Femonomics reads the internet: surprise Senate candidate, wedding weight loss, gay blood ban, and hotness discrimination

So, someone unexpected won the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary, and now everyone is upset, because he probably doesn't have a good shot at beating his Republican opponent and doesn't seem very qualified to be a Senator.  Nonetheless, I'm not so on board with the media and political powers that be running around and calling him mentally impaired just because he's not camera-ready.  Instead of taking credit for their major screw up and apparent unfamiliarity with polling and electoral management, the Democratic Party is calling for this man to step down and casting aspersions about his mental fitness.  He won fair and square and their guy didn't.  So why don't they start pulling him aside for media coaching and setting up a real campaign machine?  And why doesn't the media stop their embarrassing attack on him, and start asking the Democratic Party why they had no idea this fellow had a good chance of winning?  I don't whether to call the media's treatment of this man ableist, or racist, or just plain anti-humanist, but it's making me a little sick.  I'm with this Gawker commenter:

This guy, whether willingly or not, has exposed the pathetic joke that our electoral process is. Maybe he is a soft spoken guy, maybe he is shy, maybe he was not expecting to win and get all this media coverage, maybe he is some average guy that cannot get a job and said, "[F***] it, I'll give this a try," or maybe he does have some problem. I do not know. But the interesting thing in all this, is how the media has been asking him crap questions like:

-Do you have any money?
-Do you do things the way we expect you to, in order to win?
-Do you think you will win?
-Do you have a website with red, white, and blue colors for us to stare at?
-Are you cuckoo? Please answer simply and in 5 seconds because America cannot understand. Also, we will be right back after a word from our sponsors.

And not a single question like:

-What are the issues you hope to take on while in the Senate?
-What is it about those issues that motivated you to run?

The way I see it, you ask stupid questions, you'll get stupid answers.

In fighting oppression, which matters more: beliefs or behavior?

Snarky's Machine has a great post on Shapely Prose about her own personal approach to stamping out oppression.  Instead of trying to change people's beliefs, or educate them, she just tries to get them to stop making other people's lives miserable (by making their lives miserable): [NSFW language after the jump]

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: great cleavage, the obesity bandwagon, and abortion in the Obama age

Apparently Fox and ABC restricted the running of a Lane Bryant ad that showed women in lingerie getting ready for a date. 



Jezebel's been covering the story for a few days, and has the documents to prove it.  The ad itself is certainly not shocking, and the naughty body parts displayed seems on par with the ads of Victoria's Secret, the antics of the Desperate Housewives, and other lingerie-wearing prime-time standbys.  The sexist says it's the size of the boobs holding up that lingerie that has the networks' undies bunched:

Gawker says you should never take exercise advice from the NYTimes. Seconded!

The NYTimes is at it again, trying to figure out exactly what it is we need to do to be thin.  In addition to many other problems, the article cites that same crazy weight loss study that followed women starting at a mean age of 54, and found that only those who started thin and exercised for an hour or more a day stayed thin.  Because, as a 54 year old, being thin should of course be the ultimate goal of your existence.  Even though we have no reliable studies on what happens when women do (or don't) put on weight after menopause.

Gawker's Hamilton Nolan issues an appropriate takedown, in a story titled "Never Take Fitness Advice from the New York Times:"

"Does working out really help you lose weight?" ...This is hardly the first time the NYT has asked some slight variation of this maddening question. But this latest story clearly distilled these fundamental premises from which the journalism proceeds:
1. Weight loss is the goal towards which you should strive.
2. Exercise therefore has value to the extent it helps you lose weight.
3. Your goal is to become thin.
Thin. "Thin!" That is exactly the word this story uses. "The newest science suggests that exercise alone will not make you thin, but it may determine whether you stay thin, if you can achieve that state."

Nolan rightly points out that there's no reason the point of an exercise regime should be thinness, and in fact that thinness could be counterproductive:

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: cool women on the internet edition

Feminist Philosophers has an appalling story of a woman who was told she would be rescinded admission to an academic seminar if she couldn't "demonstrate" that she had full-time childcare arrangements "to the satisfaction of the Institute directors" throughout the duration of her stay.  Says Edge of the American West: "I can’t figure out why there are so few women in this discipline. It must be because logic is hard."  Anyway, the Feminist Philosophers blog looks cool, and worth checking out for us women in academia.

But don't worry, non-feminists, I have something for you, too.  [NSFW alert!] The cheeky blog Feminisnt, written by a woman who describes herself thusly: "I'm a pornographer, sex worker, atheist, and former 'sex-positive feminist' who grew tired of trying to shoehorn my life into a feminist analysis."  In a recent post, she addresses the assertion that men who pay for sex hate women.  It's an interesting blog to scan for sex-positive feminists or sex-positive feminist-skeptics.  Like I said, when you're not at work!

