Sunday, March 27, 2011

Belly Appreciation Pix.




I posted these photos on my Tumblr today. It was really very scary. I lost one follower over this. My boyfriend supported me and posted sweet comments, though, and that felt good. I didn't post the pictures thinking "I'm so hot and I wanna get compliments". I did it to hopefully show some body diversity and positivity. I also did it because I feared it.

The first one is taken with my cell phone cam, and the others with my webcam - same light and clothing. You can tell the difference. It's hard to position yourself so that you get a picture of your full belly, so none of them shows my face. It wasn't meant to be a "headless fatty" thing.

My belly is jiggly and soft, yet somewhat firm. When I gain weight, it always seems to go there first. My fat fetish seems very belly-focused - I love fat bellies on everyone but myself. My own makes me vaguely horrified. This is probably a normal reaction to your own body, given our culture. There are lots of negative messages about belly fat, and I often feel like people are scared of liking a belly, lest it kills you in the end. But it shouldn't be that way. You shouldn't be scared of your own flesh and bone. I want to feel calm about my belly, even if there are risks. There are risks to every body type and lifestyle. That shouldn't be a reason to hate your figure.

Reading about others' thoughts and looking at their pictures, I've gained some kind of respect for my belly. When you look at your own, it always feels OMG HUGE AND HORRIBLE, but maybe that's just the way we're conditioned to think. Other people's bellies look natural and beautiful, even if they're bigger than mine. I like fat, and I enjoy seeing fat bellies, but my own still kind of scres me. That's why I'm posting pictures of it, to make it more real and also less scary for myself.

So there it is.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Conflicted.


Very crappy photo= me standing on a scale. For those who use lb’s, it’s about 200 pounds. Not that it really 
matters. 

Once again, I’m in a place where I feel like dieting (no, not crash dieting, just “eating less and exercising”). No one can really help me, because I have to find my own way in this issue. It’s hard. The majority opinion is that I should absolutely do something about it, because a lot of it is visceral (belly) fat, and my BMI is 35, and it’s dangerous. The minority opinion is that I would just gain the weight back, and fat isn’t as dangerous as people like to think, and I should aim for self-acceptance instead. 

I’ve thought about this long and hard, many times, for about the last 12 years. I always end up leaning on the fat acceptance view. It’s the more critical one, for one thing. People like to straw man it as: “I wanna eat so I’ll accept my fat and just say lalalala I’m not listening when someone says it’s dangerous.” This is very far from the deep-
thought, critical blogs I’ve read.

The people who lost weight seem to gain it back in almost all cases. I know one or two people who lost weight and kept it all off. One of the most striking yo-yo examples is my own Dad. He has been battling his weight for 20 years, going on all kinds of healthy eating plans and exercising. He’s now fatter than ever and diabetic. My family thinks it’s because he eats too much. I have to wonder, if he would be smaller, had he not dieted. Or maybe he would be the same size either way, considering that his father got fat at the same age and was also diabetic. 
Maybe the two things are connected?

Furthermore, my mental health should come first. I have been struggling with depression for two years now, and I need to keep my head above the water. I had some eating disorder symptoms when I was young, and was obsessed with weight for so long, and I don’t want to go back into that mindset. I’m battling a really powerful self-loathing, not to sound dramatic. I worry about that. Maybe that, more than anything else, is the reason I’m leaning on fat acceptance. I’m not sure if I could just “diet sensibly”. I worry that I could not. 

Or maybe the biggest question is: would I lose something important of myself and my power and courage? Would I lose the part of me that could inspire other people? Would I lose my way? 

Why do I always go back into fear mode? Is it just an emotional response, perhaps a logical/”common sense” reasoning for wanting to take the easy way out? Maybe I just don’t want to believe that fat acceptance is true, or right for me, because it scares me to always be thought in the wrong. It scares me to be the glutton in anybody’s eyes, or to be the ugly one, or just damn ignorant. The last one stings the worst, because I do want people to see me as intelligent and critical. 

Or maybe it’s just reasonable concern about my real health risks. In which case, if I can’t diet, I will have to learn to live with it. I can always comfort myself with the knowledge that dieting might make me fatter in the long run, thus increasing the risks. 

Arghhh brain is fuming must stop thinking now

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Heal the World? Nah, Let's just Blame the Parents.

Discussions on childhood obesity tend to run in predictable ways. One of the things I hate most about them is how they ignore the societal issues behind eating fast food.

