this country has that can be good for the world and laugh in the process like some immature freshman frat-boy giggling that he got away with defacing a memorial to those not as privileged as himself.
I have few illusions about Obama. I voted for him, but I do have some concerns about his actual progressivity cred. However, I truly believe that we have a chance now. We now have a president who listens to the people, even those we wish he would not listen to (Rick Warren, anyone?) Even so, this inauguration heralds the end of Christo-fascist (hey, if they can make up insulting terms, so can I)control of a country that has the potential to be so much more than it is. I trust this man, and I will expect as much of him as he has promised.
It is not lost on me that we are facing one of the most historic moments I can ever hope to see, the end of the white male dominance of the highest office in the land. We have someone with a perspective shaped by a society that constructs him, his family, and those who share his ethnicity as worth less as our commander in chief. I don't pretend that this is the end of racism and oppression, but my god it is a step I never thought I would see.
Don't let us down sir.
The only thing I can say has been said better by Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay episcopal clergyman:
(h/t to Monica @ Transgriot)
Its over.
The nightmare is over.
For eight years I have been watching a sad, petty little man and his friends destroy everything this country has that can be good for the world and laugh in the process like some immature freshman frat-boy giggling that he got away with defacing a memorial to those not as privileged as himself.
I have few illusions about Obama. I voted for him, but I do have some concerns about his actual progressivity cred. However, I truly believe that we have a chance now. We now have a president who listens to the people, even those we wish he would not listen to (Rick Warren, anyone?) Even so, this inauguration heralds the end of Christo-fascist (hey, if they can make up insulting terms, so can I)control of a country that has the potential to be so much more than it is. I trust this man, and I will expect as much of him as he has promised.
It is not lost on me that we are facing one of the most historic moments I can ever hope to see, the end of the white male dominance of the highest office in the land. We have someone with a perspective shaped by a society that constructs him, his family, and those who share his ethnicity as worth less as our commander in chief. I don't pretend that this is the end of racism and oppression, but my god it is a step I never thought I would see.
Don't let us down sir.
The only thing I can say has been said better by Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay episcopal clergyman:
A Prayer for the Nation and Our Next President, Barack Obama
By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire
Opening Inaugural Event
Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC
January 18, 2009
Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God’s blessing upon our nation and our next president.
O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…
Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.
Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.
Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.
Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.
Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.
And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.
Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.
Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.
Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.
Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.
Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.
Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.
And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.
AMEN.
(h/t to Monica @ Transgriot)
(copied from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
baerana's LJ)
"Kevin and Kell" is my favorite web comic, and it's also published in a few newspapers, which is income the artist relies on.
He may be dropped from the Atlanta Constitution which will impact him in a way he doesn't know yet, up to or including being the end of the strip.
There is hope: the paper is now conducting a poll of the 13 dropped strips, and the two highest finishers will be reinstated. I humbly ask for your help in making sure that “Kevin & Kell” is one of the strips brought back.
The poll is at http://ajc.com/comicsvote
You can vote from every browser installed on your computer (they use cookies to keep track of which browsers have voted)
So, even if you don't read "Kevin and Kell", please vote for it. I love it, you love me, so, please. It would mean a lot to me. (and it's a comic about a big white bunny. how can you not love that?)
I don't know if it's better to vote for it again as your 2nd choice or not. I've always had a theory about voting for something sucky as your 2nd choice so there is no strong competition for 1st place, but whatever.
BTW, it's probably not required for the votes to be local, but here is an Atlanta area zip code if you want to use one - 30341
baerana's LJ)"Kevin and Kell" is my favorite web comic, and it's also published in a few newspapers, which is income the artist relies on.
He may be dropped from the Atlanta Constitution which will impact him in a way he doesn't know yet, up to or including being the end of the strip.
There is hope: the paper is now conducting a poll of the 13 dropped strips, and the two highest finishers will be reinstated. I humbly ask for your help in making sure that “Kevin & Kell” is one of the strips brought back.
The poll is at http://ajc.com/comicsvote
You can vote from every browser installed on your computer (they use cookies to keep track of which browsers have voted)
So, even if you don't read "Kevin and Kell", please vote for it. I love it, you love me, so, please. It would mean a lot to me. (and it's a comic about a big white bunny. how can you not love that?)
I don't know if it's better to vote for it again as your 2nd choice or not. I've always had a theory about voting for something sucky as your 2nd choice so there is no strong competition for 1st place, but whatever.
BTW, it's probably not required for the votes to be local, but here is an Atlanta area zip code if you want to use one - 30341
Y'all are not gonna believe this shit. Unless you've been paying attention, then it just fits perfectly with the line of bullshit spin that these groups regularly dish out.
So, the state of California has a law that requires that donations to legislative measures and political party campaigns be made public knowledge. Its an anti-racketeering law to ensure that organized crime syndicates haven't bought politicians or legislation (oh the IRONY, which will be apparent shortly.)
