Cross-Post: Bingeing on Idiocy

All fat people overeat in the minds of people prejudiced against fat. They spend hours a day doing nothing but lounging about and gorging on junk food. No evidence to the contrary will ever be enough.

There are people with genuine difficulty with overeating, either with or without purging. Such people will binge on “comfort” foods for hours, consuming thousands of calories in one sitting. They will display other symptoms of eating disordered behavior, like secrecy, withdrawing from friends and family, measuring oneself, and so on.

However, in order to be diagnosed with a problem involving overeating, you need to establish that the patient, in fact, overeats.

So how is overeating defined? How many calories constitute a binge?

Here is overeating as described by the Mayo Clinic.

Here is another discussion of binge eating from Kids’ Health. (Warning: Fat hate ahead.)

Type “How many calories constitutes a binge?” into Google and you will find people asking this same question on message boards.

A valid point can be made about the act of bingeing being less about calories and more about process. Did you eat way more than normal in a short period of time? Were you secretive and guilty about it? Did you feel sick after? Was it a special occasion or is this something that happens regularly? All of this is very, very true.

However, there is a pit fall to not having a ball park calorie count and that is that it is all too easy misclassify someone as having a bingeing problem. Basically anyone that looks fat or who has gained weight is assumed to have overeaten.

Of course, naturally thin people and and do binge eat. Assuming that binge eating is a disease of fat people ignores the problem thin patients are in and marginalizes their experience. It makes it hard for them to get competent help or even get people to believe them.

This is still assuming that we can actually accurately diagnose binge eating disorder whether you are fat or thin, but especially if you are fat.

Our culture has turned eating into a sin and a chore, such that people who “admit” (like you admit to a crime) enjoying food are seen as having a weakness. People who overeat on holidays or who plow through a pint of ice cream just because they feel like it sometimes feel pressure to act ashamed of it. They preface their admission with statements like, “I know it’s bad, but…” or “It’s not like I do it all the time, but…” It is looked down on, especially for women, to fill their plates or ask for seconds. Forget about dessert unless it’s really a special occasion and you get the low-cal variety. There is the constant fear of looking like a pig.

Now that our society has significantly lowered the threshold at which ordinary eating behavior becomes piggish, how do we diagnosed someone as having a genuine binge eating disorder?

All my life, I was taller, heavier, and more muscular than most other kids my age. I also ate well. I ate a lot and I ate many different things. I felt no shame about my eating or my size. Somehow, I had failed to internalize gender norms about body and food, and my mother and sister sought desperately to change that. They glared at me when I asked for food, especially sweets, or when I asked for seconds or thirds. Over the years, I continued to eat, continued to grow, and continued to disobey commands to be properly embarassed at myself. This, naturally, led to my hiding my eating from them but eating 100% normally in front of others. In their minds, I had a “problem.” I “couldn’t stop” eating and I hid it because I was “secretly” ashamed. My size was proof positive that I had this problem. So their attempts to intervene only intensified.

Eventually, I became convinced of it myself. I had a problem with overeating because my family treated me as though I did, and when I tried to resist that treatment, that only reaffirmed it in their minds. Plus, I was getting larger all the time (during my teen years, which is of course normal). I started seeking help for my “problem” only to find out that I had no problem. My mother and sister had the problem, but since I admitted to mine, now I have that stain on my character.* See? Even she admits it! Yet she won’t do anything about it. She must *really* be sick!

When I hear someone confess to a problem with overeating, especially if it’s a fat person, I question it. I think our society sets fat people up for a self-fulfilling prophecy. We shame them from eating normally so that they must do it in secret. If they eat publicly, they must eat restrictively, which sets them up to binge later on. We encourage them to feel a deep sense of shame for eating at all. So I’m not convinced that a lot of people diagnosed with BED actually have it. I’m sure they believe they have it, but that is society’s fault, not theirs.

So what exactly in binge eating?

Who the hell knows?

*************************

*No eating disorder should be a stain on anyone’s character, but in the minds of many people, that’s exactly what it is. I just chose language that reflects that attitude. I do not espouse itmyself.

Believe me when I say I’m fat on the inside

Fat people are more than their fat. They have minds and personalities. They have other physical attributes. They have lives.

They’re still fat, even those that are not fat.

Fat is a physical attribute, to be sure, and people have varying degrees of fat Thus, they have varying degrees of fat stigma aimed at them. Being a small fat or not fat at all won’t save you from personal shame at the idea of fat, though, and that is because fat is an internal experience as well as an external one.

I like to cross-dress. Readers of my blog will be aware of this. A handful of people in my offline life are aware of this.

To the average person not in the ‘know,’ I am a cisgendered woman.

I am biologically female with notable male physical attributes and an androgynous mind and personality. I like to dress and androgynous clothes and sometimes in full man drag. I’m good at it too. Sometimes I do it in public but usually it is private. If you were to assign a label to me, I am androgynous/queer transvestite. At one point, when I was going through a particularly masculine phase, I identified as transgender, but as an adult, that is not a totally accurate description of me.

So queer it is.

Well, not everyone agrees, because I spend most of my time presenting as the average cis woman. I have been accused of lying or not doing it right. Never mind that I tell people upright my biological sex and how I present (not that that’s their business.) I’m lying because I do not fit the image of Teh Queers that some people apparently have.

Put aside that my identity is my choice and my business. No one can tell me who I am or how to do ‘me’ right. They can point out that I am privileged over a full-fledged transsexual. Such people are people whose bodies are utterly at odds with their minds, who cannot hide it from others yet are forced to, and whose safety may be at risk if they are found out. Such an observation would be 100% true.