A recent example is an article found in the Pundit, written by Deborah Coddington and titled "Fight Obesity - Nationalise the Dairies!" Apparently the title is a cynical one, and her main concern here is that nationalizing anything is terrible and everything is up to the individual's own choices. Obviously, she feels she is the voice of reason in suggesting something as novel as - parents being responsible for their children's food choices. Wow. This sounds common sense and even smart, if you look at it on the surface level. Which is why I feel like writing about it and breaking down why it's NOT smart at all.


The Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand (Spanz) – no less – wants restrictions on what dairies near schools can sell during certain hours.
We're talking about food here, folks – possibly fizzy drinks, chippies, pies, lollies, ice creams. Stuff that, if eaten sensibly, in moderation, will not do you any harm at all.

"Sensibly", "in moderation", being the operative words here. Because we all have the same idea of what they mean, and because we all know fatties do not eat moderately. Mind you, I give her credit for saying that it's OK to eat these foods. Or I would, if she didn't undo her own point later by suggesting that parents not give their children money for this type of food.

Then comes the big slap in the face at poor people:


Not so poor, though, that they can't afford to buy the odd pie or ten.

Poor people! They're not really poor, they just waste all their money on junk food. That's why they're so fat. This is where the class stuff comes in and Coddington gleefully and almost proudly glosses all over it. In most countries, junk food really is cheaper than "healthy" food. Many poor people actually have to work long hours at their low-paid jobs, sometimes work two or three jobs to support their families. The fact that they don't have the time or money to prepare nutritious meals is actually completely natural. It's an inevitable fact enforced by their lives and their poverty. In other words, it's not a choice in all cases. If you had to feed a family of five with 20 bucks a day, what would you buy? Five veggies a day or Hamburger Helper? Rich people do have the choice, because they can choose to stop at the most expensive supermarkets, buy the best produce available, and even hire someone to cook for them. It's easy for them to make snide remarks about the poor eating habits of poor people (pun intended), but it would be harder to actually discuss or, god forbid, attempt to change the economic reality of their society.

Now follows the predictable parents-are-at-fault speech.

How about this idea? Parents take some responsibility for their offsprings' health. They don't give them any money and instead, put two pieces of bread together with some vegemite in between? That's novel. Add an apple, a bottle of water, and make them walk to school.
Most articles on childhood obesity contain this idea in some form. What Coddington is essentially doing is releasing dairies and fast food outlets of all responsibility. If they market fast food for children, there's nothing we can - or should - do about that. Companies should be allowed to be free! What is this, Soviet Russia?

Blaming the parents is actually the easy way out. It sounds smart enough and appeals to what people already think, but the real messages is that society cannot, will not, change for you. It is always the individuals who must change. Instead of raising wages and benefits, or making fresh produce more available near schools and poor areas, or even introducing free school meals - let's make the parents feel guilty and put vegemite sandwiches in their kids' lunch boxes. Problem solved! (I feel like I should mention that white bread and vegemite isn't actually the most nutritious meal either. In fact, I might argue that children get more nutrition out a burger meal. But I don't want to start a big nutritional flamewar.)

I'd like to point out that I don't think any of these things would necessarily decrease childhood obesity. In fact, I should be putting "obesity" into quotation marks, because it's impossible to really measure how fat children are without seeing them. And even if you do see a fat child, it might do them no good to interfere. Children are growing, their bodies change constantly, and most kids I've known have been chubby, skinny, and everything in between before they're 13. I question how this is going to be harm their healths (except in the more extreme cases). I'd be more worried about their minds and what they learn from the constant humiliation of diets at a young age.

But Coddington is just coming to that:

Then when they're at school, Spanz could force them to do some PhysEd, just like the bad old days. Oh, sorry, I forgot, we can't hurt or humiliate them anymore can we, if they're not good at running, or jumping, and come last, or fall over. In these post-modern days of child-centred learning, it's the self-esteem which is paramount.

Wow, so self-esteem is valued over competitive sports? That's terrible. Mind you, I wouldn't be against PhysEd if it were exercising in a way that feels fun - something most children already do on their own. But if you teach children that exercise is all about competition and being picked first for the team, will they want to exercise later in life? I recall learning one thing from PhysEd at school: exercise is not for me. I haven't exercised much in my adult life. I'm not saying it's all the school's fault - I'm just not a very athletic person - but I do blame the school for some of my aversion to exercise and fitness. I liked first grade PhysEd, because it was playing and dancing to music on our own. I actually question the value of teaching all children to play baseball or soccer.

We're only allowed to humiliate smokers, because they're a drain on the health system. Hang on, aren't obese people a drain on the health system too....?