Speaking of sex-positive feminism, Natalia Antonova has a great response to a piece at Femonade claiming it's impossible for "just sex" to be feminist.  I get Femonade's point, that when people say "just sex" they're often talking about the type of sex that most benefits men (PIV), but often they're not.  I know lots of women who have very satisfying "just sex" relationships (And, let's also remember to consider non-hetero and non-cis pairings, where PIV is not necessarily the order of the day).  For some of them, these relationships will become less satisfying over time, and they'll realize they want something more.  But as Antonova says, let's trust women to make that call for themselves. [Edit: it should be noted that Femonade has exhibited rampant transphobia in the past, so be careful on her site]

This interview with Emma Thompson gives me hope.  Excerpt:

Two years ago she went ballistic when she heard it had been suggested that a young actress on the set of Brideshead Revisited lose a stone in weight. Did she really threaten to quit?

'Absolutely! I would have broken my contract and taken the story to the press.
I am a bit of a fundamentalist about all that size zero stuff - I would have made a big, fat fuss. That was no joke. I would have walked off the set.'

Ask what can be done about such attitudes and she doesn't shrug, like most actresses of her calibre would.  'Put on weight and say F*** off,' she retorts. 'Demand bigger sizes. Go into places where you can't get a 38D bra and say, "I want a 38D bra and give me one. If you can't, I am never coming here again."'

Jaime Oliver's Food Revolution is inspiring and maddening all at once

Jaime Oliver took on the British school food system, and won. He managed to get British schools serving healthier, fresher meals country-wide, and I'm sure the health of school children in the UK is better for it. However, it's telling that all of Oliver's efforts were scrupulously documented for hit TV series. On one hand, Oliver is the ultimate modern idealist: a David of nutrition against the Goliath agro-industrial food industry. On the other, he's the ultimate modern cynic: a natural performer who wants to create big social change, as long as the camera gets all of his best angles (in a scene at the end of yesterday's show, Oliver cries crocodile tears over the people of Huntington not understanding how much he cares. This Washington Post article sums it up: "[Oliver is] afflicted with the kind of warm-hearted caring that requires the constant presence of a TV crew."). If Oliver's new effort to put healthier food in US schools is successful, the latter won't seem so important. But if all that Oliver gets out of this is a season of good TV, I'll wonder whether there wasn't a better way to create change.

Harding & Kirby: Lessons from the Fat-o-sphere

Here at femonomics we're big fans of Shapely Prose, Kate Harding's fat acceptance blog. So, when I saw her book Lessons from the Fat-o-sphere: Quit Dieting and Declare a Truce with Your Body on sale at Borders for $3.99 (sorry Kate), I had to pick it up. The book proved to be just as witty and readable as all of her and co-author Marianne Kirby's work.

The book has a lot of great things to say, that are helpful for anyone who thinks negatively about their body (not just fat people, or even women - unfortunately most people seem to suffer from this). As a relatively thin person, I don't feel fully qualified to critique the book, but it did really get me thinking. I had plenty of ah-ha! moments while reading, as well as some discomfort in having old prejudices and patterns of thinking challenged.

The main point is for (fat) people to stop worrying about what they weigh or how they look, and to be happy, along with specific mind-steps to get there. The most poignant essay in the book regards the fantasy of being thin, wherein people postpone living until they lose weight. Don't do that!

One minor criticism I have is the notion the book promotes, however, that the amount of calories consumed is unrelated to weight. I will admit that the relationship between food and weight is quite complicated, but am pretty sure there is at least a correlation. However, the book's argument that dieting is unhealthy is compelling, to the point that you really should talk to your doctor before embarking on any such course. Overall, the book is a pretty quick read and mind-expanding, and I recommend it.

Opting out of exercise

There are plenty of hardcore exercisers writing for this blog, sometimes myself included, and I’m sure plenty of readers, too.  We've posted exercise tips in the past, and likely will in the future, because exercise is a part of our and many of our readers' lives.  I understand the power of exercise, and the excitement surrounding it, and the benefits for one’s health.  That said, amid this chorus of “wheee, exercise,” I want to take some time to offer a different perspective: you don’t have to do it.

I say this because when obesity, and the health problems surrounding it (note that these are often drastically overstated), are so often in the news, it's easy for us to get caught up in a culture of healthy eating and fitness to such an extent that we begin to associate a value judgment with something that is, at its core, self care.  We don't tend to associate values with getting a manicure or not, but deciding to go to the gym or not can determine whether we feel "good" or feel "bad."  The same way marketers describe desserts as "sinful," we feel that lying on our couch catching up on Lost instead of hitting the treadmill is "lazy," "indulgent," or just plain "bad."