Several groups who have donated to the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 are suing to be exempt from this law.
"Why?" you may ask, "why would these upstanding citizens who claimed to only be protecting their own right to be bigoted and limit the rights of those they despise so worried about being known as the defenders of (their own) rights that they clearly are?"
Well, cause they claim to be afraid of "threats" such as blacklisting and boycotts. They claim that these things will violate their First Amendment rights. The AP article linked above cites other threats, like fliers calling them bigots being distributed in their neighborhoods, and threatening emails.
However, Justin McLachlan has an interesting bit of info that the Associated Press mostly ignored in their article:
BTW, Protectmarriage.com is the same group that used public campaign disclosure records to threaten a San Diego business that donated to the "No on prop. 8" before the campaign. The registration documents they want to make secret are the same ones that I used to show the campaign was being organized through a mutual benefit corporation -- California Renewal -- that the state had suspended for failing to pay taxes.
Excuse me, I need to go laugh til I puke. Gimme a second.
::exits stage right::
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
::re-enters stage right::
Ok, I think I can get through the rest of this with only minor giggling.
I have said this before but its worth repeating: the freedom of speech inherent in the First Amendment applies equally to everyone (at least it should.) Yes, people in this country have every right to give money to a piece of legislation that they agree with. People have the right to express ignorant and hateful views. However, this right DOES NOT protect them from the First Amendment rights of others. Boycotts of businesses who donated obscene amounts of money to take away your rights is also protected by the concept of free speech. Having the right to publicly be an ignorant ass does not protect you from people calling you an ignorant ass. Freedom to speak is not freedom from criticism.
Please note that I can't condone violent threats against supporters of Prop 8, but I can understand why someone would feel that angry. Acting on those threats is crossing a line into territory that I think we can still rise above.
As much as I'm sure these hypocrites would like it to not be the case, there are consequences for your actions, especially when those actions oppress others. If you were worried about your profits, you might have considered the fact that queer people and their supporters have money too, and that hitting you in your wallet is a fitting price to pay (ooh unintentional pun! HOW WITTY AM I!) for treating other people as less than a full legal person.
(h/t to Keori)
Honestly, roundups of the past year are somewhat pointless to me. First of all, most everyone is doing them, so no need for one more, and because history and events keep going while we stop to look back. So, no roundup of events, because the present is what matters.
Also, interestingly enough, I read somewhere that doctors are claiming resolutions are bad for your health. That probably applies to people like me who never keep them anyway. I like to think that I constantly try to improve so why try to condense it all into one space? No reason for the limits. That and I find the limits make me more stressed and less likely to actually do the things on my list.
So, I guess I'm left with wishing all y'all out there in my friends-list a good day, and a loving universe. If you made resolutions, may you find success at keeping them, and if you didn't, may you find success at your goals in general in the coming year.
Also, interestingly enough, I read somewhere that doctors are claiming resolutions are bad for your health. That probably applies to people like me who never keep them anyway. I like to think that I constantly try to improve so why try to condense it all into one space? No reason for the limits. That and I find the limits make me more stressed and less likely to actually do the things on my list.
So, I guess I'm left with wishing all y'all out there in my friends-list a good day, and a loving universe. If you made resolutions, may you find success at keeping them, and if you didn't, may you find success at your goals in general in the coming year.
The body count in Gaza has climbed to 348 Palestinians and 4 Israelis.
Israel has rejected international attempts at truce.
Israeli officials said the military blitz against Hamas targets is just the "first of several stages" of military action.
Medical officials in Gaza have also put the number of wounded at about 800. Considering the lack of medical supplies that are allowed to enter Gaza, which is little better than a walled in prison, those wounded are unlikely to survive.
What crime have these people committed that they deserve being dehumanized like this? Voting for Hamas? little light makes a point about this particular argument that I find difficult to disagree with:
I really don't care what anyone says. Inflicting this level of suffering on a group of people with as few resources as the Palestinians in Gaza have is NOT justifiable. Inflicting this kind of suffering on any group of people is NOT justifiable.
I have heard argument after argument that the Palestinians started it and therefore deserve this. Bullshit. The Palestinians are living in some of the most resource deprived, most densely populated places in the world. There are people who have been living in refugee camps for half a fucking decade. They get angry and toss some rickety rockets over the wall at the people making their lives hell, and we rush to justify their oppressors sending one of the most well-funded and equipped militaries in the world back at them.
Living in fear because your government insists on treating another group of human beings like animals DOES NOT justify the taking of lives, especially on this scale.
To add a disclaimer: No, I do not think that the violence perpetrated by Hamas is right, as it clearly leads to continuing the cycle of violence. However, Israel has the power to stop these cycles before they start, and the Palestinians do not.
Sometimes it is not about what is fair, but what is right.
(cross posted at A Truly Elegant Mess)
Israel has rejected international attempts at truce.