I’m still queer.

Back to my main point, I am queer and a cross-dresser regardless of how I present because it is an *internal* experience first and foremost. One of my favorite outfits is my traditional Catholic schoolgirl outfit. I put my hair in pigtails or ringlets. I might even wear the chapel veil. Despite the fact that this outfit is very much in line with my biological sex, I feel very much like I am cross-dressing when I dress like that. My presentation as the Catholic school girl is very much at odds with my internal gender and I feel like I am playing pretend.

The aspects of my gender that get highlighted when I present as a Catholic schoolgirl are the hyper-feminine ideals of innocence, chastity, classic beauty, sweetness, and obedience. I have hyper-feminine qualities, but they do not constitute all or most of my gender identity. On some days, I feel at home in my plaid skirt and in others, my skin crawls because it is not natural for me to be wearing this.

A more outright cross-dressing experience is when I dress in man drag, either as a business man or a bishop. I embody the personality traits of strength, dignity, and frankness. I like the image of the smart, classy masculine ideal more so than  the butch one (not that there is anything wrong with preferring the butch ideal.) I like it because it in itself defies the ideal for a man. It proves that a man does not need brute strength to be worthwhile and that having an agile mind and noble character is more important.

Of course, feminine women can be dignified, frank, and strong, but there is something about the symbolism of the bishop, or the businessman, that conveys those parts of me better than any feminine costume could.

Cross-dressing has been a passion of mine for much of my life and I love everything about it. But if I had to choose what I love most, it is knowing that, at any given time, no one knows my real gender. At the same time, every time you see me, you get a new taste of my real gender. I am not a doll you can put back in its box but rather a free-flowing energy (if you want to wax poetic.) You can literally be anything you want to be and that is so freeing. No one can guess at me or have preconceived ideas of me, no matter how much they might want to. For those who do not cross-dress, an overwhelming feeling of “special-ness” is the best way to describe it, your own special little secret.

For me, having an obese BMI and being somewhat visibly larger than average has that effect. No one would guess that I have an obese BMI, but I feel a combination of pain and amusement when I hear the typical tropes against fat people right in front of me. They have no idea who they are talking to. When I go clothes shopping, and the salesperson tries to guess my size, I get a similar feeling. When I try on the clothes, other people might not see what the big deal is and might even think I look fabulous. On the inside, though, I feel lousy. I know what size I am really wearing and it is something that I cannot share with other people. I cannot share with others what I see when I look in the mirror.

That’s on a bad day.

On a good day, I see a star that other people have not discovered yet. I sense the power that comes with having a larger than average body that can do some pretty cool things that, again, other people cannot fully appreciate yet. I feel I deserve clothes that do it justice.

FA should center around those who are most stigmatized by fat hatred, namely those who are most fat. However, especially in an age where weight and health hysteria is hitting people at lower and lower weights, lower and lower health indices, and younger and younger ages, FA is for everyone. Fat people are conditioned to feel doomed and to do anything to avoid that doom. Thin people are conditioned, similarly, to feel a sense of impending doom and to stay vigilant. They are fat on the inside because they are taught that, if they aren’t careful, their inner fat will consume them (pun intended).

If I were to lose weight for any reason, part of me would be happy and part of me would be sad. I am okay with whatever my natural weight should be, but I don’t want to lose weight. I have become comfortable in my own skin and am really starting to like it. I also know that I am a bad food or a pound away from being a pariah again. No matter how thin I got, I will remember the abuse I endured for being larger than average and that will always cloud the way I feel about myself and the way I interact with others. No matter how thin I got, people who knew me when I was fat will never let me forget who I used to be and who I should never again become. In that sense, I am fat on the inside.

In order to understand EDs, thin people with body image issues, or to understand anyone who has ever struggled with feeling fat, it is important to remember: fat is an internal experience. Fat is loaded with cultural and emotional implications and there are whole philosophies and lifestyles which are dedicated to avoiding fatness. Fat becomes you, for better or for worse, often because society requires it of you.

Fat may be part of you, but it does not have to define you. If you choose to reclaim it, you can do so on your terms. When I cross-dress, I reclaim and adapt the hyper-feminine ideal. Why not do the same with fat?

 

You didn’t really think you got your license, did you?

I live in a state with provisional license laws. If you are under 21 when you get your license, your license is provisional for two years. If you are over 21, then it is provisional for only one. If you get stopped by a cop for a moving violation during your provisional period, your license is suspended automatically for at least a month.

Why, I don’t know. Once the provisional period is up, people will drive as stupidly as they want. I don’t see why I should be punished more harshly than someone else for the same violation just because they had their license longer than I did. In fact, they should be punished more severely because, presumably, they have more experience and should know better.

I got my license when I was 20 and I am proud to say that I am a safe driver and will continue to be a safe driver whether my license is provisional or not. I am good in the winter and on the highway. I have avoided a number of major accidents by watching other people’s driving. My insurance premium is fairly low for someone my age, and I am just happy to not be the stereotype of the reckless young driver.

That said, you don’t need to drive like an idiot to have a beef with traffic laws. One of the laws that is increasingly popular these days, but that I have just never understood, is the concept of the graduated driver’s license. These are licenses with restrictions for people under 18, such as no driving after dark or no passengers other than immediate family. The restrictions vary from state to state, but you get the basic idea.

