In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

What’s wrong with skinny?

That’s what Lisa Hilton asks in the Daily Beast this week — although she’s actually asking, “What’s wrong with living off of coffee and cigarettes? Better than being fat!”

Katie Drummond over at Slant/Truth gives Hilton’s piece a great take-down, pointing out that while official eating disorder diagnosis rates may not be skyrocketing, a lot of women engage in disordered eating without having a diagnosed eating disorder. But Hilton isn’t just concerned with what she deems “hysteria” over super-skinny models; see, she’s worried that for all of our obsessing over skinny girls, we’re actually really fat. Obese, even! And don’t you know that being obese is unhealthy?

Which is kind of funny, given that “obesity” is defined by a pretty simplistic height/weight calculation and doesn’t mean a whole lot in terms of actual health, while “anorexia” and “bulimia” are significantly more complex psychological diagnoses which do reflect serious health issues. In other words, they aren’t really comparable at all.

So why do feminists (and other people who are concerned about women’s health) focus on anorexia and unrepresentative media images more than we go around fat-shaming larger women? Quite simply because there are huge numbers of women who are negatively impacted by narrow beauty standards. Hilton says it’s disrespectful to argue that anorexia is just about wanting to look skinny, since if you talk to actual anorexics, they’ll tell you it’s a lot deeper than that. And that’s a fair point. But then Hilton herself uses the “empowered” example of a teenage model who lived off of coffee and apples for two years to make a bunch of money. Was that model anorexic because of deep psychological issues that went beyond wanting to be skinny? Maybe, but it doesn’t sound like it. It sounds like she knew she could make a ton of money for being skinny, so she did what she had to do. And, hey, do your thing — the point is that Hilton’s piece itself reveals that the world of disordered eating is a complicated one, and it isn’t a choice between “women are anorexic because they want to be skinny” and “women are anorexic because they have mental health problems.” The point is that an ultra-thin ideal does harm to women in large and small ways; full-blown anorexia is only one tiny component.

I happen to like fashion quite a bit. I happen to think that part of the reason it’s treated as shallow is because it’s something that women primarily consume, it’s something that has been developed primarily for women, and it’s something that women have an increasing role in creating — unlike many other forms of art. But that said, a big problem with fashion-as-art is that instead of the clothes being decorative, the woman herself is expected to be the decoration. Thinness itself is fine; thinness presented as the only way to be beautiful is a problem, because it reinforces the idea that a woman has an obligation to look a certain way for the sake of others’ visual preferences. The pressure to be thin doesn’t just impact what we eat; it impacts the way we interact with the world. When we see ourselves as existing for others’ viewing pleasure, it’s difficult for us to experience pleasure for our own sake. It is difficult for us to find self-worth in places other than our physical appearance — especially when thin-obsession happens in a culture that repeatedly emphasizes that our ultimate goal is to find someone who will marry us, and beauty is a woman’s greatest currency in the marriage market (unlike men, whose value ties more to money and power). Women end up living a series of smaller problems with food. Those problems can be as large as dying of starvation or as small as having your day ruined because you can’t fit into a particular pair of pants. Mostly, though, they fall into a really sad and slightly deranged middle ground, like the woman who feels like she has to make a choice between sex and eating, or the woman who under-performs at work because she’s hungry, or the woman who spends $10,000 she doesn’t have on cosmetic surgery, or the woman who believes she’s beautiful but is told she’s wrong because she’s also fat, or the woman who doesn’t buy into beauty culture at all but is punished for it, or the woman like me who, for all her accomplishments and successes, has a persistent nagging feeling of failure because she just isn’t as thin as she would like to be.

That’s why this matters — not just because some of us are starving (although we are), and not just because some of us are sick (although we are). But because many of us are just not living as fully, pleasurably or successfully as we could live. Because being charged with being beautiful means that some women — a lot of women — are just never going to be viewed as really women, because their size or age or skin color takes them out of the running.

If a model wants to starve herself for a million dollars, by all means, do your thing girl — it’s not healthy and you might die or face serious long-term physical issues, but to each their own I guess. My problem isn’t with individual women who make individual decisions about how to best manage their lives. My problem is with a culture that expects women to physically present themselves in a particular, narrow way, and that punishes women who don’t conform to narrow beauty standards. And my problem is most certainly with apologists like Lisa Hilton, who insist that this is all no big deal and it could be worse — people could be fat.


166 thoughts on What’s wrong with skinny?

  1. I really appreciated the larger point that Lisa Hilton was making:

    Or is it that men are considered psychologically robust enough to admire the buff beauties of GQ or Men’s Health without getting their tighty-whities in a twist? Women, it is implied, are too fragile to make a distinction between the Victoria’s Secret catalogue and their own closets.

    That is the crux of the issue. It’s a chicken and egg thing. I think it’s less that (to make a gross generalization) the media and the culture make women feel bad about themselves, than women are in a fundamentally crap position and an immense industry has grown up around that. The real message that the beauty/women’s magazine/diet etc. industry projects is that if you (a woman) fix the surface, you’ll fix the power imbalance (in relationships, in work, in society). And even this is a problematic message because women don’t even have an assumed right over their own bodies and physical destinies. See: abortion laws in America, Mauritania’s fattening farms, honor killings in Turkey.

    I also think it’s something each of us needs to examine in ourselves. Why, as a woman, is being told you’re pretty or sexy or attractive so much more psychologically powerful than being successful in other respects? This is why Cosmo exists at all and this what we have to examine within ourselves in order to be free of it.

    Also, it’s a little facile to put obesity in quotes as though there isn’t such a thing as an unhealthy level of overweight that is on the rise in this country and many other places.

  2. Erika – It is actually highly debateable as to whether there is an “obesity epidemic” not to mention that the standard tool for measuring overweight (the BMI) is highly flawed and was never designed to be used to determine weight categories for individuals.

  3. I would just like to point out that the way she is doing that yoga pose (shoulder stand) is so wrong it is bad for one’s health. One should never turn their neck at all while in a shoulder stand.

  4. re: Erika’s comment

    Two great resources for comprehensive (and oh-so-readable) evaluations of research on health and weight, both for studies that have been popular and oft-cited but have actually been debunked (obesity epidemic, say what?) as well as excellent studies with compelling findings that for *some* reason have never caught media attention (higher weight linked to longer life expectancy, you say?), are The Fat Nutritionist and Junkfood Science.

    Re: the OP

    Yeah. I mean, I understand that women’s bodies get policed for being skinny too, because, hey, sexism – it’s versatile. But having read the original article… no. If she lost me at “One of the many rather creepy truisms trotted out in support of “real’ models is that much fashion is produced by men who would prefer us to resemble adolescent boys.” (seriously, I have no idea how to interpret that), then I ceased to exist by the time she pulled out the George Carlin quote.

    Hilton’s article makes more sense if you read it as a dialogue of two people disagreeing with each other. It’s that contradictory.

  5. I really wish we could have a discussion about bodies and health that isn’t always divided into the too-skinny debate on this page and the too-obese debate on mainstream media.

    We as feminists always steer the health discussion to the problem of diagnosis through image and associated eating disorder problems, but we don’t seem to want to talk about the very real correlation between poor exercise, poor diets, and skyrocketing deaths for women through heart disease (#1 killer). Can’t we start a conversation about health and avoid the fight over the problem of “eyeballing” healthy?

    It would be good, “fat” or “skinny,” for many of us to exercise more and many of us to eat more fruits and vegetables. It would not be good for us to feel shame about it, but the fact is women are dying of preventable diseases tied to diet and exercise.