Israeli officials said the military blitz against Hamas targets is just the "first of several stages" of military action.
Medical officials in Gaza have also put the number of wounded at about 800. Considering the lack of medical supplies that are allowed to enter Gaza, which is little better than a walled in prison, those wounded are unlikely to survive.
What crime have these people committed that they deserve being dehumanized like this? Voting for Hamas? little light makes a point about this particular argument that I find difficult to disagree with:
Tell me what you would do! Tell me! Who do you believe, who do you listen to, who do you rely on? You are walled into a prison with guns pointed at you all the time. Food is not allowed in, fuel is not allowed in, medical supplies are not allowed in. You lose count of family members violently dead or maimed. Your schools and hospitals and places of worship are destroyed, your neighborhood is full of rubble with few buildings intact, and you cannot expect to live to thirty. And you don't know any of the people on the other side of that wall.
Who do you listen to as a reliable source? The guys with the guns pointed at you, who took the food away and tell you you deserve to have nothing, but who the outside world tells you are decent folks acting justly? Or the people you're told are evil scumbags, but who provide you food, medicine, a little pride, a little order, and the promise to fight for you? Who among you, looking at your hungry, sick child, is going to listen to the person telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to care for them over the person handing you bread and antibiotics and a little civil infrastructure? Do you listen to the asshole who gives you food, or the asshole who takes it away? When you have nothing, no dignity, no hope, when you've got nothing to lose, who do you listen to? What do you think you would do differently? Do you honestly think that, with a gun pointed at your family, you wouldn't be grateful for even a vile human being who tells you you don't deserve it and points a weapon right back?
I don't think I'm that saint. I don't think you're that saint. You want to say you'd know better?
I really don't care what anyone says. Inflicting this level of suffering on a group of people with as few resources as the Palestinians in Gaza have is NOT justifiable. Inflicting this kind of suffering on any group of people is NOT justifiable.
I have heard argument after argument that the Palestinians started it and therefore deserve this. Bullshit. The Palestinians are living in some of the most resource deprived, most densely populated places in the world. There are people who have been living in refugee camps for half a fucking decade. They get angry and toss some rickety rockets over the wall at the people making their lives hell, and we rush to justify their oppressors sending one of the most well-funded and equipped militaries in the world back at them.
Living in fear because your government insists on treating another group of human beings like animals DOES NOT justify the taking of lives, especially on this scale.
To add a disclaimer: No, I do not think that the violence perpetrated by Hamas is right, as it clearly leads to continuing the cycle of violence. However, Israel has the power to stop these cycles before they start, and the Palestinians do not.
Sometimes it is not about what is fair, but what is right.
(cross posted at A Truly Elegant Mess)
Gaza body count: Palestinians-271 Israelis-1
From the linked article:
Israel is reponding to rocket attacks perpetrated by Hamas which killed one Israeli. I will repeat that, because it bears repeating. Israel's government and military is killing almost three hundred Palestinians including children in response to the death of one Israeli.
Let me put this out there right now: any violent death is a tragedy regardless of how many are killed. HOWEVER, 300 to 1 is disproportionate force. Especially considering that it is widely known that Hamas, a paramilitary organization, is responsible for the single Israeli death.
And of course, while most of the world is decrying the extraneous violence of this situation, the US is blaming Hamas.
Even the Dutch government, who tends towards virulent anti-Arab and Islamophobic policies and positions is calling Israel's actions almost a war-crime. I am so very sick of the "arab=agressor" stance of our government. Just because Israel is our friend, this does NOT put them above reproach. It doesn't change the facts. And this ignoring of the facts mainly serves to make the US look like anti-arab assholes once again. The next time someone tells me that the arab world needs to fix its anti-American sentiment before we can work with them, I might just bite their damn heads off.
Julie from Modern Mitzvoh has this to say:
I could not have said it better.
(cross posted at A Truly Elegant Mess)
From the linked article:
Israeli jets have launched a second day of airstrikes against the Gaza Strip on Sunday. Despite international condemnation over what is being called a disproportional response, Israel is not excluding a ground offensive. According to Palestinian officials, 271 Palestinians have been killed so far for only one victim in Israel.
Israel is reponding to rocket attacks perpetrated by Hamas which killed one Israeli. I will repeat that, because it bears repeating. Israel's government and military is killing almost three hundred Palestinians including children in response to the death of one Israeli.
Let me put this out there right now: any violent death is a tragedy regardless of how many are killed. HOWEVER, 300 to 1 is disproportionate force. Especially considering that it is widely known that Hamas, a paramilitary organization, is responsible for the single Israeli death.
And of course, while most of the world is decrying the extraneous violence of this situation, the US is blaming Hamas.
"The message from the United States is that Hamas is a terrorist organization that is firing rockets into Israel and they fired them onto their own people as well," Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said.
"The United States strongly condemns the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and holds Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a statement.