Okay, this is usually the point where I get a barrage of indignant comments to the effect of, “BUT YOUNG PEOPLE NEED THE PRACTICE!” Yes, young people do need practice. They need practice with safe adult drivers with valid licenses. However, this alone does not explain or justify the GDL.

I am not going to argue the restrictions here, whether they are right or whether they work. I am criticizing the concept itself. First of all, if we are going to have restrictions on inexperienced drivers, they should apply to people of all ages, not just those under 18. An inexperienced driver is an inexperienced driver, period. I was not subject to these restrictions because I was over 18, but I can think of at least 2 adults that maybe shouldn’t be burning rubber with abandon right away. Yet they have no restrictions.

The other problem I have is: why the hell are we giving these people licenses? By putting restrictions on that license, you are tacitly admitting that they aren’t really ready to drive yet, and you are basically giving them a license that they can’t use anyway because there are so many restrictions on it (again, depending on the state you live in). What’s the point? And do I really want a 16-year-old who the government says can’t handle young children on the road? Or even another adult passenger?

If you want young people to have more practice and to gradually increase their level of independence, why not have graduated *permits?* Make them go through six months of the maximum-restriction permit. Then, for the first three months that they would have had a restricted license, make that, instead, the last three months of permit instruction. The permit can have eased restrictions, like driving alone during the day and driving immediate family only. When they have graduated from the ease-of-restriction permit, THEN the teen can go for her license and actually get to enjoy the privileges that come with it and be totally prepared to drive to boot.

I just think it’s messed up. A license used to signify, “Hell to the yeah, I’m street legal!” Now it’s a statement to the effect of, “Here’s your license, but but but but but…” And the once-beaming teenager stares, in horror, at the inscription from the governor on the back of her license:

You didn’t REALLY think you got your license now, did you?

Then again, who cares what I think?

More about the sun: FA has a purpose

Tags

fat acceptance, fat life, fat stigma

Two days ago, I wrote a post comparing opponents of church-state separation to opponents of FA. The gist of the comparison was that neither group of people can conceive of the fact that it is not always about them. They do not realize that people can have mentalities and goals that have nothing to do with their own, and that when those people disagree, it is not a slam against them personally. If they are challenged on anything, it will be on their sense of entitlement. They will be challenged on the idea that we should, “Do this, or allow me to say this, or else.”

The Earth revolves around the sun. Planet Fat Acceptance has a sun around which it revolves, and it is acceptance of fat. Simple, no?

Not so fast. What does ‘acceptance’ entail and who makes fat acceptance what it is?

Fat people make fat acceptance. Fat people who are tired of being told that they are worthless, that their fat is under their control, and that human rights and respect are contingent on their controlling said fat. You do not have to be fat, of course, and there are different degrees of fat. Yet FA revolves around the cause and the collective experience of fat people.

Still, there is more to FA that just being a fun and safe space for fat people, and this is what people aren’t getting. The pressure to lose weight and the self-hatred associated with clothes shopping are part of the collective experience of fat people. For fat people who aren’t members of fat acceptance, Weight Watchers is a fun and safe specae for fat people. Everyone there knows what you are experiencing and knows how hard it is. Everyone has the same goal. There is a sense of comeraderie there.

Body shaming is another “fun, safe” activity for fat people when it is only fat people involved. We all have the same feelings, and when we shame ourselves and each other, we know where it is really coming from. If someone thinner than us did it, it would not be acceptable, but from a fat person, it’s true-to-life comedy.

Likewise, ways to cure obesity without weight loss dieting, surgery, or any other dangerous procedure could be a “safe, fun” topic for fat people. Treatments for obesity that had few to no negative side effects would be a ”safe, fun” topic for fat people. The disadvantages of being fat, discussed only in the company of other fat people, could be a “safe,” albeit not fun, topic for fat people. Another ”safe” topic for fat people along those lines is causes of obesity that are not related to one’s behavior. Exposure to chemicals, the struggle to feed oneself on a low-budget processed food diet, or living with that great Aunt Sally who never knew how to eat right and who therefore couldn’t teach you how. The stressors of life that foster depression. Those are all potential “causes” of obesity that many fat people will care deply about.

Everything I discussed is often by fat people for fat people. Fat acceptance is by and for fat people, too, but it doesn’t endorse or tolerate any of the above: stigmatization of fat, attempts at weight loss, or the idea that obesity is a disease that needs a cure. As such, FA is more than just a movement by fat people for fat people.

I see it all the time. Because the majority of fat people do not belong to fat acceptance and would very much like for fat acceptance to welcome the above “safe, fun”activities for fat people. We keep saying that all fat people are welcome in fat acceptance, right? This is to be a “safe, fun” space for all fat people, right?

Let us put aside, for a moment, that the whole world talks about fat in a negative manner and promotes ways to “solve” problem of being fat and that FA does not need to, and should not, jump on that bandwagon. This is not what fat acceptance DOES.

Do you get it? FA does not DO any of that stuff.

FA is a safe, fun space for fat people, but it is also a movement. A movement needs to have a core, a clear, detailed set of values that make it what it is. Otherwise, it is nothing and does nothing. Part of being in FA means accepting that obesity is not a disease that must be cured, to oppose the restriction of rights based on weight, and to promote body-positive or at least body neutral attitudes and behaviors. You do not have to like your body or always act happy about it. You do not have to like the situation your body places you in or see any positive in it. You don’t have to “accept” anything and just wait around for things to change rather than taking steps to improve your life.

It does mean that you accept several general ideals:

• Obesity is not a bad thing or a disease *in itself* and that obesity has advantages.
• You can lead a happy, fulfilling life at any weight.
• Respect, rights, and *health care* should not be contingent on weight.