How about we don't dehumanize anyone by calling them "a drain on the system", and we don't humiliate anyone? I'm not even sure what Coddington is saying here. Is she actually in favor of humiliation, as long as it makes people live healthier? Wouldn't that amount to government interference and go against individual choices? Her article doesn't go deeper into this, so I can't tell. But I dare say this passage reveals Coddington's true colors: she's all about individual choice, as long as she doesn't have to pay for others' choices with her tax money. So a nanny state that makes people eat healthy might be A-OK, as long as you don't limit capitalism and the freedom of companies.


Next stop on the gravy train to Whingeville: ever-widening gap between so-called rich and poor.

"So-called rich"? Interesting. Coddington seems to be suggesting that if any social reforms are made, it would only make things worse. Let's keep everything the way it is now, because it's (going well for her) a risk to change anything. Of course, she straw-mans the idea of fast food restrictions by talking about nationalising the dairies etc. I'm not sure how awful that would really be, but it sounds suspiciously like "any restrictions amount to socialism!!!!!1". 

Humiliating children for their own good is a ridiculous idea. Making lower-class parents feel guilty for their children's "obesity" is simply a cop-out. I'm not against children eating fast food, but I wouldn't mind some restrictions on fast food companies. They should have accountability when they're marketing to children. Companies should have accountability, period. Parents already feel guilty enough, and they do take responsibility for their children. Let's demand more of those those who just want to make money. 

Thursday, January 20, 2011

My boyfriend Toby has shared some feelings on his gender identity on tumblr. He raises the issue of being a transman but having some typically feminine interests:

I’ve never felt happier and calmer about my identity since I realised that’s all bullshit, and I can be a man regardless of how “feminine” I am. I’d never say that a cis man is not a man just because he liked those “girly” things as a kid, or he isn’t into sports, or he has long hair, or whatever else. So why was I invalidating my male identity based on that stuff? Why can’t I be a man, regardless of my behaviour? Should I have to be extra masculine, more than a cis man, to “prove” I’m male?


I'm still in "OMG my boyfriend is so awesome <3 <3 <3" mode, but I thought his piece was genuinely mature and well thought out. Since we first talked about his trans feelings, I've learned a lot about gender. I've made assumptions in the past and thought in terms of gender binary. This is helping me grow and see that the variety of people. 


I feel Toby has had many important epiphanies about gender, and this is certainly one of them. So proud of you baby. :* 

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Mike & Molly - Where It Fails

I haven't done this in a while, but I feel like blogging about this show. So you know, I will. Here we go. *plunges*

I wanted to like the new CBS comedy Mike & Molly. It's about fat people, and it has two actors I really like, the adorable Melissa McCarthy and Swoozie Kurtz. Here, however, they have nothing to work with. The premise is that a fat cop and fat school teacher who meet at an Overeaters Anonymous meeting - start dating. Well, it has "fat people" and "dating" in the same show. That's a plus. On the other hand, the show also takes for granted that fat people=overeaters. Almost all of the jokes are based on fat, so it seems to assume fat = hilarious too. Sigh. 

This is not a hateful show. It's well meaning and tries to be kind, and it didn't trigger any of my issues. But if you're going to make a show specifically about fat people, it would be nice to see something a little more... well, revolutionary? This is the kind of show that scratches on the very shallow surface of fat acceptance, but falls short because so many things should be addressed, and most of them went completely undiscussed here.

The first episode circles around fat jokes, sassy Black friends, brainless sisters who get high. It's not very ambitious as far as sitcoms go. Mike meets Molly, Mike tries to ask her out, but then he breaks a table and injures his pinky, and there's commotion. And then they meet again and he chickens out again. And then, as he comes to investigate a robbery at Molly's house, he finally asks her out. End of episode 1. In episode two, we have Mike and Molly's first date. Mike shops at the Big&Tall store, cue more fat jokes. Molly tries on some clothes, fat jokes again. Then Molly, who's sneezing constantly, takes too much cough syrup and is completely high for their date. Her mother makes fun of Mike's new sweater, about twenty times. Molly yells at the waiter that they may be fat but don't make any assumptions that they're "dessert people". Then she orders a creme brulee. At the end of the date, it's a bit sweeter and they obviously like each other. But really, after a long episode of fat jokes, who's still watching? 

So in the end, it is just a sitcom, and it commits the gravest crime of sitcoms: it's not funny. At all. I didn't laugh once, and I laugh easily.The laugh track, of course, couldn't stop cracking up. Most of the jokes are puns - about being fat, at that - and this kind of humor rarely works. I'm a little confused; if they can't write a funny joke, why not make it a drama? Or a dramedy like Gilmore Girls - no laugh track, witty banter, warm moments, ordinary people?