Even the Dutch government, who tends towards virulent anti-Arab and Islamophobic policies and positions is calling Israel's actions almost a war-crime. I am so very sick of the "arab=agressor" stance of our government. Just because Israel is our friend, this does NOT put them above reproach. It doesn't change the facts. And this ignoring of the facts mainly serves to make the US look like anti-arab assholes once again. The next time someone tells me that the arab world needs to fix its anti-American sentiment before we can work with them, I might just bite their damn heads off.
Julie from Modern Mitzvoh has this to say:
If you can’t figure out why this is unacceptable - if you insist on an eye-for-an-eye mentality, in which one Israeli eye is worth an infinite number of Palestinian eyes - then quite frankly, you’re a privileged fuck with no concept of how violence is perpetuated or what the phrase “human rights” actually means.
I could not have said it better.
(cross posted at A Truly Elegant Mess)
I seriously doubt that this is a concept that has not been spoken of before, but I have never talked about it here, so it is new in one way at least.
When Islam and women in Islam are discussed in Western classrooms, or at dinner tables, or even in foreign policy discussions, what are the first things that are mentioned?
Usually, its one of two things: Hijab(often mistakenly called Burqa and generally falsely conflated with Saudi or Iranian forced dress codes) and "honor" killings. Both are pointed out as examples of exotic otherness and supposed Muslim/Arab (another false conflation, but I digress) savagery in comparison with supposed Western "liberal" attitudes towards women, gender "equality" and moral superiority. "Well, WE don't treat OUR women like THAT." Generally, much nodding of heads back patting and ego fellating ensues.
This attitude amuses me (and by "amuses me," I mean it makes me want to repeatedly bash my head into a wall) because of one underlying flaw in the rush to promote ourselves as superior whiteness/Westerness, namely that Western women are treated very similarly, the only difference being the exact way that sexism is expressed. The underlying attitudes, about a woman's place, her function, what she should look like, her responsibility for participating in the public sphere, and her punishment for violating the patriarchal demands placed upon her, are almost exactly the same and differ mainly in degree of severity. The only other major difference is the form of support that our judicial systems grant these actions. Again, the rationalizations are eerily similar, and the only difference in support is whether it is tacit, or open. Even in the law, the only differences become a matter of degree.
So, I decided that I had too much to say (no surprise there) about all of these subjects, so I would start a series. At this moment, its only this introductory post and two subsequent posts, but I'm flexible. I will be drawing from a variety of sources, including blogs like Muslimah Media Watch, news sites, feminist theory, and my own observations in both the Middle East and the US. My intention is to make clear that when it comes to sexism and treatment of women, no one has the moral high ground. This can end up opening into an on going series if the information is available.
So, be on the lookout for my first post, probably sometime next week.
(cross posted at A Truly Elegant Mess)
When Islam and women in Islam are discussed in Western classrooms, or at dinner tables, or even in foreign policy discussions, what are the first things that are mentioned?
Usually, its one of two things: Hijab(often mistakenly called Burqa and generally falsely conflated with Saudi or Iranian forced dress codes) and "honor" killings. Both are pointed out as examples of exotic otherness and supposed Muslim/Arab (another false conflation, but I digress) savagery in comparison with supposed Western "liberal" attitudes towards women, gender "equality" and moral superiority. "Well, WE don't treat OUR women like THAT." Generally, much nodding of heads back patting and ego fellating ensues.
This attitude amuses me (and by "amuses me," I mean it makes me want to repeatedly bash my head into a wall) because of one underlying flaw in the rush to promote ourselves as superior whiteness/Westerness, namely that Western women are treated very similarly, the only difference being the exact way that sexism is expressed. The underlying attitudes, about a woman's place, her function, what she should look like, her responsibility for participating in the public sphere, and her punishment for violating the patriarchal demands placed upon her, are almost exactly the same and differ mainly in degree of severity. The only other major difference is the form of support that our judicial systems grant these actions. Again, the rationalizations are eerily similar, and the only difference in support is whether it is tacit, or open. Even in the law, the only differences become a matter of degree.
So, I decided that I had too much to say (no surprise there) about all of these subjects, so I would start a series. At this moment, its only this introductory post and two subsequent posts, but I'm flexible. I will be drawing from a variety of sources, including blogs like Muslimah Media Watch, news sites, feminist theory, and my own observations in both the Middle East and the US. My intention is to make clear that when it comes to sexism and treatment of women, no one has the moral high ground. This can end up opening into an on going series if the information is available.
So, be on the lookout for my first post, probably sometime next week.