I often hear people say that that agree with all of the above but that they still want weight loss for themselves. They might also say that do not believe in harming oneself in the quest for thinness but that FA should welcome a cure for obesity that did not involve self-harm.

The problem with that position is that it feeds into a culture of fat stigmatization. In a different culture and a different era, I would say that weight loss, through any method, was just a personal choice, the way some people choose to get piercings or tattoos. I would be okay with people looking for and promoting a cure for obesity or thinness the same way people promote hair dye or cosmetics. I would not take advantage of those options, encourage others to use them, or like them. Yet I would not oppose them.

As it is, our culture hates fat so thoroughly that there are next to no positive or at least neutral references to fat. Fat people are all but prevented from getting decent health care, kept from opportunities for advancement in employment, and from living the lives they want to live because of fat stigma and accessibility issues. As long as our culture holds onto the idea that it is bad to be fat and that life is not possible while fat, fat people will continue to be abused, regardless of whether and where blame is assigned. FA must challenge that, not find a kinder, gentler way of expressing fat hate. Furthermore, if we promote a cure for obesity in the current cultural climate that we live in, people might be pressured or outright forced to adopt in as a condition of receiving health care or being able to participate in society.

I do not even oppose weight loss measures now, because I believe in bodily autonomy and in freedom of speech. However, there is a difference between not opposing them and allowing those ideas to proliferate in FA spaces. There are people of all sizes in FA with eating disorders, with PTSD, and who are just plain tired of the whole world hating them and going out of their way not to look like them. We need  to have a safe space for those people.

If Christian theologians create a space to discuss the nature of the Eucharist, it is not censorship for them to insist that you agree that Christ actually is the Son of God or that you agree to follow professionally accepted standards of scholarship.

We can’t act as though we live in a vacuum. In a different world, FA would just be SA, where all sizes were equally catered to. In OUR culture, thin bodies have issues, as do all bodies, but fat people experience the bulk of social stigmatization. This is why we spend so much time focusing on just fat because that is where the greatest need is. Bodily autonomy includes the right to diet, to want a cure for obesity, or other actions that oppose fat acceptance, but we do not focus on the right to do those things because they are not under any risk. The right to just be fat is.

And enough about there not being “diversity” in FA. We can ALWAYS use more diversity in FA, but not the kind of “diversity” that is directly opposed to our goals. We can be conservative, liberal, moderate, Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, small fat, death fat, not fat, in ED recovery, mentally ill, short, tall, black, white, Middle Eastern, Chinese, atheist, a WLS-survivor, diabetic, hypertensive, working class, filthy rich, a  professional, a laborer, a woman, a man, a cross-dresser, and transsexual, ad infinitum.

Our people disagree about the role of government in health care, the health value of certain lifestyles, the ethics of certain lifestyles, and fat portrayals in the media. We disagree on how race, class, gender, etc. intersect with being fat. We disagree how how to raise children with healthy goals and good values. We disagree on just about everything-except for the basic goals of FA.

But you still need to be *for* the basic goals of FA.

If you want to promote weight loss for yourself and other interested parties but you believe in the bodily autonomy promoted by FA, believe that there is nothing wrong with being fat, and question the common ideas our culture has about fat and health, then you can be an ally. If you believe in rights, respect, and accessibility, then you can be an ally.

However, weight loss, cures for obesity, and fat negativity cannot and should not be promoted in FA spaces. Because that’s just not what FA is *for.*

FA isn’t just a space for fat people. Lots of spaces for fat people are anything but fat positive or even fat neutral. FA has a purpose, an ideological sun around which it revolves. If you do not revolve around that sun, then you are not part of the solar system of FA. You are, however, more than welcome to be part of out neighboring solar systems in our galaxy.

Welcome to Fat Planet.:)

Science lesson: The Earth revolves around the sun, not around you

Tags

faith politics, fat acceptance, fat stigma

Insiders know things. I have never identified as Protestant or Evangelical, but I have intimate ties with both of those communities. For most of my life, they were my primary exposure to the Christian world. As such, I know things that outsiders to Christian culture might not see, and what I am about to share is something we can all relate to as fat activists and as activists in general.

Proestants and Evangelicals have a curious tendency to make everything about them. This mentality is less prominent in the Catholic, Orthodox, and old Proestant (Lutherans, Anglicans, etc.) communities, but it is unfortunately on the rise in those areas as well. People with this mentality are almost exclusively on the extreme right-wing of the thought spectrum. To them, anyone to the left of Torquemada is not a genuine Christian but an atheistic imposter whose sole mission in life is to spread paganism, secularism, and moral relativism (often with no understanding of what those words mean). Everything in the world is judged according to whether it is for or against Christianity, their Christian denomination, or their idea of what their Christian denomination should be. If anything is not explicitly for Christians, it is automatically assumed to be opposed to Christians.

When someone asks you to watch how you speak, it is not the same as asking you to abandon your beliefs. No one is asking you to abandon your belief that Halloween is evil (although I personally wish you would at some point). You are entitled to say, “In my religion/background, Halloween is considered evil and I am concerned about this or that behavior that often happens on Halloween.”

However, if I tell you about my plans for Halloween during small talk about plans for the weekend, that is not the time to go into a towering rant about how much you hate that Satanic holiday Halloween and the degeneracy of the people that like it. (Yes, this actually happened to me last night). It would also be nice for you to LISTEN-not AGREE WITH, but LISTEN-to someone say, no, it is not the Devil’s holiday and we have never used it to hurt anyone. It does not mean the same thing to us that it does for you.