  6. The obligation to be “healthy” and the obligation to be visually appealing are inextricably linked. Thin is healthy, after all, and the expectation of thinness is not only an expectation that a woman be visually attractive, but also an expectation that the woman be “healthy” (as culturally defined), and not be a drain on society by having health problems (fatness itself being considered a health problem, but also things like, well, the complications from starving oneself — as in the post — or the posture problems that might occur because of a particular yoga pose — as in a comment above).

    It’s problematic to expect a woman to be good decoration for the people who can see her. It’s also problematic to expect a woman never develop health issues. Whether because it’s bad for her or bad for everyone else. It is just as harmful to reinforce that expectation on women as it is to reinforce the expectation of beauty.

  7. Hilton’s article may present a couple of interesting points but overall is weak and her argument is very flawed and problematic. Also, if you read the comments there are some choice fat-hating trolls throwing out the same, tired arguments in favour of upholding the skinny status quo. But I will say one thing that irks me is people thinking that it is ok to hate on skinny women. Women hating on other women for their appearance is NEVER ok. While I will concede that I think derogatory comments towards “fat” women are more prevalent, it doesn’t make criticisms of thin, or even “too” thin women ok. (I don’t see these comments on Feministe and I am thankful for that). But calling women “pathetically” thin, or asking “why does a size zero even EXIST?!” (because it is the size that some women wear) or, my favorite comment on the article:

    “Who wants to bump and grind
    with . . . a won’t-eat-so-much-as a-crutron-smoking-skeleton ?”

    is not helpful in any discussion on beauty norms or women’s issues. I wish there were more discussions on the female form in media that didn’t quickly devolve into a “fat v. skinny” or “pretty v. ugly” war.

    /end rant

  8. some of us skinny women eat, and eat a lot. it just does not stick.
    i have been small (everywhere) all my life, and have been given grief in the same sense as would a woman with a fuller figure.
    It comes down to the same,
    its not your body
    you not like it, go look at something else.

    sick and tired of hearing the eat more and you will grow some meat on the bones. No I DON”T!!!!

    some of us are small, naturally small, but just as perfect.

  9. Jill asks, “So why do feminists (and other people who are concerned about women’s health) focus on anorexia and unrepresentative media images more than we go around fat-shaming larger women?”

    I think the better question is, in what world do feminists not engage in fat-shaming larger women?

    I have yet to see a post on body image on this or any other feminist blog where someone who self-identifies as a feminist doesn’t pull out the old, “I know it isn’t politically correct to say, but we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic, yadda yadda” (see Erika’s comment above for one example).

    I’ve seen self-identified feminists at this site and other major feminist blogs (and even feminist body-image-centered blogs) who are unapologetically both ableist and fatphobic, and I’d suggest that, for most feminists, the argument that fat-shaming is bad only applies to those who are a “little fat,” but not for “the obese” who become the dehumanized other.

    Perhaps we’re too conditioned by the popular press to look for a “moderate” position, and that means that, if we identify anorexia as bad, we’re conditioned to search for some sort of balancing evil so that we can locate ourselves in the center.

    The difficult for those of us who are really (and not just a little) fat is that those feminists engaged in finding a comfortable position in the middle without sacrificing their privilege inevitably do so at our expense.

    1. Miriam, there are certainly commenters who are shitty, but I don’t think anyone on this blog has ever been fat-phobic or fat-shaming; quite the opposite, actually.

  10. For what it’s worth, the timing of this amuses me as I just went public with my weight and am freaking out about it. I realize that’s ridiculous, but these issues are all so complicated. I felt saying I WEIGH 170 POUNDS and showing photos a la Gloria Steinem’s “this is what 40 looks like” might help me move forward or something. It’s only made me spend the day feeling fat. Which is so completely and totally insane since #1 I’m healthy, #2 I’ve got about a gadgillion other things going for me besides my appearance. Ugh. I wish I didn’t give a crap.

  11. Ugh. As a naturally skinny woman, I get a lot of comments from men and women who think they are being feminist by challenging the status quo and attacking skinny women as abnormal. And here I thought feminism was about seeing women as people, not decorative objects. “Othering” me and placing women with a more “normal” (and we all know how obvious a normal, healthy girl looks of course) on the pedestal is still missing the point.

    This is not of course to say that I don’t acknowledge my privilege as a tallish thin white woman.

  12. Good for you, Heather. I go public with my weight too, for the same reason. But yeah, it doesn’t always feel as good as I want it to feel.

  13. It strikes me that one of the larger purposes of the whole fat-shaming, thin-shaming, wildly variable standards of beauty is to set women against each other. That was no less true a hundred or two hundred years ago when having a plump shape was considered beautiful. It’s meant to weaken all of us.

  14. So true, dillene. It’s also disturbing that as Jill wrote, a lot of this has to do with looking pleasing to others–and it isn’t just our physical looks, our entire selves are supposed to radiate attractiveness. We are supposed to temper our criticism of the patriarchy because OMG, what will the men think–well most of the time, the correct answer should be “who cares?” It’s not like men walk around all the time censoring eachother over what the women might think.

  15. Really? the “obesity epidemic, yadda yadda”?

    I considered refraining from getting back into this discussion because stating that there is such a thing as an unhealthy weight is so often equated to “fat shaming”. Orthodoxy kills critical thinking.

    The problem I was trying to articulate is that women often desire societal validation (or at least argue about how our personal choices or circumstances *should* be valued by society) more than we desire or fight for real autonomy or justice, and that is what gets us divided as Mel points out above and as has played out in this comments thread. And that is what undercuts our personal and collective power. And that is where my frustration lies.

  16. Meredith,
    Sorry, but I have a REAL issue with the “people need to exercise more!” argument. Many of us don’t have time to “get off our asses” and hit the treadmill–and the pressure of this country on women for us to do so makes it even MORE likely that we will avoid “healthy” behaviors. Added fruits and veggies are not a failproof guarantee of weight control, either. Please cite your sources?

  17. Erika:

    “I considered refraining from getting back into this discussion because stating that there is such a thing as an unhealthy weight is so often equated to “fat shaming”. Orthodoxy kills critical thinking.”

    Orthodoxy = “a belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards “; “adhering to what is commonly accepted”; “The belief held by the majority of those in power.”. Just who do you think is arguing for the orthodox view here?

  18. These are very complicated issues that I don’t think are really helped by generalising according to the way that society acts. Different parts of society will respond in different ways to the body image question and its debatable if any of them are really healthy.

    I’ll give an example. I have always been an average sized woman however last year I developed an autoimmune disease and dropped a fair bit of weight. I now am right at the bottom of the ‘healthy weight category’ whereas before I was nearer the top. I eat a balanced and healthy diet and exercise moderately. While my weight has stabilised I will probably remain slim. The response that I have had from people has been quite shocking in some respects. A serious health issue was reduced by almost everyone around me into a skinny/fat issue. Family members told me how great I looked while female friends started to make snide comments, one even going so far as to attempt to humiliate me in front of a room full of strangers by introducing me to them with a run down of my weight loss. Suddenly my body belonged to everyone else who felt it their right to comment on it, as if its condition threw it into the public domain. Nobody wanted to talk about my illness (which I was scared about at the time) which they saw as an unimportant and sometimes, seemingly, unrelated sidenote.

    This really does represent the culture around weight. We have no idea what we want. Some women who are insecure about their own weight will hate other women because they either represent the ideal that they don’t feel theycan achieve or because they represent the evils that they are trying to vanquish. I get so upset by those magazine covers one week calling people fat and the next lambasting the thin.

    We are obsessed with weight, look at these blogs discussing it, its not about sides or whether people should accept thin or accept fat. People should accept themselves and what makes them happy. We all know the benefits of healthy lifestyles and its the choice of the individual whether theymake the decision to live like that. The important thing is that people stop locating their self esteem in their body image because ultimately it is that which causes us to be so concerned with weight (both with obesity and anorexia). It is the concern and the endless articles and second guessing that lead to the pervasiveness of the female weight culture.