(cross posted at A Truly Elegant Mess)
H/T to Womanist Musings and Feministing
Transcript:
We are often told that we are living in a mans world, and this culture no image represents power more than the phallic symbol and if the penis equal power then I am illegally armed. My body full of freckles and curves is like a stealth bomber, I fly just under everyone's radar, but only because they choose not to see me. Only because no one wants to believe that a sweet petite green eyed girl like me could ever possibly be packing heat. They say it's not the size of the wand but the magic that it does. Well after many months on estrogen my penis is pretty darn small, but she has supernatural powers. She is like some pissed off ancient Greek goddess. My penis changes the meanings of everything, and because of her every single one of my ex heterosexual girlfriends has slept with a lesbian, and every guy who hits on me these days could be accused of being gay. Because my penis bends everyone who is straight and she can make the most entitled catcallers and womanisers scurry away with their balls between their legs. All because of six small words, I used to be a man. And being a transsexual I realize that most people see my femaleness as a façade, as an elaborate hoax, but I am more real than any of them could ever hope to be. I am real because unlike them my gender is not based upon what other people think of me and that may make me an object of ridicule but I am not the butt of anyone's joke, because I know that people make fun of trannies because we are the one thing that they fear the most. I am more badass than any gangster, more dangerous than any marine core , my penis is more powerful than the cocks of a million alpha males all put together. Because when a man is defined as that which is not female and a woman is defined as that which is not male, then I am the loose thread that unravels the gender of everyone around me. They say it's not the size of the boat but the motion of the ocean, well my penis gives most people sea sickness. It makes people dizzy because most people are not secure enough in their own masculinity or femininity to serve a night in the sack with me. My penis turns simple sexual pleasures into political acts. She turns biological impossibilities into cold hard facts. My penis is the curiosity that you have been told will kill your cat. See, my penis can be deadly, especially to me, and I have hear d almost every true story about what frightened macho boys do to trannies; every bludgeoning and mutilation, bodies beaten beyond recognition and I have imagined it all happening to me first person. Everytime I get up in front of a crow to perform one of my outspoken word pieces, I can feel myself morph into a slow moving target. After the show when I walk back to my car I will be holding my breathe half expecting that inevitable blow to the back of the head. Sometimes I wonder why it hasn't happened yet, and sometimes I wonder why they just don't get it over with and sometimes I just wish I was dead, I wish I was dead. You see I never wanted to be dangerous and I spent most of my life wishing that I didn't have a penis. I used to hate my body for not making any sense to me and these days I often hate it for being so in between. Some mornings I can hardly get out of bed because my body is so weighed down with ugly meanings that my culture has dumped all over me. You see I have made to feel shame and self loathing so that everyone else can take comfort in what their bodies mean. And if I seem a bit cocky it is because I refuse to make apologies for my body anymore. I am though being the human sacrifice offered up to appease other people's gender issues. Some women have a penis, some men don't and the rest of the world is just going to have to get the fuck over it. If I am destined to be the loose thread that unravels the gender of everyone around me then I am going to pull and pull and pull and pull and pull until everyone is exposed, till they all finally see that all along that they were merely wearing the emperor's new clothes . I know that people don't like it when I turn the tables on them but what the hell else am I supposed to do, play a hand from a deck of cards that was stacked against me? If I seem a bit cocky, it's because I have spent my entire life being backed into a corner and like a frightened animal packed full of adrenaline and sick of hunger and hiding I am finally desperate enough to come out fighting.
A comment on this entry at Shakesville really tweaked my interest. First, the comment:
This poster isn't the first to make this spurious argument and zie won't be the last.
Disagree however you want, but the prejudice+power definition of -isms are sociological in nature and correct. The "vast majority" of people can use a technical term however they want, that doesn't mean they are using it correctly. Perfect example: paradigm shift. This is a technical term, used in scientific disciplines to indicate a sudden and complete change in how the world is viewed by a sub-group of humanity, and in Western culture, can be applied directly to inventions of mass media and mass communication and the effect this had on how the culture as a whole related to the world. In popular lexicon, we use it to indicate a change in how we behave personally, akin to "changing gears" or changing the flow of our lives. It has also been appropriated by motivational speakers for large corporations as a term to get corporate teams to expand their way of working. If one compares the two usages, they seem to have the same basic meaning, but one is technically correct within the context that spawned it, and one is popular misconception and appropriation of the first.
By referencing "every dictionary under the sun", I assume that means zie has read every dictionary under the sun. I doubt this, mainly because if zie had, zie would have noticed that most regular dictionaries are mainly catalogs of common usage in a specific arena, and do not mean the be-all end-all of a word. There is a reason that we have medical and legal dictionaries, as well as dictionaries for different disciplines. These dictionaries may have a word that is spelled the same in each of them, but based on the context, has a differing meaning. Hell, the meaning of a word can differ across languages. Some words don't translate directly from language to language, and some languages have words that others do not. Does this mean that the basic concept does not exist from culture to culture? No, it means that the concepts are viewed differently through different cultural lenses.
Suggesting that your preferred definition of isms is inherently more correct at all times is intellectually dishonest.