People that promote the separation of church and state* aren’t trying to tell Christians not to practice their faith openly or to influence the culture, nor are they trying to expunge Christianity from the culture in general. People believe in separation of church and state for ALL religions.** They do it because of the many abuses that have occured throughout history when they mix.*** People disagree about how it should be applied-funding for religious institutions, displays of religious symbols in public places, etc. and this is where it gets tricky. I agree that people can be overly politically correct in this area. The principle of separation of church and state in itself was not invented to “oppress” Christianity.

Basically, Christians need to stop entering every exchange and every conflict with the mindset that, “These people are evil and they are out to destroy me because I am Christian and Christians are oppressed.” It’s really not about you all the time.

Increasingly, I am seeing accusations of body policing of thin people by fat activists. Certainly, thin people can experience body policing and it’s not any more fun for them than it is for us. I don’t want people butting into my business, attributing stereotypes to me (a self-centered fashion obsessed teenager trying to look like a model, for example) or calling me names because I am thin. I don’t want people doing anything to me because I am thin because it’s my body.

At the same time, it is not always body policing to criticize someone’s behavior. If someone is shilling for a weight loss company after making a career out of being a role model for young girls, that is worthy of criticism. It is not the fact that she is on a diet that is problematic, but her promotion of that to a vulnerable audience. When a fat activist or plus size model chooses to lose weight or adopt the current obesity paradigm, we are not telling her not to diet. We ARE criticizing her involvement in a culture we feel is destructive and, since they have turned FA into a public platform, we might question what spurred their shift in priorities.

Discussions of healthism, I find, often get derailed into discussions of autonomy. Yes, you have the right to express opinions about health, healthy lifestyles, and their intersection with politics. I have never asked anyone to stop being vegetarian, to stop giving exercise advice, or to stop offering shopping tips to families on WIC or food stamps. I HAVE asked that people re-examine their language for prejudices and stereotypes about poor people when conducting these discussions. I have criticized our culture’s obsession with health and common health icons, like fruits and vegetables, not the desire to enjoy movement or fruits and vegetables. I have criticized the approach that some activists have taken that programs like “Let’s Move” would be good if they did not focus on weight. I do not believe the government should be in the business or promoting or providing incentives for leading the “right” lifestyles.

Naturally, you do not have to share any of the opinions I expressed above, but I will express them and it is not in any way a threat to your autonomy or a criticism of you.

Every now and then, someone will make the rounds of FA blogs and basically criticize fat acceptance for being fat acceptance. They want to talk about how much they hate being fat. They want to discuss a cure for obesity that doesn’t involve dieting or surgery. They don’t BLAME fat people, of course. They just want them to stop being fat because it obviously is an unhealthy, unhappy existence. They want to talk about the “other side” of obesity.

Our culture is full of opportunities of discuss the “other side” of obesity. That “other side” of obesity is all that really gets discussed. It is fat acceptance that is the “other side” of obesity. Because of the near total opposition to our ideas, we have created safe spaces to discuss the positive side of being fat, how to live a satisfying life while fat, and advocating for fat rights as we are. We discuss what it is like to be fat as well as [insert intersectional identity here]. Yet even this is too much for people opposed to FA. We do not do enough to talk about the “other side” of obesity.

Well, guess what. That’s not what we do. That’s not what we’re about. If you want to do that, go someplace else. FA is not for you, apparently, and there is nothing I can do about that. But I am not oppressing you by not allowing you to hijack my blog for a purpose to which I am opposed.

For the record, you do not HAVE to like being fat, disabled, or anything else you happen to be. You don’t have to agree with me or any other FA blogger. You don’t have to do anything, and it’s not my job to live your life for you. I provide options and alternative views. It’s not about “oppressing” you.

*************************

*Yes, Einsteins, I know that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not literally appear at any point in the Constitution. I actually did study American history, American government, and constitutional law, and I still support it. That old trope is American government 101 and it just isn’t as impressive or revolutionary as you think it is.

**Yes, there are, in fact, religions outside of Christianity. They are all equally “oppressed” by church-state separation. No, atheism is not the religion being promoted when religion is removed from the public square. Not everyone who does not adhere to religious practice is an atheist or a humanist.

***Enough of the argument that “Government can’t tell us what to believe or practice, but we can tell the government what our values are!” Just because someone does not ride in on horseback and issue a written decree that a national religion has been established does not mean that government is not interfering with private religious practice. If you influence a government to enshrine your teachings in law, fund your projects, accomodate your holidays, etc. at the expense of other religions and do not give people of other faiths appropriate avenues to challenge those privileges, that is effectively establishing a government religion. If I am Jewish and I want to protest my treatment at work, how am I supposed to do that if everyone in power is Christian and denies all my appeals? If I am a Muslim living in a Christian enclave that is very biased against Muslims, and it becomes common practice to recite Christian prayers, will I be able to sit out without risking my safety? Again, it’s NOT all about you. Enshrining your laws in secular government might make you feel good, but your actions have destructive consequences for other people.

For that matter, no government has ever rode in on horseback and established a religion without the consent and support of a faction of the citizenry. Regardless of who interfered first, government or people pressuring government to “reflect our values,” the result is the same. There is no meaningful difference between the two and it is disingenuous in the extreme to imply otherwise.

Joanna the Bishop commands you: Needles up!

Tags

fashion, personal projects

I love Halloween. I love everything about it. I love inventing costumes and adopting a new persona for a while. This year, I have decided I want to be a bishop. The reasons why is something I won’t address right now but in later updates.