    …Thats my opinion anyway.

  19. “I don’t think anyone on this blog has ever been fat-phobic or fat-shaming”

    Erika has certainly given the lie to that with her “I know it’s not PC to say so, but fat-fatty-fatties are BAD and will DIE. And, btw, I’m such a rebel cos I got the guts to stand up and say this ABSOLUTE TRUTH in the midst of our deluded fat-loving, fat-accepting world, while the rest of you wallow in your fat-fatty-fat denial.”

    Nice one, Erika.

  20. My dad is suffering from health problems due to his weight gain and is not happy about it at all, but one of the things he says about his weight is that he knows he’s lucky, because he is treated differently, because he is a man. Men’s bodies belong to themselves, women’s bodies are there to be commented upon. With my father’s weight gain, the majority of people assume it’s none of their business, and when I juxtapose that with my mother’s weight loss, something that almost everyone feels free to comment on (usually in a derogatory manner), I see a very clear difference.

    Even when it comes down to small fluctuations in weight, you can’t win. I lose five pounds, and people say, “OMG NATALIA WHAT HAPPENED ARE YOU SICK?” I gain five pounds and people say, “OMG NATALIA DON’T YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR CHEEKBONES SHARP?” And I, as a tall, fairly thin woman, am supposed to be one of those people who are left alone.

    dillene – You are absolutely correct. There is always one “standard” or another, and it serves as a huge distraction and a great policing tool.

  21. There is such a thing as an unhealthy weight. Being too skinny and being very obese can cause health problems. But it just does not make sense to just generally state that as a “natural” mechanism, as it is often done, and just assume that everybody who is deemed “too” skinny or “too” fat is always unhealthy, because it is an individual situation.

    The problem, in my view, is that in current discussions about weight and health it is automatically assumed that fat people are unhealthy, and they should know that, therefore they’re either really stupid or really careless and morally condemnable, treating their own bodies badly, and, ultimately, costing the health system a lot of money. In Germany, where I’m from, there are countless campaigns, initiated by the federal government, targeting fat people for that. And they are, to my personal delight, entitled “Fit instead of Fat.”

    Moreover: I do have health problems being too big, and I acknowledge that. Ironically (or: consequently?), being told that I am too big and will get health problems since my childhood (I was put on my first diet when I was seven…) did not help me – at all, but led to a struggle losing weight since I can remember – for twenty years now. And, guess what: I did not lose weight. Quite to the contrary. Being a “little bit” fat (and being targeted for that all the time) turned into being clinically obese by now. The allegedly well-intended (as well as the malicious) comments on how I should be healthy and lose some weight did not only mess with my self-confidence up until today, feeling ashamed of myself in many situations (although I try really hard not to and it pisses me off that I do, I can tell you that), but did also result in making me eat more and more, if only as a big “Fuck you” to everyone telling me I shouldn’t. So… yes, there are people who are unhealthy, also because of their weight. Telling people that they’re at an unhealthy weight, constantly nagging about it, and implying that there is something wrong with them, physically and personally (which is often a most charming overtone), does not do a damn thing good. It just messes with people’s lifes and their happiness, e.g. making me feel like I have to justify my mere fat existence constantly. And I would be very grateful if being overweight was not presented as a plague that is going to suffocate civilization with its big fat butt… 😉

  22. Jill wrote, “Miriam, there are certainly commenters who are shitty, but I don’t think anyone on this blog has ever been fat-phobic or fat-shaming; quite the opposite, actually.”

    A blog is more than just the bloggers. It’s the commenters as well. This is why moderation is part of what makes–or breaks–a feminist blog.

    This has come up again and again as an issue in making feminist spaces trans-friendly and safer for feminists with disabilities.

  23. At the age of 17, I was 5’1″ and weighed 105 lbs. And self-conscious about it as hell, because I wanted to be thinner. I was a freakin’ size 0! I bought into the mentality that thin is beautiful, and I was surrounded by super-thin girls every day, obsessing if I “splurged” on a freakin’ Hershey kiss. I didn’t take my bipolar medication, because back then, I wanted to stay thin, and my medication caused weight gain.

    I was f’ing miserable.

    I finally came to the conclusion, a few years later, that thin/average/fat are just labels. Everyone is beautiful.

    I take my medication now, am 5’1″, and weigh 155 lbs. I wear a size 12.

    And you know what? I fucking love myself. I’m happy.

    But it feels like a slap in the face when people talk about an “obesity epidemic” and cite BMI and other various things like that as evidence. They point to people that have my physical shape and fat-shame.

    But they have no idea about me.

  24. Why do women need to be on death’s door for anyone to care that they’re miserable? Most people aren’t going to come down with anorexia because they want to be skinny. Susceptibility to bulimia and anorexia isn’t the same for all people. A huge number of women are still miserably unhappy about their weight, and I think that merits concern, rather than the fat-hatred that’s disguised as pity or sympathy for women who are chubby and miserable about it.

  25. Well, I would like to ask the question: What IS wrong with skinny? I mean, really. Everyone always talks about how you don’t have to be thin to be beautiful, and that’s true. You don’t. But what if you want to lose weight? Is that so wrong? I’ve had downright bitter arguments with women who act like I’m a terrible person and that I’m caving to society for just wanting to lose a few pounds. Is it such a crime that I want to wear some of my old clothes that I’ve gotten a little too big for?

    Skinny or not, we’re all beautiful. And that DOES include the skinny ones.

  26. This article is incredibly badly written and reaserached…
    I know it’s not entirely on point, but I think it bears pointing out: Models do not, for any practical, technical reason have to be skinny.
    What they have to be is normed. That also sounds appalling, I know, but the whole reason why weight and height restrictions apply to models is because they have to fit the same size prototypes. Because one prototype of a dress may be passed around a dozen fashion magazines for photoshoots, and because if one model can’t make the runway show, it has to be possible to seamlessly replace her with another.
    And while it’s more likely that women below a certain size will also have more similar figures just in general (some people put on weight at the hips only, some larger women have big breats and narrw butts and so on, and that’s more likely to level in at somewhat smaller sizes) a size 8 or 10 would very easily do. And in the past it did.

    So all models looking kind of samey is part of the job hazard. But while having to be roughly the same size is a necessary requirement for the job, the fact that that size has been getting smaller and smaller is part of a trend.

  27. I know y’all like to be pretty hands-off about moderation, but it would be nice to see some of the “ZOMG what about the OBESITY EPIDEMIC???” posts screened here.

    1. I know y’all like to be pretty hands-off about moderation, but it would be nice to see some of the “ZOMG what about the OBESITY EPIDEMIC???” posts screened here.

      Apologies. I’ve been away from the computer for most of the evening, and woke up to 24 comments in moderation and many more that have gone through without anyone approving them. So yes, everyone, this post is not about the “obesity epidemic” — please stop.

  28. The “too skinny” epidemic – women and girls suffering eating disorders and even death – is one where I think women have control to change this. Granted, my ideas are theoretical and rather implausible…yet hopeful. 🙂

    For starters, I think that all Hollywood actresses should coalesce and agree to gain say, oh, 10 pounds each. (Of course, some, like Angelina Jolie, will need to gain 20 pounds to find a healthy body weight.) Secondly, this united front should refuse to sign contracts that require them to maintain an unhealthy body weight. Let’s say Actress A is 5’4″ tall. According to Weight Watchers, the cult of self-improvement I belonged to before my pregnancy and plan to rejoin after, she should weigh a minimum of 117 lbs. Hey, remember that 5’10” tall model who was fired by Ralph Lauren for being overweight at 120 lbs. (Filippa Hamilton)? Well, she was actually underweight by 19 lbs. To Zooey Deschanel: I love your work, but don’t agree to film movies that claim you’re an average woman with a height of 5’6″ and a weight of 120 lbs., ’cause that’s certainly not average or typical in the U.S. and may be an unhealthy standard for some women to hold ourselves to. (The 500 Days of Summer)

    Jill, I love fashion too, but if we all got together and boycotted fashion magazines, magazine producers would have to listen to our consumer concerns: we demand accurate, healthy and positive representations of women in said magazines, aside from the token “fat girl” piece that shows up buried around page 165 in every issue, to help encourage healthy body images in teenage girls who are starving to be like magazine covers.