The good thing is, they have obviously tried to dust up some of the clichés. The Black sidekick is the slim one. (Albeit still sassy and talkative.) The fat people are aware of their weight and talk openly about it. There's no scene with a fat girl overeating as her thin friends look on with disgust. In fact, there's a scene where the fat girl watches her thin mother and sister eat, and they tell her to indulge.

Let's stop there. They. Tell her. To indulge. And her mother says she's not fat, just big-boned, it's in the genes.

This was the point where I realized I'm not in the target group. I would have killed to have that mother. My mother made me feel bad for my weight throughout my childhood. (And I wasn't even overweight, let alone fat.) Even if she's chubby and my father's fat, she wouldn't admit it's in the genes. Even if a doctor once told her it is. It's all about eating and/or exercise, and it's my fault. 

Now, I'm trying very hard to not make this about my own Mommy issues. But Molly's Mom on the show is made to look like an old-fashioned idiot who knows nothing about fat. Molly shoots her down with "Bones don't jiggle, Ma", and gripes about not getting enough support. It's obvious that we're supposed to think Molly's the enlightened one, realizing it's all about her own effort. Meanwhile, her pothead sister and carefree Mom eating the cake are being ignorant and irresponsible.

Suddenly, this sounds familiar: women eating and being scolded for being bad examples. The eating one is oblivious/ignorant, the one on the treadmill is the smart one. It's just that they have the fat girl on the treadmill this time. Therein lies one problem with the show: a simple role reversal isn't enough. You need to question the underlying values. Maybe I'm asking too much of a sitcom, but still.

There isn't even enough role reversal going on. It's like they looked at a list of fat clichés - Black fat sidekick - and turned it into a slightly turned-around version - Black THIN sidekick. Fat woman can't be desirable - fat woman is the object of attraction. The fat guy, however, is still shy and socially awkward. And it's up to him to ask her out because he's the man. Of course, there's a flurry of issues here - why doesn't the thin sidekick get interested in the fat girl too, why are Mike and Molly both single to begin with, why is Molly living with her mother and sister, why does she dress in incredibly drab clothes..? All of these things scream "fat cliché" to me. 

The scene I found the most offensive: in episode one, Mike starts to overeat because he's so depressed! Oh, dear! Of course, he does this in a public place where everyone can see him. The thin sidekick shows up to take away his food - "a suicide with meatball bullets" - because he already lost three and a half pounds and has to keep it down. Mike says, "Big deal, my farts weigh three and a half pounds." Which is so self-loathing that it doesn't register as funny to me. It's true though, three and a half pounds is not much, you can gain and lose that much from eating/digesting one heavy meal. And if he has overeating issues, it shouldn't be about how many pounds he loses; it should be about dealing with the underlying issues. This isn't The Biggest Loser. 

So the show has, at the very least, a problematic attitude on fat. It's your own fault, it's something you have to work on, it makes you depressed, it means you have food issues. You can still have a decent job and a love life, but you can't forget for a second that you are fat. It's not very funny to me. In fact, it's kind of depressing. I think I'll stick to Roseanne

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Diet Shows And Why I Hate Them.

I can't watch diet or exercise shows. It seems they're becoming more and more common. Dieting and lifestyle changes are taking over TV, like they took over magazines at some point. It bugs me. I'm not necessarily against the diet mentality being discussed, but I hate when it becomes the dominant, or even the only, viewpoint out there.

You Are What You Eat is a fat-shaming show. The idea is that an overweight person's diet is scrutinized, and often mocked, by a horrified nutritionist. There are fridge raids, there is jiggling fat on camera. There are snarky, "funny" comments about various foods. The underlying idea is that a relatively normal diet is HORRIBLY DANGEROUS and you have to be stopped NOW if you're eating too many fats, carbs or salts compared to the recommended daily amounts. There's no chance to talk back and disagree with the nutritionist.

I know some people learn healthy eating through the show, but the method is pure scare tactics. And - I'm gonna say this - I don't think learning to eat healthy is a positive goal per se, if it comes with a lowered self esteem and public shaming. Mental health over physical, always.

The Biggest Loser is a particularly odious case, because it puts fat people in a boot camp where they're forced to have too much exercise. It's a competition over who loses the  most, so the idea is to crash diet, be publicly weighed, and then possibly lose over the gain of 1 pound. It violates against all the rules we've learned about healthy dieting: not dieting too fast, not overexercising, not starving yourself, etc. I can imagine most contestants don't keep the weight off. No matter how high their motivation, who can keep up with a boot camp mentality their whole lives?