In actuality, you can indeed see the binary hierarchies almost world-wide, with adjustments of the standard to the specific group. Example: racial binary, between "white" and "non-white" does exist in most places that I have studied or visited. White in some areas may not look quite like it looks here, but it plays the same role. It can be found echoed through out most institutions and sub-cultures to a greater or lesser degree. The binary hierarchy of sex is also present world wide to differing degrees, even with differences in the definition of masculine v. feminine.
This poster seems to desire the simpler explanation at the expense of dismissing actual intellectual effort on hir part to challenge hir own small view of how the world works.
Sexism is not in the eye of the beholder
"A little off topic, but I just wanted to jump up and down a little waving my arms in frantic protest over [another poster]'s insistence that various "isms" - sexism, racism, what have you - are monodirectional.
For one thing, it's problematic because this isn't the way the vast majority of people use these words. For just about everyone (not to mention every dictionary under the sun) racism (to choose an example) is prejudice or discrimination based on race, full stop. Limiting the word to institutional prejudice or discrimination against specific racial groups in specific cultural contexts creates all kind of confusion - not least because not all the world is made up of the kind of neat binary hierarchies of oppression this kind of definition demands.
For another, society is not a monolith. Even if racism is by definition cultural and institutional, the idea that every institution and sub-culture within a society shares the same biases isn't really tenable.
To return to sexism, far simpler to say (as the OED does, actually) that it is sex-based prejudice and discrimination almost always directed against women."
This poster isn't the first to make this spurious argument and zie won't be the last.
Disagree however you want, but the prejudice+power definition of -isms are sociological in nature and correct. The "vast majority" of people can use a technical term however they want, that doesn't mean they are using it correctly. Perfect example: paradigm shift. This is a technical term, used in scientific disciplines to indicate a sudden and complete change in how the world is viewed by a sub-group of humanity, and in Western culture, can be applied directly to inventions of mass media and mass communication and the effect this had on how the culture as a whole related to the world. In popular lexicon, we use it to indicate a change in how we behave personally, akin to "changing gears" or changing the flow of our lives. It has also been appropriated by motivational speakers for large corporations as a term to get corporate teams to expand their way of working. If one compares the two usages, they seem to have the same basic meaning, but one is technically correct within the context that spawned it, and one is popular misconception and appropriation of the first.
By referencing "every dictionary under the sun", I assume that means zie has read every dictionary under the sun. I doubt this, mainly because if zie had, zie would have noticed that most regular dictionaries are mainly catalogs of common usage in a specific arena, and do not mean the be-all end-all of a word. There is a reason that we have medical and legal dictionaries, as well as dictionaries for different disciplines. These dictionaries may have a word that is spelled the same in each of them, but based on the context, has a differing meaning. Hell, the meaning of a word can differ across languages. Some words don't translate directly from language to language, and some languages have words that others do not. Does this mean that the basic concept does not exist from culture to culture? No, it means that the concepts are viewed differently through different cultural lenses.
Suggesting that your preferred definition of isms is inherently more correct at all times is intellectually dishonest.
In actuality, you can indeed see the binary hierarchies almost world-wide, with adjustments of the standard to the specific group. Example: racial binary, between "white" and "non-white" does exist in most places that I have studied or visited. White in some areas may not look quite like it looks here, but it plays the same role. It can be found echoed through out most institutions and sub-cultures to a greater or lesser degree. The binary hierarchy of sex is also present world wide to differing degrees, even with differences in the definition of masculine v. feminine.
This poster seems to desire the simpler explanation at the expense of dismissing actual intellectual effort on hir part to challenge hir own small view of how the world works.
Sexism is not in the eye of the beholder
One year ago today, Benazir Bhutto, the first woman to lead a Muslim nation, was assassinated.
She faced massive hurdles in her rise to power, and subsequent loss of it, and as soon as I learned who she was, I knew I had found a true hero and role model. Her death, two days before my wedding, shocked and pained me more than I can possibly explain. It had been clear for a long time that if there was anyone who could start to restore sanity to the tense situation that is Pakistan, it was her. Her death sent the whole area into chaos that it is still recovering from.
She continues to inspire me, even today.
She faced massive hurdles in her rise to power, and subsequent loss of it, and as soon as I learned who she was, I knew I had found a true hero and role model. Her death, two days before my wedding, shocked and pained me more than I can possibly explain. It had been clear for a long time that if there was anyone who could start to restore sanity to the tense situation that is Pakistan, it was her. Her death sent the whole area into chaos that it is still recovering from.
She continues to inspire me, even today.
(h/t to almost every progressive blog I read)
I saw this earlier this month and had to take a second to put my jaw back in place. Christ. How fucking EDGY is The Advocate! Conflating the black civil rights movement with the LGBTQI movement and it's oh-so-important fight for marriage equality.