    Being skinny is elite, and everybody wants the thing that everybody else wants but only a few can and do have. Let’s make being healthy elite.

  29. Re: Lisa Hilton’s piece

    It seems to me she’s championing women who work the system as it is – models need to be skinny – instead of championing women who change the system to fit them. Isn’t feminism about changing the world rather than ourselves? (This is for my own clarification. I’m not suggesting that Hilton is or is not a feminist.)

  30. Jill – I know I’ve had arguments with you (and Zuzu) in the distant past about the use of the term ‘healthy weight’ (I wrote about it here and here). I agree that I haven’t seen anything like that on feministe for years, and that generally the writer’s here have a really on-to-it analysis of fat.

    I’m not saying this in a gotcha kind of a way, but because I think Miriam’s point is an important one. Unfortunately, fat-shaming and ideas about women’s obligation to be ‘healthy’ are not unusual within feminism. Most women come to feminism with a massive amount of baggage that they’ve been given by society, about their own body, other women’s bodies, and the meanings that they give. This doesn’t just melt away magically when you adopt a label. So valuing the work that heaps of people have put in, including the writer’s at this blog, in changing acceptable ways to talk about women’s bodies involves acknowledging that there was once something different.

  31. Ugh, femspotter, maybe that was supposed to be completely tongue-in-cheek (and if it was and you didn’t mean for that to be a serious suggestion, then I apologize), but I’ve really had it with people defining “health” and “healthy weight” for people other than themselves. Rather than directing our criticisms of a sizist and misogynist industry at other women’s bodies, by telling them what they “ought” to weigh or how healthy they “should” be, I’d rather challenge the attitudes and standards directly. If Zooey Deschanel goes on record saying that her body is average and women of the world ought to be striving to look like her, or else they are too fat or too skinny – and if I had the opportunity to speak to her directly – I would call her on that attitude, but I wouldn’t tell her to put on a few pounds. Women’s bodies are not instructional tools.

  32. No, I was being quite serious. Why shouldn’t I tell Hollywood what I think healthy is? Hollywood is telling me the same. Underweight as a standard is not healthy, IMO.

  33. Since when does Hollywood = several specific women and their body weight and health (neither of which is anyone’s business but their own)? And, again, I challenge the notion that policing other people’s bodies is an acceptable solution to one’s own body being policed.

  34. femspotter, I think you need to go back and read this again:

    Individual women who work in Hollywood are not “Hollywood” – we don’t get to pick individual people out and point to them as an example of an unhealthy person. Two wrongs =/= a right and all that. I was “underweight” for the first 25 years of my life, and I made myself unhealthy trying to *gain* weight in highschool, because people like you pointed out how disgusting and “unrealistic” I was every day, and that I should stop being seen in public because I made other people feel bad. I was 5’4″ and 105-115 lbs.*

    The point is not that any body type is definitively bad, ugly, worthless, or unhealthy, but that assigning universal higher moral or aesthetic value to any one type above others is damaging. Any ideal will be unrealistic for large swathes of the population – there will still be skinny people who will not be able to bulk up enough, and fat people who will never be thin enough.

    * Of course, once I sailed past my mid-20’s, I gained 20 lbs, and now the exact. same. people. who harangued me about being too skinny comment on how fat I got – now that I’m the weight they told me was ideal. Proof in the pudding: it’s not about health. It’s about policing, and making sure women are beaten/beat each other into submission.

  35. aw crap… my blockquote didn’t work – that was supposed to be “women’s bodies are not instructional tools” in the blockquote.

  36. So, femspotter, your motivation is not a concern for women as a class being subjected to unfair and impossible standards for physical beauty and health and a feeling that it is unfair for a small subset of women to be the only ones who can be considered beautiful/healthy — rather, your motivation is a feeling that it’s the wrong subset. You agree that only one small subset of women should be considered beautiful and healthy and that women’s worth in society should be predicated on how conforming they are to that narrow standard.

    Got it.

  37. I think unhealthy low body weights are pervasive in Hollywood. Is that being disputed? Deschanel was a for instance; I was not meaning to villify her. Amandaw, you have me backwards.

    Hollywood is policing body weights. Contracts often stipulate a weight limit and actresses sign them. But if they all refused to do so…

    Unfortunately there are enough wannabes who would agree to a coffee and cigarettes diet to be famous.

  38. But if they all refused to do so…

    Unfortunately there are enough wannabes who would agree to a coffee and cigarettes diet to be famous.

    Right, so why not focus on the people who offer that deal, rather than the people who accept it?

    (And +1 to everything that amandaw and Happy Feet have said.)

  39. I ask that women take responsibility for their choices. Either we stop the contracts or the signatures and thus both. I know I am not in the majority with my view that women can in some cases be responsible for changing the standards by which we are judged. You sign a contact to be a certain weight, eat or don’t eat the requisite amount of food to be thin enough…you are responsible.

  40. Right, so if women just make the right choices, they can prevent themselves from being discriminated against. And all thin women in Hollywood are “unnaturally” thin and unhealthy to boot. Also check.

  41. Seriously, what is the deal with the attacks on femspotter? No one has responded to anything she has actually said, just made snide remarks to simplified interpretations of what she said.

  42. Thank you, P.T.

    Anna, what about a strictly coffee and cigarettes diet makes you happy? Do you really consume little to nothing else? If so, and you are truly happy that way, are you telling other people that your lifestyle is healthy?

    I strongly believe that women have the right to happiness. If you’re happy, Anna, more power to you!

  43. If I may… I meant that as let’s hold health up on a pedestal rather than so-skinny-your-body-has-turned-on-itself-and-is-now-devouring-its-internal-organs-for-sustenance. I don’t see anything wrong with my statement, but rather than vilifying me, why don’t you tell me specifically what’s wrong with it so that I can understand? Please, I am sincerely eager to get better at this and I’d like to participate in a healthy debate.

  44. Lauredhel:

    See, that’s something that was actually said, so maybe that is worth responding to and criticising, but none of the criticism has actually done that. And even there you’ve removed it from the context of the previous sentence: “Skinny is elite…”

    Femspotter’s comments have taken into consideration the fact that healthy and size come in a multitude of forms and combinations. She hasn’t said or implied that healthy looks like one single thing, and why in the world shouldn’t healthiness be encouraged as a good thing? Encouraging healthiness over being skinny is, well, healthy; and the pressures it would put on people are mentally more healthy. It’s less mentally/emotionally unhealthy to feel pressure to “be healthy,” but decide that, damnit, no, you love coffee and cigarettes, than it is to feel pressure to be thin and possibly unhealthy.

  45. “If I may… I meant that as let’s hold health up on a pedestal”

    How about let’s fucking not?

    I really need to do an Ableist Word Profile post on “healthy”. Soon.

  46. “I don’t see anything wrong with my statement, but rather than vilifying me, why don’t you tell me specifically what’s wrong with it so that I can understand?”