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: Roger Ebert is my hero, lady-business problems suck, MeMe Roth is crazy, and more!

Roger Ebert, after cancer surgery took away his ability to speak, has been leading an increasingly interesting online life--running a blog, twittering like mad, and genuinely engaging with his commenters and followers.  You can read his incredible story--both heartbreaking and inspiring--here.  And, some mad praise for the author that wrote it.

***

Anna over at Jezebel wrote a nice little rant about how difficult it is to get treatment for a basic yeast infection or UTI.  In it, she makes an incredibly important point about the paternalistic approach to women's health care:

Ultimately, I think the way American medicine handles common gynecological ailments says a lot about its view of women: that we can't be trusted to take care of ourselves, and that we need someone to watch out for us.

That's why we have to get a Pap smear before we can get birth control pills, even though they're basically unrelated. Because we won't get the proper medical tests unless they dangle a carrot in front of us — the carrot of not getting pregnant.

I, too, have been infuriated by the ludicrousness of "packaged" women's health care, especially when I know the only thing my doctor needs to know before prescribing birth control is my blood pressure and my family's stroke history.  Imagine if men were required to get a testicle exam before being prescribed blood pressure medication!

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: Kevin Smith vs. Southwest, Sarah Palin vs. Family Guy, and Fashion Week vs. the Recession

Two epic feuds and one made up one.  Read on.

Kevin Smith vs. Southwest
As you've probably heard by now, Kevin Smith was ejected from a Southwest flight when the captain decided he was too fat to fly safely.  Southwest has a longstanding "customers of size" policy, which dictates that passengers that cannot sit within the armrests of a seat must purchase an additional seat prior to travel.  The cost of the seat is refunded if there are extra seats on the flight.  The policy doesn't seem all that crazy, and is something many other airlines have recently adapted.  What's ludicrous is the capriciousness and insensitivity with which it is enforced.  Smith was ejected after he was seated on the flight, his carry-on was stowed, a desk agent had approved him flying with only one seat, and he had demonstrated he could sit completely within his seat, with both armrests down.  Smith's plight brought light to the issue, but reading the comments on Southwest's blog post revealed other customers with similar experiences, who had been ejected from flights in front of their peers or otherwise treated with insensitivity.

Forget settling, Lori Gottlieb's fat shaming is horrendous, sickening

If you read the comments in duchess's Lori Gottlieb counterpoint, you're no doubt aware that the author of the newest self help fad is no stranger to penning controversial work, including an essay titled "Fat Like Him," which purports to be about the experience of dating someone that fails the "checklist," but is really about Gottlieb's fat phobia, narcissism, bigotry, and neurosis.

Yes, the writing is witty, and she taps into some real features of human relationships, but hearing her describe a real person the way she describes her ex "Tim" just makes me sick to my stomach (and not because he's fat, which is the source of her nausea).  Moreover, her treatment of him is patently abusive (refusing to introduce him to her friends, not wanting to be seen touching him in public, constantly criticizing his weight and what he eats).  You can hear Tim's own take on the situation, and Gottlieb's mental state, over at Jezebel.

Gottlieb is a former anorexic, and it seems clear in her essay that she still exhibits the psychological symptoms of the disorder, if not the physical ones.  She is disgusted by fat, by fat people, by what type of person someone must be to get fat.  The essay is one big exercise in fat shaming and bigotry, playing up every stereotype and misconception about obesity, from fat people smell bad to they snore to they can't be good writers.  On top of this, Gottlieb takes every chance she can to describe herself as "tiny," "100 pounds," or 1/3 of Tim's weight, in case we didn't understand how skinny she is, and how therefore morally superior.

If you are considering taking anything Gottlieb has to say about relationships seriously, I encourage you to go skim her essay.  Don't put yourself through the same punishment I did and read the whole thing, but just read enough to get a taste of the ugliness.  Then, look at yourself in the mirror and say "I am a beautiful, amazing woman who is perfectly capable of making my own decisions about relationships and does not need the advice of someone as hateful, glib, and distinctly unqualified as Lori Gottlieb."

After reading the essay, I had the same reaction Tim (eventually) had to her insanity--I went to the kitchen and found something to eat.  Something to prove my ability to put my physical appearance in appropriate balance with other things I enjoy, to celebrate food as a life source and pleasure rather than a fidelity test, to show Gottlieb that putting butter (of all things!) on your bread does not make you a deviant.  Something delicious.