Tired Weight Related Nonsense

Once you become someone who believes in body acceptance and health at every size, you start to notice just how infused our society is with weight charged statements. And you begin to find these weight charged statements utterly eye roll inducing. They've become cliches. It's boring. It's tired. It's helping no one. So I advocate for a few of these particularly annoying statements to just end. Here's my short list:

1) "Skinny bitch," or any other disparaging statement about thin women, which I wrote about in great detail before.

2) Baby bodies--these statements are the ones which hit at any of the weight related impacts that pregnancy has had or will potentially have on your body. Being someone who has not yet had kids, I know that I'm chastising others for something I haven't directly experienced, but hear me out. It's often in the context of, "Pregnancy made my _____ (examples: hips wider, stomach fat, skin stretch marked). If I wouldn't have been pregnant I'd probably still ______ (examples: fit a size 0, be able to see my abs)." As someone who's pre-baby body already has wide hips and a non flat stomach, I experience these statements as: "Your body sucks. I'm not supposed to have this body. It's not my fault." Another context that I hear the baby bodies statements goes a little something like this, "My body's the best right now it will ever be. In 5 (10, 15, what have you) years when I have a couple of kids it will never be like this again!"

The critical issue in each of these cases is the disparagement of a certain type of body. The relationship to the pregnancy is just incidental. See, if we accepted all bodies, then there wouldn't be the same level of hatred directed at post-pregnancy bodies. It's also a perspective which is overly focused on the aesthetic/sexuality of the female body and ignores the amazing function of bringing babies into the world. (Not to say that's its only purpose, of course!) I mean, can't we just take a minute to appreciate that those changes are the byproducts of a pretty damn impressive process?

3) "I can't eat like that." This statement is usually directed at a thin person who tends to eat non nutritious foods but not gain weight, the idea being "YOU can eat like that, but I can't." It's closely related to the skinny bitch stuff and falsely promotes the idea that health and weight are the same thing. Other statements like this include, "If I eat ____ (fill in fatty food) it will go straight to my hips."

The truth is that no one "can eat like that." It has nothing to do with your weight. If you eat really crappy foods (high in saturated fats, sugars, and salts and low in nutritional value) it will eventually catch up to you (heart problems, high blood pressure, etc) regardless of your weight.

So please, next time you are tempted to make one of these tired weight related comments, I beg you to reconsider. Not only because body acceptance is such a happier way to live, but also because that other stuff's not even clever, new, or interesting. Seriously.

Daddy Issues

Yesterday was father's day...a pretty touchy day for those of us who don't have sparkling relationships with our male parental unit. In other words, a touchy day for people like me. I've written before about my views on family.

Obviously, fathers play a big role; whether present or not, positive or not, the choices that fathers make can and do have real and lasting impact on their kids. However, Peggy Drexler in the Washington Post takes it too far:

No matter how successful their careers, how happy their marriages, or how fulfilling their lives, women told me that their happiness passed through a filter of their fathers' reactions...

I'm sorry. That's bull. Sure, this may be true for many women and in many situations. I'll give you that. But, as Erin Gloria Ryan said over at Jezebel (where I got this link)...

While I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data, when there are enough anecdotal exceptions to a generalization, that generalization should no longer be made. The claim that all women factor their father's judgment into everything seems like a reach, especially considering how often women do things that their parents would probably not care to know about.

Right on. When I read things like Drexler's piece I get a little enraged. I feel that I turned out pretty awesome *despite* my dad. It has taken me many years and a lot of growing up, but I can finally say I understand that my dad always had good intentions for me in his heart of hearts. However, schizophrenia and a tendency for verbal abuse meant that even the good lessons I've learned from him are tinged with sadness and anger. I don't use his flawed judgement as a filter. That would be foolish.

But enough about me...something else happened this Father's Day weekend that makes this piece all the more infuriating. Two of my dearest friends Myranda (who contributes here) and her wife Brittany brought a beautiful daughter into the world. Her name is Liliana.