    Femspotter,

    Your question has already been answered. You are holding women responsible for the sexist standards that are set upon us, rather than holding the people who create these sexist standards responsible for creating a world in which women have to be extraordinarily thin -all- the time in order to be accepted as “normal” or “sexy” or “beautiful” or “desirable” or even “employable”.

    You can’t blame women for doing what they have to do within a patriarchal society in order to survive or be accepted. In short: You are putting the responsibility in the -wrong- place.

  47. I don’t get how encouraging health = ableist, can someone explain? Seems positive to me. Should we instead be enabling distinctly self-destructive behaviors instead?

    And can we please try to be thoughtful and respond intelligently instead of getting snarky? I’m asking honestly because I don’t know.

  48. Thank you. I didn’t really understand that from the comments. I don’t agree. I think what you are saying – and please correct me if I am wrong – is that we are victims who can’t change anything. I think we are victims who can. Suffragettes didn’t just sit around and complain about not getting to vote. They did something about it and we got the vote in ’20 (US). Equal pay is also something fought for by women. And again, I am being oversimplified in your statement. I do think people who create sexist standards are responsible for them…I’m just not willing to wait for sexist people to change things for us. I think we CAN BE powerful. We certainly have before.

    This was another query I had posted above that may shed light on my views. I greatly respect and appreciate all views stated here and it would be nice to receive the same respect in return.

    “Re: Lisa Hilton’s piece

    It seems to me she’s championing women who work the system as it is – models need to be skinny – instead of championing women who change the system to fit them. Isn’t feminism about changing the world rather than ourselves? (This is for my own clarification. I’m not suggesting that Hilton is or is not a feminist.)”

  49. Faith:

    Or, she is not making that claim to blame at all. Instead, she is recognizing that there is power, choice, and responsibility aren’t things that exist entirely on one side of the equation, that women can and have refused to “do what they have to do within a patriarchal society” and through that have survived and thrived and made a difference. She’s looking at one aspect, but isn’t denying the other aspects.

  50. femspotter:

    Why whould lauredhel offer any clarification when she could just make a snarky, half-assed remark while including a word like ableism as a way of implying she has a point instead of actually making one, and trying to shut down any discussion in the process.

    Denying the existence of healthiness through ableism is absurd. No one here is debating anything close to that. No one is talking about healthiness as a concept that says someone is healthier than another because of an absence of disabilities. No one is saying that at all. What is being discussed in relation to healthiness is this: If you are doing things that make you less able to function. If you are doing them on purpose. If you are doing things that decrease your life span. If you are doing them on purpose. You are less fucking healthy. You have every goddamned right to do so, but it is less healthy. Deal.

    If you want to deny healthiness, what should we value?

  51. I have a comment awaiting moderation, but in the meantime, P.T., I will say that I am grateful for your help because I’m apparently not very clear in my writing and that’s causing people to oversimplify my stance. You are correct that I’m not blaming someone or some people for creating the problem, but rather looking at how we might fix it.

    And I would also like to apologize for any of my statements utilizing the word “healthy” which may have been misread as ableist. I am not one who engages in or would condone any form of ableism.

  52. “I’m apparently not very clear in my writing and that’s causing people to oversimplify my stance.”

    It’s less you and more the Internet. I am slowing being driven insane by discussions at websites that look at issues I care about, but descend into the depths of no one caring what anybody is saying and trying to make themselves right by running around setting up straw men between recently shifted goal posts.

  53. For clarification:
    The original question: What’s wrong with skinny? My answer: too skinny may be unhealthy; check with your doctor. The weights of some famous actress and models as reported are way beyond the reach of myself and others, and we feel discriminated against because we can’t achieve that standard of beauty without damaging or bodies, and perhaps we can’t achieve it at all. My solution: change the standard to something attainable and something healthy, wherein one’s internal organs, teeth, skin and hair aren’t at risk. While I subscribe to the Weight Watchers scale, that may be too rigid a scale for all women to consider a healthy range. I’d like it if people who are damaging themselves to fit the standard would stop so that an unhealthy standard would cease to exist. This does not exempt the men and women who ask for this standard to be met. But rather than blame somebody for the problem, I’d like to take responsibility, as a feminist, for the solution.

  54. P.T. Smith and femspotter:

    read my above comment, for fuck’s sake. The problem is that you are suggesting we just move the box of acceptable body types to exclude “so-skinny-your-body-has-turned-on-itself-and-is-now-devouring-its-internal-organs-for-sustenance”, and making statements about how much a women at a certain height “should” weigh to be healthy ( “Let’s say Actress A is 5′4″ tall. According to Weight Watchers … she should weigh a minimum of 117 lbs” . It’s not okay for “Hollywood” to tell women they need to be skinnier, and IT’S NOT OKAY TO TELL THEM THEY’RE TOO SKINNY TO FIT YOUR DEFINITION OF HEALTHY EITHER. How skinny *does* a woman have to be that her body has “turned on itself”? What does that look like?

    YOU CAN’T TELL BY LOOKING AT A WOMAN, OR WEIGHING HER, WHAT HER EATING HABITS, EXERCISE HABITS, OR UNDERLYING HEALTH CONDITIONS ARE.

    When I was too skinny to be an acceptable human being according to Weight Watchers, I was eating 3500 calories a day – my brother’s weight lifting bulk-up diet – and developed ulcers and severe anxiety because people LIKE YOU told me that I was clearly so skinny my organs must have been going into arrest, and why didn’t I just gain 10 lbs. It’s just a suggestion. I would cry because people kept telling me I was going to waste away and die if I didn’t eat more. Do you know what that’s like? To be terrified that you were wasting away and you couldn’t seem to do enough and everyone hated you for it because you were clearly doing this to yourself? Terrified that if you missed one of the 6 meals you had scheduled that day, your organs would fail? Because according to this here chart, they will? And you’ll deserve it?

    “What is being discussed in relation to healthiness is this: If you are doing things that make you less able to function. If you are doing them on purpose. If you are doing things that decrease your life span. If you are doing them on purpose. You are less fucking healthy. You have every goddamned right to do so, but it is less healthy. Deal.”

    What do you propose? That now women should have to sign forms that state they follow the latest Food Pyramid eating guide and exercise recommendations before they’re allowed to appear in public? Will we make sure that each person gets a nice baseline study of their optimum diet, exercise and sleep habits, and then if they deviate from that in any way that impairs their function we fine them? Or do we just assume that everyone’s optimum is the same, and punish the outliers? How much do we get to deviate before the wrath of the health-police descends? For how long?

    The answer to over-policing women in one way is not to over-police them in another way. It’s to STOP FUCKING POLICING.

  55. “Or, she is not making that claim to blame at all. she is recognizing that there is power, choice, and responsibility aren’t things that exist entirely on one side of the equation, that women can and have refused to “do what they have to do within a patriarchal society” and through that have survived and thrived and made a difference.”

    P.T.,

    Yes, that is exactly what she’s doing. She is blaming other women for setting standards that they aren’t actually setting. It isn’t the fault of actresses or models if they have to fit a certain weight standard in order to get work. That would be the fault of the -industry-. It is the -industry’s- responsibility to ensure that their standards aren’t harmful to their employees.

    It also is not women’s fault if we live a society that shames us and denies us the ability to succeed if we do not fit within a certain acceptable body image. It is the responsibility of the people setting these standards – namely men – to change those standards. Because, guess what, in a patriarchal society – which is the type of society that we live in – men have the greatest power.

    Holding women responsible for changing these standards is no different from trying to hold women responsible for stopping violence against us. It is no more women’s responsibility to change those sexist beauty standards than it is to stop men from committing rape.

    This idea that women are the ones responsible for changing the sexist standards that oppress us, damage us, or even outright kill us has got to stop.

  56. “I will say that I am grateful for your help because I’m apparently not very clear in my writing and that’s causing people to oversimplify my stance.”