So what do I wear and where do I find it?

I’m sure there are ready-made adult bishop costumes out there and that if I looked around, I could find plenty of material. Yet you never get exactly what you want, which is why I am making my own costume.

Yes, I will be sewing my own vestments, and this is from someone who has next to no experience sewing and who has never sewn a piece of clothing a day in her life. I thought it would be fun to try something new at the same time as doing something I love to do. I might like it.

The hardest part will be sewing the cassock. The design is simple-it is a robe that buttons in front. The hardest part will be sewing on the mini-cape and the collar.

I still have that nagging question: How big?

I will start off by measuring my height, the lengths of my arms, the circumference of my upper arms and shoulder, and my neck and wrists. I will draw out the front and back separately on design paper before I cut. When I cut, I’ll add a few extra inches for wiggle room. It is easier to trim the fabric than to add on. Those part I get.

When I make the front and back, I am just concerned about width. I don’t know if the width of the yard of fabric will cover me, or if I will have to sew attachment strips near the seams because it just…doesn’t…quite make it around. I will be duct-taping my chest, so that won’t be an issue, but that still leaves the rest of me. I want there to be two seamless front and back sections joined at two seams at the sides.

If I have to expand the width of the fabric, what do the seamstresses around here recommend? I don’t suppose it would kill me to do the fabric in three or four sections instead of two. Many graduation gowns are sewn that way, but I still would like to avoid that.

The “shape” of the cassock is a flowing robe, and like I said, I won’t have to worry about chest measurements because I won’t have a chest. I still want it to have the sleek look and not look like a sack. So now I have to worry about “shaping” the cassock without making it skin-tight, which might mean expanding the width of the fabric again. Grr, I’m back where I started.

I’m still undecided on the sash because I cannot decide whether I want to tie it or sew it closed. If I sew it closed, I will need to take hip measurements and make sure I can slide into it easily. This will mean top-of-hip, bottom-of-hip, and around-the-hips measurements. If I go around the hips, my sash will slide down to my ass. If I do below the hips, it will fall off my ass. My best bet is doing it (partially) above the hips, but then it might be too high up and I don’t want to strangle myself.

Trial and error, I suppose. I’m excited nonetheless. I think this will work out well.

Is there anything else I should know about sewing or adapting clothes for larger people?

Fiber: Keeps ‘Em Full (of Bullshit)

Everyone knows that fiber, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains keep you full. There is a commercial (about Mini-Wheats) that claims that their product keeps ‘em full, keeps ‘em focused.

Well, what everyone “knows” is very often wrong.

Whole grain products don’t last, at least for me. They are gone in a half hour. They don’t last any longer than processed foods. There are some whole grain foods that stay awhile. For me, it’s Wheat Chex, but otherwise, I don’t feel any difference.

Most processed foods-Velveeta, Spaghetti-Os, Spam, all that good stuff-last for two or three hours if I eat a whole meal. So if I want to be full and focused, I am better off frying eggs and Spam. If I want my fruits, I bring a cocktail cup.

Fruits, vegetables, and yogurt? Nada. They don’t even last a half-hour. They last 15 minutes. You know,  for foods that are supposed to be oh so healthy, fruits and vegetables don’t contain much of anything. They have some nutrients that you can’t get other places in the same amounts, so they are still important. Other than that, unless you really like the way they taste, or you have some medical condition or nutritional deficiency, they’re somewhat overrated.

Oatmeal? 15 minutes to a half hour.

Why, then, can’t I get through a day without someone shouting from the rooftops about the magical sating powers of teh fruits and teh veggies and teh whole grain and teh yogurt?

We all react differently to different foods, so it is entirely possible that for some people, those foods do the trick.

But I suspect that a lot of them, many of whom are on diets, are simply trying to convince themselves that they are satisfied. After all, if they admit that that raw broccoli and mineral water didn’t do jack shit, they would be admitting to still being a hungry, greedy fatty with no willpower.

I also think the people behind these eat-ur-fruits/veggies/yogurt/grains/protein-rich termites have a vested interest-money, political, whatever-in convincing people that this is really good stuff! Line our pockets and make us feel socially useful while being Full and Focused, non-fat and totally healthy!

What do you guys think?

Grocery Item #1: Erase the Stigma of Poverty

Tags

fat stigma, food politics, poverty and welfare, prejudice

Income disparities affect your food choices. That’s no secret.

I know this, but I found out just how true this is while coming up with my own budget. I want to know how much I can expect to spend on food a month if I want to get my basic needs met and feel satisfied. Naturally, being very low income by the time I leave, I will be doing most of my shopping at Dollar Tree. I’m okay with that. I like that I can get so much for so cheap and for the most part, I like what they offer. If I want something frozen, fresh, or anything else not offered there, I will have some money left over to go to a grocery store.

This is how you live on a low budget.

I suggested this to my mother, because she is always complaining about money. She said to me was that she didn’t want me eating junk and she didn’t want people thinking she couldn’t afford anything better.

On a totally different but somewhat related topic foodwise, there is this fad in the treatment of psychological disorders in children called attachment therapy. Its primary targets are adopted, foster, minority, and disabled children. For a more in-depth discussion of it, I recommend Advocates for Children in Therapy, but I will sum it up here.

The goal of this quack therapy is to force children to attach to new caregivers through trauma bonding, i.e. Stockholm Syndrome. The idea is that if you abuse the children, they will react and thereby release their anger that is preventing them from attaching to the new parents. The current parents will then literally treat them like babies and re-enact stages of child development in the hope that the child’s memories that that time period will be erased.