So when I read something that posits:

Part of this need takes form early in life-when a father is a girl's portal to the world of men. I call fathers a girl's GPS-gender positioning system. It's how women begin to orient themselves in a confusing and (especially of late) fluid landscape of gender expectations.

Absent that GPS, many women find themselves adrift.

...I get a defensive. Not only because I, personally, do not like this reductionist view of what fathers mean to daughters, but also because statements like this paint an unjustly grim view for girls growing up like Liliana and erase their perspectives and very lives. I am all for a nuanced discussion of gender and parents role in gender expectations, but Drexler doesn't do that. She seems to take on a simplistically nostalgic view for times when gender roles were stricter.

Ok, ok. I might be putting words in her mouth. I guess my main point is this: A lot of people grow up like me, with fathers who aren't positive, and yet we find a way to cope and grow. And more and more people are going to grow up like Liliana, in loving, two-parent households that happen to be same sex couplings. Do we really think that this will lead to some deficiency in their development?

It seems some of us do. Drexler would counter:

Nontraditional families are gaining acceptance everywhere, from TV sitcoms to our own neighborhoods. But even in such families that are successful in every other respect, I found that the absence of a father during a girl's formative years resonates into adulthood.

Oh wow...

All I can say is that the passing of years will be the proof. I can only hope that by the time Liliana is my age, absolutist claims like this about "nontraditional" families will be laughable.

The more research same sex couples have to show that their kids are as well adjusted and successful as other kids, the less we will hear these type of assertions. I can't think of anything better than for a child to grow up in a house full of love, where she was very much wanted. Every girl who doesn't have a father is not doomed to seek out destructive relationships. So long as she grows up with a model of a healthy relationship and family values which encourage respect and empathy, she'll be ok.

So I'm not worried about Liliana. In fact, I'm kind of jealous of her. She was born into an amazing family with many strong women (and men!) who love her very much. She'll be just fine. Congrats, Myranda and Brittany!

Teen Moms

Today is the tenth annual National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. I think most people would see this as a worthy cause, and of course, I agree.

However, in a recent project with my job, I have been working with high risk girls.* In these workshops, I have encountered dozens of pregnant and parenting teens.

Working directly with young mothers and young mothers to be has truly changed how I feel about the way we, as a society, treat teen pregnancy. On one hand, we utterly vilianize young mothers, stereotype them as welfare queens, drop outs, and dead ends. On the other hand, we do a piss poor job of giving teens the tools and information needed to prevent unintended pregnancies.

What gets me most is how the prevalent idea is that the worst thing a teen girl can possibly do is get pregnant. It's like that scene in Juno:

Mac (Juno's dad): Did you see that coming?
Bren (Juno's step mom): Yeah... but I was hoping she was expelled, or into hard drugs.
Mac: That was my first instinct too. Or a DWI... anything but this!

Now, far be it from me to promote the idea that teen parenting isn't difficult. It is. It's extremely difficult and can often prevent the moms from finishing their educations, perpetuates cycles of poverty, and puts the children at risk for all sorts of challenges.

But at the end of the day, teen parents are not the biggest evil our society faces. So long as hatred and violence still run rampant, we've got bigger fish to fry. Besides spend a few minutes with some of the pregnant and parenting girls I work with, and let them tell you first hand if they see their futures as dead ends.

When it comes down to it, I have and will continue to advocate for ways to prevent teen pregnancy. But I've also come to understand that shaming and condemning teen parents is not the solution either. I've been thinking about writing this for a while. Then today Feministing shared this video and I thought, how appropriate?


Oh, and on a totally unrelated note, this is my 100th blog post! AWWWWW YEEEEEAH!



*I say "high risk" because I think the term "at risk" is a misnomer. Every girl is at risk for certain things...eating disorders, drug abuse, pregnancy. However, some girls are more at risk than others, hence, high risk.