    You aren’t being unclear and we aren’t oversimplifying your stance. We’re just disagreeing with it.

  57. “The original question: What’s wrong with skinny? My answer: too skinny may be unhealthy; check with your doctor.”

    Femspotter,

    I’m a size 0. I’ve been a size 0 my entire life. I do not starve myself. I do not do anything to be the size that I am. I am not unhealthy either. It is my normal size.

    Is it my fault that other women can’t obtain my weight? Am I responsible for the fact that other women “feel discriminated” because they can’t reach a size 0?

    Should I torture myself trying to gain weight that I can’t gain just so other women feel better?

  58. Faith, your comments have been the only ones that I can argue with as the others just restated my argument falsely rather than making arguments of their own. However, you have not addressed my comments that responded to your accusation that I “blame women for doing what they have to do within a patriarchal society in order to survive or be accepted.” I do not blame women for this. I do not “blame” anybody. I am looking at the problem from a different angle and asking women to take responsibility for their actions. I’m not a radical feminist, but that doesn’t make me less valid.

    Happy Feet, you make many interesting points, but you are basing your argument largely on your own personal experience. How pervasive is that? I have experiences that have shaped my views, but they are mine and mine alone. Don’t assume I too haven’t suffered in this arena of the perfect body agenda. If you were healthy during your dilemma according to your physician, I wouldn’t dispute that. I clearly stated that Weight Watchers was my standard. I do not impose it on you. Only you and your doctor can say what’s right for you. But I turn the question back to you: do you think Hollywood represents a healthy standard for women? Something tells me Angelina Jolie (for instance) isn’t eating the 3500 calories per day that you were. I’ve read articles where actresses confessed to a 1,000 calorie per day limit, while exercising two hours per day. Is that healthy?

  59. “Should I torture myself trying to gain weight that I can’t gain just so other women feel better?”

    No. I guess it’s worth repeating: be healthy!

  60. Happy feet:

    Has everyone here taken a master’s class in selectively quoting? What you quote:
    “Let’s say Actress A is 5′4″ tall. According to Weight Watchers … she should weigh a minimum of 117 lbs.”

    What you ellipsed out:
    ” cult of self-improvement I belonged to before my pregnancy and plan to rejoin after.”

    So, no, that isn’t being proposed as a rule, because it is being dismissed as, although working for femspotter, a cult.

    This doesn’t even count the other Weight Watchers mention femspotter made:
    “I subscribe to the Weight Watchers scale, that may be too rigid a scale for all women to consider a healthy range.”

    So no. Neither femspotter nor I have tried to come up with a definition of what healthy is or what healthy looks like. Neither of us have proposed that you can tell if someone is healthy by looking at them. Healthiness comes on an absurd variety of weights and sizes. It has already been acknowledged in this thread that the so-called obesity scale is fucked up, scewed, and does no one a service. Again, no one has proposed a definition of healthy, so no one is telling anyone that they don’t fit it. What is being said is that healthiness does exist, and that is something that should probably be a value, because, you know, living is generally recognized as a good thing.

    Also, this?:
    What do you propose? That now women should have to sign forms that state they follow the latest Food Pyramid eating guide and exercise recommendations before they’re allowed to appear in public? Will we make sure that each person gets a nice baseline study of their optimum diet, exercise and sleep habits, and then if they deviate from that in any way that impairs their function we fine them? Or do we just assume that everyone’s optimum is the same, and punish the outliers? How much do we get to deviate before the wrath of the health-police descends? For how long?

    Hyperbole for the fucking loss. Especially considering this:

    “Anna, what about a strictly coffee and cigarettes diet makes you happy? Do you really consume little to nothing else? If so, and you are truly happy that way, are you telling other people that your lifestyle is healthy?

    I strongly believe that women have the right to happiness. If you’re happy, Anna, more power to you!”

    And:

    Well, there’s no point in me quoting me saying you have every right to do whatever you want with your body, because, ya know, your body, because you already quote me saying that, then promptly ignore it.

    Faith:

    “It also is not women’s fault if we live a society that shames us and denies us the ability to succeed if we do not fit within a certain acceptable body image. It is the responsibility of the people setting these standards – namely men – to change those standards. Because, guess what, in a patriarchal society – which is the type of society that we live in – men have the greatest power”

    No one is saying it is your fault. But it exists. If you want to roll over and play helpless, go ahead. No one has said that it isn’t also the responsibility of men to work to change standards to, but attacking someone for suggesting that women can make a difference to is…sad?

    “You aren’t being unclear and we aren’t oversimplifying your stance. We’re just disagreeing with it.”

    No, now you’re disagreeing. When femspotter was being snarked at, there was much oversimplifying.

    “I’m a size 0. I’ve been a size 0 my entire life. I do not starve myself. I do not do anything to be the size that I am. I am not unhealthy either. It is my normal size.

    Is it my fault that other women can’t obtain my weight? Am I responsible for the fact that other women “feel discriminated” because they can’t reach a size 0?

    Should I torture myself trying to gain weight that I can’t gain just so other women feel better?”

    Or, maybe you are oversimplyfing again, or putting words in femspotter’s mouth. Healthy extends from being very, very “thin,” to being very, very, “fat.” There is nothing that is a constant standard for healthiness. But acknowledging that it does, in fact, exist, and suggesting that we should work to emphasise healthiness as the ideal state rather than a specific body-type? How is that a bad thing. How is it even possible this discussion is still raging?

  61. “No. I guess it’s worth repeating: be healthy!”

    Femspotter,

    According to the BMI index, I am actually unhealthy. I personally do not accept that, however. I believe my weight to be my natural weight.

    And part of your point was that women feel discriminated against because there are women like me who are super-skinny and other women can’t obtain that standard. You have also stated that women who are skinny who are in the media should gain weight.

    So which is it? Are skinny women responsible for gaining weight to make other women feel better or not?

  62. It seems to me that *anytime* we try to put the onus on the individual, any individual, including individual actresses, we fail. The “problem” of obesity has many causes (some of which are that it’s defined as a problem in the first place), but virtually none of them are within the range that’s attainable by human effort, without luck.

    You enjoy cooking, and have time in your schedule to cook healthy meals, and feel full when you eat those meals, and maintain a socially acceptable weight without hunger? You’re lucky. I mean that literally. Your magic formula works for *you* because in this area of your life, you are fortunate. Other people hate cooking, or have grueling schedules that don’t allow them to cook, or have an appetite set point that keeps them hungry when they don’t eat enough to maintain a weight that is by BMI standards obese, or have an underlying disorder that keeps them from losing weight. Other people have bad knees that prevent them from exercising, or live in terrible neighborhoods and don’t dare go anywhere except by car and can’t afford a gym, or are overworked and have no time to exercise, or do exercise rigorously and are quite fit but they’re still obese by BMI standards. So any time *anyone* says “you can just fix the obesity problem if you eat healthy food and exercise!”, it’s a failure to understand that they, themselves, are lucky in that those things work for them.

    Telling actresses that they need to reject “unreasonable” beauty standards might work if actresses had the kind of clout that, say, Arnold Schwarzeneggar had or Brad Pitt has, but I don’t think any of them do. If Supermodel A or Female Star B says “I refuse to abide by your unrealistic standards”… there are hordes of young women coming up behind them who’d be happy to take their place. Hollywood and fashion are sexist industries that view women as interchangeable parts; the women themselves *can’t* change the system except by parlaying the power and clout they have now into control, and I see very few actresses able to become producers and directors, very few models able to become fashion designers.