A number of abuse tactics are used in this so-called therapy, but some of them include isolation, excessive and pointless chores, the demonization of children, and poor diet. The theory is that these children, because of their laziness, nastiness, and overall worthlessness, will have to get used to lives of shoveling manure and living on stale bread and tomato soup.

What I noticed about these behaviors is the attitude that underlies them, namely that some diets and lifestyles are fit only for worthless people and that some people deserve no better. Menial labor and “junk” food are just punishment for the crime of being a person that society deems worthless.

If you look at the allowable diet for victims of attachment therapy-subsisting totally on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or cold chicken soup-it is clearly inadequate. I am not trying to redefine this diet as something healthful or that poor people should be proud of. It’s not. My point is that there is a reason that food like this is considered punishment for wrongdoing that has little to do with actual nutrition.

Going back to my mother’s comment about being ashamed of shopping at Dollar Tree for groceries, foods like the foods seen at DT are considered low-status. Only slovenly people at them, or at best, poor people trapped in the evil food system that only educated liberals can rescue them from. Neither is an enviable classification and neither is one that identifies me as a low-income person. Anyway, the reason these foods are so attractive to AT parents as punishment is, again, not because of the nutrition, but because of the low status these foods occupy as cheap processed garbage, fit only for poor people that can only work menial jobs like shoveling manure.

Big Liberty wrote a brilliant post, ‘The Conflation of Poor and Fat,’ about food access and poverty. I personally agree with her. There is no real evidence that the food consumed by poor people is directly related to, or causes, disease or obesity in those populations. I agree that such an argument is potentially classist. I have felt it all too keenly. I, and others, agree that the more important, and very much ignored, factors that contribute to health disparities in poor people include stigma and access to health care.

Let’s go back to attachment therapy for a minute. I have read a number of criticisms of attachment therapy, one of which stands out in my mind because of her comments about the diet offered. Her concern was not so much that the diet was calorically inadequate or that it had too few protein or other nutrients. It wasn’t that the food was cold, badly prepared, and was designed to confer inferior status on the child. No, her most stinging criticism was that it didn’t include fresh fruits and vegetables!

Yeah, people need fruits and vegetables, but that is NOT whatsoever my biggest conern with this diet. My biggest concern is A) not enough calories and B) the psychological abuse that it entails. But no, hers was the it didn’t contain the ”right” (read high status) foods. Plain fruits and vegetables aren’t enough either. No, they had to be FRESH, by golly! Talk about having screwed up priorities!

If the children were maintained on this type of limited, extreme low- calories diet, but it contained whole grains, fruits, and veggies, would she be complaining about that? If these children endure physical and psychological problems later in life, which they inevitably will, will she blame the PB&J? Or will she have the foresight to realize that, whatever the specifics of her diet, the more pressing issues for these children are calories, history of abuse, and access to medical care?

“Attachment therapy” foods are low status because of the people that eat them. Many of these people will also be fat, immigrants, or otherwise stigmatized people, which further reduces the desirability of that status symbol. This is part of the reason why, I think, certain foods are associated with fat people living in poverty.

Are all foods equally nutritious? No. They don’t all contain the same number of calories, the same number of nutrients, or the same amount of each nutrient. Yes, some methods of food preparation are better. Not all dyes and chemicals are safe to use in food, for example, and you need to follow certain procedures while canning in order to avoid botulism. Processed or unprocessed, organic or not, food tends to taste better and be in better condition when it spends less time on the shelf. Can these all impact health? yes.

My point here is that food choices tend to occur alongside factors such as low income, less health care, and membership in stigmatized groups of people. It is these confounding factors that may very well adversely impact health, not the food choices themselves. When poor fat people present with health problems, should we assume that their diet of processed foods is the culprit? Or is their station in life to blame?

What poses the greater danger to people’s health from eating processed foods? The foods themselves or the way society views you for having to buy them?

No, I don’t oppose making WIC vouchers redeemable at farmers’ markets. I don’t opposed allowing people on food stamps to buy haddock. It’s food, it’s harmless, and why shouldn’t they be able to do that?

My concern is:

How much is our desire for better food choices informed by science, economics, and the actual needs and wants of poor people? How much is it is the subconscious desire to avoid the stigma of poverty?

Man-Made Indeed

This morning, I decided that I should get back on  the FA blogging wagon and blog about something fat and/or food-related. This is, after all, an FA blog and I want to talk about something else besides the suckage of life.

So I was all set to force myself to write something in the hope I would find a bad-ass idea for a post in the mess that I was keying in…and…it happened.

Actually, it didn’t happen. Sort of. I was logging into my personal email account to retrieve my WordPress password when I got to the log-in page. THAT’S when it happened.

There was an advert for the One Campaign about world hunger, and it had the best tagline.

“Drought is an act of nature. Famine is man-made.”

At one point, famine was natural. No one had much food to go around, and if a drought or other disaster hit, everyone was SOL. Nowadays, there is plenty of food in the world (overpopulation and other climate issues might change that, though). We have more than enough agricultural technology and knowledge to fix the problem. It’s economics, politics, and in some respects culture that is preventing every person in the world from being fed.

That resonates with me. However…that’s not the only thing that came to my mind. The FIRST thing that came to my mind was the media. The video featured a conventionally attractive girl, so immediately, I thought, “She’s talking about body image!” It took me a second or two to realize what it was about.

Anyway, that statement about famine being man-made is applicable to both cases.