Seriously, Indiana?

I can't take it anymore! THE WORST headlines are coming out of Indiana lately. I'm becoming utterly embarrassed to call that place "home." I would have never, ever, ever imagined three years ago when we went blue, I'd someday be feeling safer and more at home in TEXAS. Texas, people.

Texas.

Anyway...here are the headlines making me so very ashamed.

Criminalizing suicide.

Selling a child to a pedophile.

The gay marriage ban.

The war on choice.



You're breaking my heart, Hoosierland.

Gay Marriage, Abortion, and the Lies the Right Tells about Small Government

In my most recent post, I wrote a little bit about how I believe that the anti-gay marriage position is a foolish one for conservatives* to champion. I would now like to submit this piece of evidence as just reported by Jezebel.

I know I'm not usually in the business of telling conservatives how to become better politicians. I'm usually in the business of simply pointing out why I think their side sucks. However, when it comes to gay marriage, I think that the right* is making a big, big mistake. They are betting against the American tendency to become more accepting of different relationships over time. For example, anti-miscegenation laws used to be commonplace. Now the idea of making it illegal for people of different races to marry is absurd to a vast majority of Americans. I think that outlawing gay marriage will someday be seen as equally absurd. To align yourself with such a viewpoint just isn't an intelligent position to take. It is painfully short sighted.

But that's not the point of this post. What I want to examine now, is one of the utter lies that we are told about the right: they favor small government. I think the best way to do this is to examine two of the positions they are most known for, anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion rights.

The idea of small government is supposedly focused on individual liberties. For example, from The Center for Small Government:

Small government means individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Small government enables and encourages self-reliance and voluntary cooperation. Creativity and productivity. Progress and prosperity.

To me, this means that the government is as uninvolved in my personal affairs as possible. However, the same people who assert this premise also are attempting to regulate some of the most personal affairs that there can be: The state of a woman's body and the intimate relationships between consenting adults.



To make my point, I submit this "rant" by Representative Anthony Weiner (greatest name for this topic, ever.) As he points out, attempting to outlaw abortion is one of the biggest examples of of government overstepping its bounds. Ever.

I think that outlawing gay marriage is another perfect example of this. Gay marriage for me highlights the intersection of personal liberties, religious freedoms, and human rights. In my mind, the government, as a governing body of all people should not have their hands in the business of allowing certain benefits to some people (straight) over other people (gay.)

Usually, the right wants to claim that marriage is a holy contract, preformed by the church, before God. Ok, let's run with this premise for a moment.

In this case, a "small government" would remove itself from marriage all together, viewing it as solely within the realm of the church. Therefore, the government would stay totally neutral to marriage and totally allow churches to make their own decisions. If a church disallowed gay marriage, so be it. If a church allowed gay marriage (which there would be many!) then so be it. To offer a religious neutral option in this arrangement, the government could offer civil unions to ALL couples (gay and straight) who did not want to unite in the church.

However, this option is NEVER discussed by the right...which I feel is due to the fact that it is well known that this would lead to a plethora of gay marriages. Conservatives in America want to limit gay marriage so much that they do not even follow their own doctrine of "small government" which would stay out of intimate affairs and a couple's relationship with their church. However, in order to argue against gay marraige they speak religious-talk in political institutions. They extol the virtues of "tradtional marriage" intended by God to be one man and one woman.

You see what they did there? They claim to act on behalf of church and God, but don't actually let the churches make the decision for themselves.

When all else fails, they turn to ridiculousness. In an NPR interview with Maggie Gallager, the Chairman (wth?--chairperson!) of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage, she went to the old standby argument: If we allow gay marriage now, next we'll be allowing poly-marriages and marriages to animals. It's like they can never, ever just let it be about the right for two, loving, consenting adults to marry. That's what this is really about.