    It’s just not feasible to imagine an individual solution to this problem, or even a collective solution implemented by people without power (for example, the solution “everyone should go on strike until their workplaces put healthy snacks in the vending machine!” would be equally unhelpful). The power we have to change things is the power of consumers who can boycott and protest, the power of citizens of a democracy who can vote and pressure our representatives, and the power of role models who can live our individual lives as we choose and try to model good social behavior… which would be “don’t fat-shame or skinny-shame other people, or publicly do so to ourselves.” Those of us who have more power than that, great! But that’s luck.

  63. Alara Rogers:

    Thank you. We’re finally at a solid, content-based discussion. I actually agree with most of what you’ve said. I addressed some of it, albeit in a much, much more annoyed and frustrated tone, in an above comment that is awaiting moderation as I type this one.

    I’m about to leave work (sorry, not staying at work late on a Friday for an online discussion), but I do have some thoughts in response to your own; less outright disagreement and more trying to center in closer to what I think we’ve all been trying to reach here.

    I don’t usually spend much time on online over the weekends, but I will write something up at some point.

    Thanks again.

  64. On the whole ableism discussion:

    Femspotter:

    Being skinny is elite, and everybody wants the thing that everybody else wants but only a few can and do have. Let’s make being healthy elite.

    The problem I have with this is that you are just exchanging one exclusionary elite for another. Healthy is unobtainable for a lot of people either through chronic illness or through systemic problems, such as a lack of affordable healthcare, the stigma attached to seeking help for mental or emotional issues, lack of access to a variety of foods (or the time and space to prepare them), lack of access to exercise (through lack of time or lack of accessible facilities for people with disabilities) and so on.

    And I would also like to apologize for any of my statements utilizing the word “healthy” which may have been misread as ableist. I am not one who engages in or would condone any form of ableism.

    If you’re going to apologize, apologize for what you said, which at least two disabled people found offensive, not what you think we misread. And if you aren’t disabled, it’s not up to you to decide whether something you said was ableist or not. If you have abled privilege you have engaged in ableism, simply because of how saturated our culture is in it. Before I became disabled I engaged in ableism and now I’m disabled I have my own internalized ableism to deal with.

    P.T Smith:

    Why whould lauredhel offer any clarification when she could just make a snarky, half-assed remark while including a word like ableism as a way of implying she has a point instead of actually making one, and trying to shut down any discussion in the process.

    This is a tone argument. Maybe lauredhel, as a woman with disabilities who has written a lot about this stuff, is simply fed up of ableist arguments being spun out and hasn’t got the energy to educate you point by point about why your assumptions are so offensive. I can’t believe that you think that women with disabilities expressing their anger about how ableism is used to shame women’s bodies are “trying to shut down any discussion in the process.”

    Denying the existence of healthiness through ableism is absurd. No one here is debating anything close to that. No one is talking about healthiness as a concept that says someone is healthier than another because of an absence of disabilities. No one is saying that at all. What is being discussed in relation to healthiness is this: If you are doing things that make you less able to function. If you are doing them on purpose. If you are doing things that decrease your life span. If you are doing them on purpose. You are less fucking healthy. You have every goddamned right to do so, but it is less healthy. Deal.

    I don’t deny that some behaviours, when done in the right circumstances, are healthier than others. I do strongly disagree with the idea that healthiness is obtainable for everyone and that it ought to be set as some kind of goal. What I do with my own body is my own business and I fail to see why I should be judged on my health.

    As to the connection with disability- people with disabilities are not inherently unhealthy just by virtue of being disabled, but some disabled people are disabled through chronic illness and rhetoric about health can be very damaging to them.

    How are we to judge whether people are behaving healthily or not, since all our cultural standards are mired in ableism and other isms? To give you an example, the best way I can preserve my functioning is to do almost no exercise (post-exertional malaise is a symptom of my chronic illness). To most people that looks like laziness and unhealthiness. Similarly one night I might be completely exhausted and decide that I do not have the energy to eat or prepare food at all, a not uncommon dilemma for disabled people. So I have to decide between eating or between waking up the next morning doubly exhausted and in pain. Which is the most healthy? If I don’t know, how are other people going to know?

    Encouraging healthiness over being skinny is, well, healthy; and the pressures it would put on people are mentally more healthy.

    Not true for people with chronic illness. This was a point important enough to be included in An Open Letter to those without Invisible Disability or Chronic Illness, which resonates with a lot of people:

    “Please understand that I can’t spend all of my energy trying to get well from my incurable chronic illness/disability. With a short-term illness like the flu, you can afford to put life on hold for a week or two while you get well. But an important part of having a chronic illness or disability is coming to the realization that you have to spend energy on having a life while you’re sick/disabled. This doesn’t mean I’m not trying to get better. It doesn’t mean I’ve given up. It’s just how life is when you’re dealing with a chronic illness/disability.”

    I could spend a lot of time trying out various treatments for my incurable chronic illness that might make me healthier. But the energy drain, potential for disappointment and disruption this would cause would make it mentally unhealthily for me. I can’t afford to spend time vainly grasping at the idea that I could be healthy again because I have to live now. I fail to see how putting health on a pedestal would be mentally healthy for me, since it’s something that I can’t have and something against which people judge me and find me wanting.

  65. I don’t get how encouraging health = ableist, can someone explain?

    Sure.

    You are telling people with health conditions they need to be healthy.

    That is ableist.

    It is ableist to tell people who do not have perfect health that they ought to have perfect health, that it’s their responsibility to always maintain perfect health, and that their worth and value in society will be determined based on their conformity to its definition of perfect health.

    It would be rather like telling you that you should have three arms, and if you don’t have three arms it’s your own fault for not growing another one, it’s not that hard to do, and then punishing you because you have failed to produce the required third arm.

  66. No. I guess it’s worth repeating: be healthy!

    I guess it’s worth repeating: the demand that people “be healthy” is inextricably tied up with oppression.

    Demanding that everyone “be healthy” leaves a whole lotta people out in the cold. People who will never display the signifiers
    of “health” that society has settled on (including outward appearance, size and shape, as well as various statistics such as blood pressure, heart rate, levels of various substances, etc.) even if they perform all the society-decided “healthy” behaviors (exercising-as-defined-by-society, eating right-as-defined-by-society) because of genetic condition, injury, or other medical issues. And there are many others who can’t perform those behaviors because of their conditions.

    And no, those people aren’t excepted from the demands to “be healthy.” You might not “mean” them when you say those words, but ask some of us and we will tell you: the more people are “encouraged” to “be healthy,” people start throwing even more shame, pressure and hostility our way for failing to “be healthy.” No matter what you mean when you say it, the end result is our experience of increased oppression.

    And that’s not even getting into “health” being a social construction itself, not as rigidly defined as most people think, being more influenced by culture than by objective fact (certainly in implementation, though even the science and theory are rather more culturally-influenced than people think). What makes a person “healthy” changes across different cultures and over time. What behaviors promote “health” changes across different cultures and over time.

    The answer to ridiculous beauty standards and fat hatred is NOT to just shuffle the oppression from one group to another. It should be to eliminate that oppression, period. Which means that honest engagement with the health myth is essential to truly addressing the beauty myth.

  67. Faith, I still have a comment in moderation that may answer to some of your points.

    “Are skinny women responsible for gaining weight to make other women feel better or not?”

    Unhealthy women are responsible to themselves. Actresses that damage their bodies to fit the standard, that granted they may not have had any choice in setting up, are responsible to themselves and additionally to the millions of girls and women who want to starve too so they can be like them. Such is the price of fame perhaps. Actresses who make the conscious choice to starve perpetuate the standard. Again, I tell you that if you are a healthy size 0 you are not part of an unhealthy standard.