The body cannot tell whether it is being starved willingly or unwillingly. It is in a state of famine nonetheless. When you restrict yourself to eating certain food or a certain number of calories, your heart or your bones or whatever does not have the brain to know, “Oh, she’s on a diet today.” Even if your body knew, that wouldn’t change how it would react. It still needs to work.

The disconnect is astounding. I tell people what counts as a starvation diet-say, under 1000 calories-and I tell them, you know, Europeans during WWII had to live on that for years. They act shocked, but when I tell them their diet of 1000 calories is just as damaging, they go blank.

But it’s for my health! I don’t want to be fat!

Okay, is <1000 calories starvation or not.

Starvation is starvation. That won’t change no matter how much you don’t want to be fat.

Heal Thyself, O Clueless One

Tags

education, friends and family, future plans, mental illness, personal, trauma, vocation

Okay, some good news.

I talked to my mother about my moving out and we seem to have come to an understanding. I explained to her how much it sucks to live in a Section 8 building and not be able to own a decent car, work more than a certain number of hours a week, etc. because they will cut you off of assistance. I impressed upon her that I will never get anywhere in life if I stay here, which means she will have to support me forever. Then, in turn, I won’t be able to support her when she needs me. Of course, I don’t intend to support her anyway unless she improves her life, but I didn’t mention that. The sole purpose of this exchange was to make her like the idea and to make moving out as drama-free as possible for me. She seemed really receptive to that idea. The next step is actually making plans to move out and making sure she does not interfere in the process. If you make it sound good for her and assure her that you’re not leaving her all alone, even if it’s not true, she tends to go along. It is unfortunate that my mother thinks like a child, but there are times when it works to your advantage.:)

Turned out better than I had hoped.

The problem is talking to my college counselors about my transfer plans. One of them is great. He pays attention to what you want and what your situation is and try to help you get there. If he likes and believes in you, he will go above and beyond. If I tell him what my situation is emotionally, I think he will be very receptive.

I was originally planning to transfer to a college out of state, but I don’t think this will work now. I want to recover from my trauma and my emotional issues, and this will not happen if I am separated from my psychiatric team, my (supportive) family, and my parish. It is really important to me that I finish receiving my sacraments in the Diocese of Portland (I did not receive them all yet. Church law, yoiu know). I don’t want to have to worry about adjusting to a new state, finding a new job, taking a full course load of upper-level classes, finding a new treatment team, not being near loved ones, having to establish new relationships, extracurriculars and worrying about money, going back home, having a place to live when the campus closes, ad infinitum.

It’s a LOT to take on. Plus, I’m just not prepared. This whole situation has interfered with my education and my work. So I’m really not ready academically and financially to leave here either. I have been falling behind in my classes and have barely touched college prep because I just don’t have the energy to go to interviews, write essays, go to the meetings, take the entrace exams, and all that bullshit. I don’t have transportation, so I can’t do much of the stuff I am supposed to do anyway, which sets me back even further.

Blah blah blah.

There’s this one lady, though, that had given me good advice up until now, and I really like her. Then she said something that pissed me off, and it’s a great example of cluelessness and privilege in action. I explained my (possible) diagnosis of PTSD, the disruption to my life, and all the reasons why I just wasn’t ready to move on. It’s not like I was asking for advice. This is my decision. Deal with it. I was looking for someone to vent to.

She told me that I didn’t want to hang around here and that I would be better off moving on.

NO WAY!!! The problem is that I can’t yet, and forcing myself to move on won’t help. It will only make the symptoms more deeply entrenched. But Jesus, how dumb is that comment? Why is it that when you have mental health issues or are a survivor of trauma, people talk to you like you are stupid?

So I explained why I didn’t want to leave (again). Primarily because I don’t have what I need and I don’t want to leave my support system.

She said, “You can still move out and move to a new place where you can go to college and live the life you want.”

Head meet wall. Did she not hear ANYTHING I just said?

She told me not to worry about money because there were lots of job opportunities where I was going (obviously blissfully unaware of what I said about problems with finding employment and balancing that with schooling.) Besides, you don’t uproot yourself and start a new life without savings. You just don’t.

This is someone who comes from an urban background and has a bachelor’s degree. She has NEVER heard of PTSD. Granted, not everyone will be an expert on it, but in this day and age, who hasn’t at least HEARD of it? Christ! Especially with that kind of background. I’ve known about it since I was a kid. Kids know about it.

She told me something I already knew and that she had told me before anyway, that there was a great Catholic center at one of the colleges I was looking at. It was very supportive so I wouldn’t have to worry(!)

Hello! That requires time to hang out at the center, which I won’t have, and it requires the skills and energy to establish a WHOLE NEW support system. And when you become attached to a parish, they become your family and you don’t just fucking leave them. Especially when they are the only real family you have.

Yeah, I’m sure the Catholic center is great. It looks great. I’m excited to go there WHEN I AM READY! That’s IF I go to that college. I might go somewhere else.

So I summed it up, getting ready to end the conversation.

“I just want to recover to some degree first from all this mess.”

Then comes the most incredible comment of all: “Well, you’ll still have it six months from now. What’s the big deal?”

Uh, the big deal is you don’t leave mental health symptoms untreated and you don’t toss a newly diagnosed mental patient head first into the clusterfuck that is Teh Real World. My symptoms have already gone untreated for some time now and they have gotten worse. Fail.

Fail fail fail.

Then again, if you are a normal person with a normal life, it doesn’t make sense to you, does it? Why don’t those crazies stop being so goddamn crazy? It’s so much more fun!