...and getting the government the hell OUT of such intimate situations. I'm not for small government, necessarily, but I am for less government where is really, really counts...such as inside my body or my relationships. The hypocrisy of it all is staggering. I'm with Rep Weiner. Don't let conservatives tell you they are in favor of small government until they stop trying to outlaw gay marriage and abortion. Just don't let them feed you that egregious lie.


*I am using the terms "conservatives" and "the right" interchangeably in this blog to discuss people affiliated with the Republican party. I realize that this group of people is a diverse one with many political views represented, but here I am speaking to those who adhere to what is considered traditional conservative views.

New Tag! "Daily Journey" Feminism

So I've been considering bringing a new theme/tag to my blog..."Daily Journey Feminism" What the hell is that? Well, let me explain...

You see, everyone and their sister writes a feminist blog to critique the media, pop culture, regressive politics, and patriarchy at large. And it's great. They should be writing about those things. However, I can fully admit that I rarely bring anything fresh or new to the discussion. I'm great at putting my spin out there and linking to the people who are doing the real analysis of current relevant feminist topic #5. However, and let's be honest, I'm not making waves in the feminist world.

And that's ok. It's not my aim.

However, it is my aim is to make sense of the world in live in through my particular feminist lens...and this is where "Daily Journey" Feminism comes in. I've realized what I'd like to write more about is when I discover some lesson in my own life which pushes me toward becoming a better feminist and person. (Don't worry, I'll close with the example which caused this blog.)

I mean, we all have our own internal debates and cognitive dissonance. We have silly little guilty pleasures, gut reactions, impulses, or habits which undermine the BIG STUFF that we actually care about. So an example might be a nutritionist who shames her clients for eating poorly, but regularly indulges in bacon and eggs.

Anyhoo, once I decided that I wanted to write more about my "daily journey to become a better feminist and person" I tried to think of something to name it. I wanted something cool, but I had nothing. I long considered going with DJTBABFAP of DJBBFP, but those are dumb and in the end, I've settled for "daily journey" feminism.

So, now my blog will be a nice little mix of cultural critique and daily journey stuff...I hope. And, as promised, here's my example.

I have argued against women using in vitro fertilization as a means of reproduction in the past. I made all kinds of arguments, that I care not rehash, which to put it lightly, were judgy. And I attempted to argue from a feminist perspective that in vitro was wrong. I've since come to realize that *I* was the one who was all around wrong.

Simply put: as a feminist, it is not for me to say how another women chooses to reproduce (or IF she chooses to reproduce at all.)

I have for long argued that one could be both politically pro-choice and personally pro-life, in that it is possible to feel that abortion is wrong *for you* and that the fetus you are gestating is a life, but still agree that other women have the right to make that decision for themselves. I am taking this view of in vitro now. There's nothing inherently WRONG or anti-woman about it just because I feel it would never be the right decision for me. 'Nuff said.

On Treating Pregnant Women Like the Infants They'll Soon Give Birth To

So, I've often thought that the "expectant mother's" parking at places like Kroger is somewhat foolish. This is, I realize, a strange position for a feminist to hold. When Jezebel reported about "a new bill would allow women experiencing a difficult pregnancy to park anywhere in NYC for free- even No Parking zones," it gave me a perfect reason to blog about this topic.

As Morning Gloria of Jezebel notes, typical objections to this parking bill consist of anti-woman thoughts like "sluts should've kept their legs closed!" or those "who say that since men can't get pregnant, this is reverse-sexism or bizarro-sexism or some other made up -ism."

However, my objection to this type of parking is totally different. My general complaint is that this mindset fits in with our societal trend to treat pregnant women like helpless, pathetic beings. I am someone who advocates for women to be seen as full, capable people, regardless of their current reproductive state. And I don't think that we should be infantilizing those who are pregnant.

In fact, I think there's something quite strong and remarkable about being able to bring another human being into this world.