Look, I'm queer. As queer as a $3 bill. HOWEVER, I am not so arrogant as to believe that my relatively privileged fight for the right to marry someone of the same legal sex as myself is the last great civil rights issue! Not when institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia (to name only a few) are issues that are causing people to live in poverty, face threats of and actual physical and sexual assault from not only other individuals but from law enforcement officers, face court battles to even have their victimizers recognized as such, and...lessee...um...oh yeah! FUCKING DEATH!
Don't get me wrong. I would love it if people like me could just hang up our activist badges and go home, if there really was something that was really the last civil rights struggle ever ever ever. However, as pointed out above, this is patently untrue.
Suggesting that "Gay is the new Black" ignores the existence of queers who are also of color, who have to face racism, homophobia and sexism. It also ignores the fact that a good deal of the queer community is not served by the fight for marriage equality, and effectively disappear their members who are in need of things that are more essential than marriage.
This cover implies that all other civil rights movements are over and unimportant. The only purpose something like this will serve will be to alienate members of the POC community as well as any other groups that are not served by the marriage fight. It doesn't help that the article that this cover is in reference to is actually a decent article. This cover is a disservice to the author, and to the queer movement as a whole.
In short, fuck whoever at The Advocate thought this would be a good idea. Nice breakin' it "hero."
I saw this earlier this month and had to take a second to put my jaw back in place. Christ. How fucking EDGY is The Advocate! Conflating the black civil rights movement with the LGBTQI movement and it's oh-so-important fight for marriage equality.
Look, I'm queer. As queer as a $3 bill. HOWEVER, I am not so arrogant as to believe that my relatively privileged fight for the right to marry someone of the same legal sex as myself is the last great civil rights issue! Not when institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia (to name only a few) are issues that are causing people to live in poverty, face threats of and actual physical and sexual assault from not only other individuals but from law enforcement officers, face court battles to even have their victimizers recognized as such, and...lessee...um...oh yeah! FUCKING DEATH!
Don't get me wrong. I would love it if people like me could just hang up our activist badges and go home, if there really was something that was really the last civil rights struggle ever ever ever. However, as pointed out above, this is patently untrue.
Suggesting that "Gay is the new Black" ignores the existence of queers who are also of color, who have to face racism, homophobia and sexism. It also ignores the fact that a good deal of the queer community is not served by the fight for marriage equality, and effectively disappear their members who are in need of things that are more essential than marriage.
This cover implies that all other civil rights movements are over and unimportant. The only purpose something like this will serve will be to alienate members of the POC community as well as any other groups that are not served by the marriage fight. It doesn't help that the article that this cover is in reference to is actually a decent article. This cover is a disservice to the author, and to the queer movement as a whole.
In short, fuck whoever at The Advocate thought this would be a good idea. Nice breakin' it "hero."
It had to happen eventually.
Yes we are going there.
This is my Fat Acceptance post.
I'm going to put this right out, right now. According to the BMI, I am obese. However, the BMI is a crock. It does not account for body fat v. muscle density, and it is no real indicator of health. In fact, fat itself is not a catch-all indicator of health. So that it is clear where I am coming from with this, I am reproducing Kate Harding's ten points about health and obesity:
No, I don't want to hear "the other side" of this discussion. No one has any business critiquing the personal choices of others when the only person that will be impacted by those choices is the individual making them. Period, end of story. Even if you want to use the "public health concern" shit: For anyone who cries about "teh fatties are pushing up our health insurance! BAAAAAAAW!" In actuality, obese people are less likely to seek healthcare, especially preventative care, because of how they are treated by healthcare professionals. The spread of various health problems are more closely related (as in there actually being a causal link as opposed to mere correlation) to sedentary lifestyle and poor nutrition, and occur fairly equally in people of ALL sizes (as stated in point#2 above) as opposed to infectious evil lazy fat people. So no, one person's body shape and how it came to be and why it is the way it is is not your concern, and it does not affect you in the least. If you feel a need to be so damn judgmental of someone else who is not affecting you then that says more about you, doesn't it.
I am a fairly healthy individual, I am a vegetarian, we eat organic, whole foods whenever possible, and I exercise as often as I can. I can do 60 sit-ups a day, I can walk from one end of my city to another, and I can dance for almost an hour straight with nothing more than a quick break for a drink of water. I also have ovarian cysts, and most likely have Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome, which is related to insulin resistance. Until I researched that and asked my doctors to look for it, I was consistently told that my health problems, be they heart issues, excess body hair in places like my chin, or even fucking bronchitis, could be attributed to my weight, despite what I told them about my eating and exercise habits.
So no, I will not sit and be shamed into being a "good fattie" who does not eat in public because it bothers other people, because I have a "moral obligation" to be ashamed of my physique. To quote The Rotund: Good and Bad Fatties do not exist. I eat because I am hungry, there is no morality to satisfying a basic human need.
Note: I have open comments, but since this topic tends to be more than a little contentious, be warned that I have a low tolerance for crap about this particular subject.
cross posted at A Truly Elegant Mess
Yes we are going there.