There was one diet show I was able to watch, a British one called Freaky Eaters. Despite the title, I found it to be fairly positive, and watched several episodes on Youtube. The idea of the show is not to lose weight or eat in any predefined way. Rather, they delve into the psychological reasons behind the eating (usually these are people who only eat one kind of food: potatoes, white bread, nothing but meat, etc.). They also have a doctor who checks for any physical damage done by the diet. Usually, it's not scare tactics. But I stopped watching when, in one episode, a woman with a candy-binging problem was told, "Your BMI is higher than it should be, it's 27." Um, but that's only two points above "normalweight", and according to many studies it's the slightly overweight who are healthiest... She was then told she is at a high risk for diabetes, "and once you get diabetes, it's never cured, you have it for your whole life." (I'm paraphrasing because I can't stand to see it again.) Who doesn't know this? And yet some people have diabetes and manage to live a fairly normal life. It's not a death sentence.

This angered me, and I haven't seen the show since. It just seemed so hypocritical. It seemed like they were saying, "You have no real health problems at present, but if your BMI is over 25, YOU CERTAINLY WILL. This gives me the right to talk to you like a child, even if you're here to fix your problems." There's a risk of overclosing on a show like this; this is someone who already wants to change and is willing to do something, so there's no need to shame them. Not that there ever is, but you lose all "tough love" credibility when nagging or scaring people enters the picture.

Who watches these shows? Who goes on them? I imagine the people on the shows are often desperate to change, either because of the social pressure to be slim and healthy, or because their lifestyles genuinely make them feel bad. But how much are they truly helped, and what percentage of the viewers is in fact enjoying the humiliation? I've heard people talk about these shows in tones of amazement and judgement: "Can you imagine, that guy was eating five bags of chips a DAY", or, "She said she doesn't eat a lot, but of course when they opened her fridge, they found all this junk..."

The worst part is, I sometimes think in the same way. I haven't watched any episodes of You Are What You Eat, but I have read articles on several episodes. Seeing a table spread with someone's weekly diet can give me a positive jolt: "Ah, I eat a lot better than that!" It gives you a sense of relief, but I'd say the relief is false; it's not based on being OK the way you are and making your own choices. It's more like an underlying idea that eating healthy is a contest where you've just won. You've proven yourself to be normal and acceptable, not a big bad fatty. The person on the show should be ashamed of how they eat, and you're right to eat the way you do. This goes against everything I believe about eating and health. Is this the very feeling people are seeking when they set out to watch a diet show?

What worries me about this trend is that shows like this present only the least healthy-living fat people, setting them up against a strict slim expert. The effect is much the same as in the clichéd comic trope of  "angry doctor stares at fat patient standing on scale". The experts have to nag at stubborn fatties. It's funny to shame fat people. It's shocking to see how fatties live. We're problem people in need of an intervention, and the reason for the fat can always be located and removed easily by valiant experts. This is, of course, not a realistic image of all fat people. It has nothing to do with what the studies say, and it might in fact change nothing.

One thing is for sure: this type of TV reinforces stereotypes about fat people and food. And that's just not healthy.

Comments Policy

All comments are screened. This serves several purposes:
-no spam gets in
-I notice and read every comment as they come
-no trolls get through
It's nothing personal, and I can't pre-approve any user's comments. In the days of Fatly Yours, I deleted maybe 5 % of all comments.

I live in Finland, so take that into account; you may have to wait up to 12 hours to see your comment up here. If it takes longer, it may be a Blogger glitch. Feel free to re-post your comment.

A comment will be deleted if:
-it's clearly aggressive
-it's clearly spam
-it's condescending and aggressive beneath a calm surface ("I respect your views, but don't you know fat kills xxx Americans a year, and everybody knows that science says...", or "Everyone can be what they want, but a transman is NOT a real man, no matter what they say...") This rule is mainly so that I don't start a big flamewar with any commenter. I think I did that a few times during Fatly Yours, and it was of no use to anyone.

-you wrote it only because I dared criticize your favorite TV show/comic, and it doesn't really offer anything for the discussion. (This includes "lighten up, it's meant to be funny!!!") If you have an argument/analysis that goes against mine, I'd love to hear it though.

-Anything like "I love how you delete comments that disagree with yours". My blog, my rules. Deleting has a lot more to do with the tone than the content.

If you don't like fat people, gays, transpeople, etc. ...
You can still comment here, BUT I don't want to hear a long diatribe against people like me and/or my boyfriend. Ask me questions, challenge me, sure. But hate on me? No. I don't have energy for that.

Any questions about the comments policy or anything else: deniselleDOTswanATgmailDOTcom.