Now, I'm not saying that pregnancy isn't difficult and we shouldn't take steps to ensure that pregnant women have a comfortable gestational experience. I understand when one is pregnant you face physical barriers that would not otherwise be present. I think, as a society, we should make reasonable accommodations for pregnant women. For example, I feel, very strongly, that maternity leave is far too short in this country. But to put undue attention on to parking spaces seems, to me, to be a cop out accommodation which coddles pregnant women instead of a more substantial law which could actually make a meaningful difference.

Like I said above, the parking spaces are just one part of what I see as a societal trend to treat pregnant women like helpless, pathetic beings. Being the age I am, I have been surrounded by many pregnant women lately, and so often the response to others around them is to quite literally use the voice they would use for babies and have the women immediately sit down. And in each case, the pregnant woman has insisted on continuing doing what she's doing, saying something to the effect of, "No, it's ok, I'm fine! I'm pregnant, not sick."

And in each case I cringe because it's just so annoying to me. As someone who has pregnancy planned as a part of her future, I dread having my adult card revoked just because I'm gestating another human being. In related reading, Jessica Valenti and Natalia Antonova share their feminist experiences of pregnancy, which include other ways we violate women's personal autonomy during pregnancy including:

• Your stomach is now public domain for everyone to touch...duh, didn't you know?
  
• You can no longer make your own decisions about where you go (like bars!) because think of the baby!
• Make sure your clothing is modest and appropriate! You're someone's mom now!

So let's review...you are no longer in charge of your own body, free time activities, or clothing. Sounds pretty much like a trip back to infant-hood, if you ask me.

I guess my point is simple: Afford pregnant women common courtesies, like giving up your seat on the subway, but don't treat them like children. Just because they are bringing an infant into the world doesn't mean they are one!

Wait, What? Some BS I Heard on the News Lately

I just wanted to take a second to write about two pieces of BS I heard recently.

The first was a report on NPR where they found the "cost" of being fat. They threw out some figure, in the $4,000 range/year, I believe. They said that is what it cost to be an overweight woman in America. In their figure they included medical bills due to weight related conditions, lost wages due to time off because of weight related conditions, and the wage gap associated with being fat.

See the problem? We're telling someone who is fat, "Hey, fattie, if you'd lose some weight, people would pay you more" instead of, "Society unfairly penalizes fat people with wage discrimination." SIGH. Victim blaming is everywhere, isn't it? Oh, and fun fact, the "cost" of being fat is about half as much for American men. What a great illustration of the intersections of -isms. (I'm not even going to touch the questionable way they probably decided what were "weight related conditions" and the whole health/fat relationship.)

The next is a report I just heard on ABC News about a real "modern family." The segment profiled an affluent, married mixed-race gay couple who just had triplets via an egg donor and a surrogate. In the process of telling their story, they explain that they hadn't expected three embryos to take, and their insurance company told them that to cover the pregnancy, they would need to eliminate down to twins.

One of the men explains how he could have never done this, and the experience made him realize that this was a life and "changed his whole perspective on abortion."

Steam nearly came out of my ears. Honestly, does this rich dude who made an extremely expensive and conscious decision to have babies think his "choice" is anything comparable to the average abortion? Seriously? Let me review, he's a rich, married, supported, established, older man who had been trying to have kids with his partner using various surrogates for years. He has the luxury of an insurance company that had offered to cover a surrogate pregnancy at all (never mind the number of babies involved.) He wasn't coerced into sex. He didn't have his method of birth control sabotaged. He was ready for kids, not trying to pursue an education or career, or hell, even just uninterested in a family. He doesn't even have a freaking uterus. Wait, have I mentioned that he's rich?

I'm sorry dude, you're experience is not relevant to abortion rights.

Get over yourself.

Ok, had to get that off my chest. G'night.