This is my Fat Acceptance post.
I'm going to put this right out, right now. According to the BMI, I am obese. However, the BMI is a crock. It does not account for body fat v. muscle density, and it is no real indicator of health. In fact, fat itself is not a catch-all indicator of health. So that it is clear where I am coming from with this, I am reproducing Kate Harding's ten points about health and obesity:
1. Weight itself is not a health problem, except in the most extreme cases (i.e., being underweight or so fat you’re immobilized). In fact, fat people live longer than thin people and are more likely to survive cardiac events, and some studies have shown that fat can protect against “infections, cancer, lung disease, heart disease, osteoporosis, anemia, high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes.” Yeah, you read that right: even the goddamned diabetes. Now, I’m not saying we should all go out and get fat for our health (which we wouldn’t be able to do anyway, because no one knows how to make a naturally thin person fat any more than they know how to make a naturally fat person thin; see point 4), but I’m definitely saying obesity research is turning up surprising information all the time — much of which goes ignored by the media — and people who give a damn about critical thinking would be foolish to accept the party line on fat. Just because you’ve heard over and over and over that fat! kills! doesn’t mean it’s true. It just means that people in this culture really love saying it.
2. Poor nutrition and a sedentary lifestyle do cause health problems, in people of all sizes. This is why it’s so fucking crucial to separate the concept of “obesity” from “eating crap and not exercising.” The two are simply not synonymous — not even close — and it’s not only incredibly offensive but dangerous for thin people to keep pretending that they are. There are thin people who eat crap and don’t exercise — and are thus putting their health at risk — and there are fat people who treat their bodies very well but remain fat. Really truly.
3. What’s more, those groups do not represent anomalies; no one has proven that fat people generally eat more or exercise less than thin people. Period. And believe me, they’ve tried. (Gina Kolata’s new book, Rethinking Thin, is an outstanding source for more on that point.)
4. Diets don’t work. No, really, not even if you don’t call them diets. If you want to tell me about how YOUR diet totally worked, do me a favor and wait until you’ve kept all the weight off for five years. Not one year, not four years, five years. And if you’ve kept it off for that long, congratulations. You’re literally a freak of nature.
5. Given that diets don’t work in the long-term for the vast, vast majority of people, even if obesity in and of itself were a health crisis, how the fuck would you propose we solve it?
6. Most fat people have already dieted repeatedly. And sadly, it’s likely that the dieting will cause them more health problems than the fat.
7. Human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Fat people are human beings.
8. Even fat people who are unhealthy still deserve dignity and respect. Still human beings. See how that works?
9. In any case, shaming teh fatties for being “unhealthy” doesn’t fucking help. If shame made people thin, there wouldn’t be a fat person in this country, trust me. I wish I could remember who said this, ’cause it’s one of my favorite quotes of all time: “You cannot hate people for their own good.”
10. If you scratch an article on the obesity! crisis! you will almost always find a press release from a company that’s developing a weight loss drug — or from a “research group” that’s funded by such companies.
No, I don't want to hear "the other side" of this discussion. No one has any business critiquing the personal choices of others when the only person that will be impacted by those choices is the individual making them. Period, end of story. Even if you want to use the "public health concern" shit: For anyone who cries about "teh fatties are pushing up our health insurance! BAAAAAAAW!" In actuality, obese people are less likely to seek healthcare, especially preventative care, because of how they are treated by healthcare professionals. The spread of various health problems are more closely related (as in there actually being a causal link as opposed to mere correlation) to sedentary lifestyle and poor nutrition, and occur fairly equally in people of ALL sizes (as stated in point#2 above) as opposed to infectious evil lazy fat people. So no, one person's body shape and how it came to be and why it is the way it is is not your concern, and it does not affect you in the least. If you feel a need to be so damn judgmental of someone else who is not affecting you then that says more about you, doesn't it.
I am a fairly healthy individual, I am a vegetarian, we eat organic, whole foods whenever possible, and I exercise as often as I can. I can do 60 sit-ups a day, I can walk from one end of my city to another, and I can dance for almost an hour straight with nothing more than a quick break for a drink of water. I also have ovarian cysts, and most likely have Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome, which is related to insulin resistance. Until I researched that and asked my doctors to look for it, I was consistently told that my health problems, be they heart issues, excess body hair in places like my chin, or even fucking bronchitis, could be attributed to my weight, despite what I told them about my eating and exercise habits.
So no, I will not sit and be shamed into being a "good fattie" who does not eat in public because it bothers other people, because I have a "moral obligation" to be ashamed of my physique. To quote The Rotund: Good and Bad Fatties do not exist. I eat because I am hungry, there is no morality to satisfying a basic human need.
Note: I have open comments, but since this topic tends to be more than a little contentious, be warned that I have a low tolerance for crap about this particular subject.
cross posted at A Truly Elegant Mess
.