Motherhood and Privilege: A True Case of Intersections

One thing I have learned about the feminist blogosphere with absolute certainty is that when you bring up the issue of whether or not there should be child free spaces, it's sparks a shit storm. Maia, a guest blogger, recently rehashed this discussion over at Feministe (the last place I witnessed this particular shit storm). Her basic thesis was "you do not have a right to child free spaces," which, I'm sure, you can imagine set a lot of people off. Last I checked, the comments were up to almost 700. A shit storm, for sure.

I don't really care to go deep into the discussion about the feminism of child free spaces. I will state that I, like many, was rubbed the wrong way by Maia's post, but I tried to understand where she was coming from. And for those of you unfamiliar with the debate, I'll summarize the conflicting sides:

1) Children are people too. They deserve to be in public. That is where they can learn appropriate behavior. However, kids are kids, and so they're going to behave inappropriately time to time. Because our society still places the responsibility of child rearing disproportionately on women, to restrict children from public spaces is to essentially restrict women from those same spaces. It is not always reasonable that single parents can afford childcare or a babysitter, but they should not be restricted to their homes because of this.

VS.

2) Adults have the right to adult-only spaces that are free from the behavior challenges of other people's children. Of course, some public places are kid friendly and any person entering them should reasonably expect to interact with children, but that is why adult-only public spaces should be respected. Childfree people* have the right to enjoy childfree environments, where it is logical (like bars, upscale restaurants, and their own homes when inviting guests.)

So with this as the background, what I really want to discuss is how privilege and motherhood interact. What I have seen emerge in the comments (which I fizzled out on reading inevitably...) is both sides accusing the other of privilege.

Motherhood as privilege: Childfree people assert that there is an inherent privilege in having children. The default position of our society is to "settle down and have kids." When you get to a certain age and meet new people, one of the inevitable questions is, "Do you have kids?" From this perspective, the privilege comes from being a mother because society promotes motherhood as what "good" women do. Because motherhood is seen as a the ultimate role a woman can take, there is inherent privilege. Childfree people are positioned as the other; outliers in the social structure that caters to families which include children.

VS.

Childfree as privilege: The other side asserts that the privilege is in not having children. The idea is that our society doesn't support women in parenting, especially single mothers. Instead of affordable childcare, living wages, and accommodations in the workplace, women with children face a number of financial and societal barriers, making those who are childfree the privileged in their workplaces and social circles.

Both sides are pretty compelling, right? The way I see it, neither is actually right or wrong. Instead, there are so many more factors to consider, because as every feminist situation, there are numerous intersections. I'm going to just address a few.

First, there is the issue of money. High income mothers obviously experience privilege. They are able to fit the expectation of being the "ultimate woman" by having children. And yet, they don't face any of the aforementioned challenges (like affordable childcare.) Additionally, for many low income mothers, there was never an option to be childfree, be it because of lack of access to contraceptive methods or information about sexual reproduction, or even because of coerced or forced pregnancies. Also, being childfree interacts with income. As mentioned above, it is much easier to be childfree if you have access to money and education.

Other factors also interact with motherhood to compound various privileges. For example, women of color are much less likely to be privileged by being mothers. There are so many racist stereotypes surrounding the black "welfare queen" that I can safely say African American mothers are not regarded as favorably as white mothers by American culture. Imagine what people would say, for example, if Michelle Duggar was black. And don't get me started on this new terms of "anchor babies." If that term doesn't highlight the racism, fear mongering, and scorn associated with Latina mothers, I don't know what would.

My point is that in the case of motherhood, as with so many things, you can't sit back and blanketedly say "being a mother gives you privilege." There is so much more at play, and no two person's experiences are identical. I, as a married, middle-class, hetero/cis white woman might feel a societal pressure to conform to having a traditional family which includes children. But that doesn't mean that all mothers are privileged.

It'd go a long way for us all to remember that our own frame of reference isn't the rule for everyone.

*I use the term childfree in this blog to connote a certain lifestyle choice, not people who just do not have kids currently. I do not identify as childfree although I currently don't have kids because I see them in my future, and I respect that this is not what the childfree lifestyle is about.