    We can all complain that Hollywood executives are the source of the problem, but they’re probably not likely to be the solution if the money is rolling in. What can we do to change things? I suggest cutting off their resources. Let’s not agree to starve ourselves for the standard. If we’re naturally slender (and lucky for it) and we aren’t hurting ourselves to submit to the standard, then there’s very little we can do except support women who wish to stop harming themselves as a stand in favor of the health and safety of all women.

    I repeat: a universal 10-lb weight gain is a theatrical protest like burning or just refusing to wear our bras in the 60’s.

    If you see a piece of litter on the street, do you complain about it or do you pick it up? Likewise, if you see a standard that’s harmful, do you simply complain about it or work to change it?

  68. “Telling actresses that they need to reject “unreasonable” beauty standards might work if actresses had the kind of clout that, say, Arnold Schwarzeneggar had or Brad Pitt has, but I don’t think any of them do. If Supermodel A or Female Star B says “I refuse to abide by your unrealistic standards”… there are hordes of young women coming up behind them who’d be happy to take their place.”

    I completely agree with this statement. As feminists, we do have power in numbers, so it does have to be a group effort.

  69. amandaw, I am referring to health ONLY in terms of the topic at hand and that is whether or not one is starving one’s body to fit a standard of beauty.

  70. I repeat: a universal 10-lb weight gain is a theatrical protest like burning or just refusing to wear our bras in the 60’s.

    Would you propose women join forces and all get a nose job to show that patriarchy who’s boss?

    Or would it be creepy and disturbing to imply that women should be going through invasive procedures that change their physical being in order to prove a point to the people who are telling them they have to go through invasive practices that change their physical being in order to please them?

  71. I agree with Alara, and I generally tend to be a groupie of hers.

    However, I just want to add this. One of the factors that make this such a fustrating topic is that when people *do* talk about the structural factors Ms. Rogers mentioned, there is absolutely no patience for nuance, or for the concept that fat/skinny-shaming are ultimately seperate concepts from health, and that there are many intersectional points of concerns.

    I mean, yes! Places like Germany and Japan have these totally obnoxious standard fat shaming rhetoric that’s even worse than what goes on here. At the same time, what people, professional health/public health officials, truely mean by the rise in obesity is the rise in morbid obesity (and there is no escaping the fact that it is genuinely unhealthy and unpleasant). Much of the rise in truly unhealthy obesity has to do with structural factors and genetics…like the BIA’s malign neglect of reservation dietary needs (and other food deserts). That much of the rise in serious obesity is centered among minority communities, because they are often denied many of the things that *are* needed for good health (on top of pollution aspects). Same with poor white people as well. For much of the population of the US, obesity is something that is imposed, and then elites indulge in their calvinist projections and justification for the conduct of their unjust societies. We get to be both fat and jeered at for being fat. So it fustrates me intensly when discussions about weight are almost constantly derailed in the typical ways that they are, because of, as I see it, how much weight is about class and how that person’s bodyimage and class self image are conflated.

  72. There’s definitely a class issue at play, if I read you right. In antiquity, full-figured was desireable…and expensive. But today it’s more expensive to be thin. Food is cheap and abundant in the US. Diet aids and fitness memberships cost money.

  73. “Unhealthy women are responsible to themselves.”

    I agree completely. Only I would say that -women- are responsible to themselves. But that isn’t what you are saying is it? What you are saying is that women who you define as unhealthy are responsible not only to themselves, but to every other woman on the planet.

    “Again, I tell you that if you are a healthy size 0 you are not part of an unhealthy standard.”

    And who defines these standards, Femspotter? You? Me? According to just about everyone else, I am unhealthy. How do you make the determination of who is a “healthy” size 0 and who is an “unhealthy” size 0? Who gets to make that determination?

    “I repeat: a universal 10-lb weight gain is a theatrical protest like burning or just refusing to wear our bras in the 60’s.”

    You’re making the assumption that women can universally gain 10 lbs. I personally can’t gain 10 lbs. There are plenty of other women who can’t gain 10 lbs. either. What would you have those of us who can’t gain weight and who do make other women uncomfortable because of that fact? Do you know how often I get evil looks from other women? Or snide remarks? And what if the women don’t want to gain 10 lbs.? I don’t particularly care to gain 10 lbs. despite the fact that I know I piss other women off and despite the fact that I know that most people consider my body unhealthy.

    It’s MY body. I shouldn’t have to do what you think I should do to make -you- happy.

    “If you see a piece of litter on the street, do you complain about it or do you pick it up? Likewise, if you see a standard that’s harmful, do you simply complain about it or work to change it?”

    I can pick up the damn litter, Femspotter. I can’t make other people change their minds about what is or is not an acceptable beauty standard. They have to do that for themselves.

  74. I think it’s odd that the writer of that article holds up the idealization of skinny women, and the “obesity epidemic”, as if they’re opposite things. Dieting culture causes you to a) diet to get skinny, which slows down your metabolism, thus causing weight gain, and b) binge to escape your feelings of fat ugliness, which of course causes weight gain. Of course there are deeper emotional reasons why people binge as well, and there’s also the issue of food insecurity causing the binge-starve cycle, but come on, people. We know that most diets fail. Fat-shaming makes people fatter. This has been well documented.

  75. Shah8, what makes you say that fatshaming is worse in “placeslike Germany and Japan”? I can’t speak for Japan, even though my Japanese father does have an odd obesession with undereating.
    But I do live in Germany and I go to the US a lot and have friends there (who also come visit me) and it’s both thier impression and mine that over here it’s a lot more laid back.

    I do agree with the rest of what you and Alara said, though.

  76. Dieting culture causes you to a) diet to get skinny, which slows down your metabolism, thus causing weight gain, and b) binge to escape your feelings of fat ugliness, which of course causes weight gain.

    Yes, and that’s especially true if you start somewhere around the age of 6, as many “morbidly obese” women of my acquaintance did, and then you get to stunt your growth and thereby increase your BMI even more. (I got to wait until I was 11, whee.) Yet nobody who wrings their hands about ZOMG SO MANY MORBIDLY OBESE PEOPLE ever seems to implicate childhood dieting. Wonder why.

  77. The thing about “healthy” is that it is very much subjective, and heavily influenced by things like class, as already mentioned, and politics, and general shifts in societal mores.

    Think about it this way: almost all of us have habits that can, depending on the circumstances, be described as extremely unhealthy. But some of us get very rigidly policed, and some of us do not. And the policing itself is often very random.

    amandaw is right, the rallying cry “be healthy,” no matter how well-intentioned, comes with all sorts of strings attached. It’s never as simple as

    femspotter, I appreciate your can-do attitude, I think it’s really important to have one, but I personally wouldn’t gain 10 pounds as a political statement. I think there are other paths, Frodo, that we can take. How about not letting companies like Ralph Lauren bully sites when they expose their photoshopping for what it is, for a start? It’s like, fine, you want to take “artistic license,” go right ahead, but we can still call you on it, RL (I haven’t bought a single RL item since that entire thing happened, even when I see them on sale, because I hate how they acted).

    There are also plenty of other ways to be proactive. I think we can engage in them together, without alienating one another.

  78. “What you are saying is that women who you define as unhealthy are responsible not only to themselves, but to every other woman on the planet. ”

    No, Faith, what I said and am saying was: “Actresses that damage their bodies to fit the standard, that granted they may not have had any choice in setting up, are responsible to themselves and additionally to the millions of girls and women who want to starve too so they can be like them. Such is the price of fame perhaps. Actresses who make the conscious choice to starve perpetuate the standard.”

    Famous women are responsible to other women. If you aren’t influencing other women to hurt their bodies, then you aren’t responsible for the standard. And again, with regard to the term “health,” I am not speaking about anything other than the conscious decision to starve your body to fit a standard of beauty. Would it help to use different words than “health” and “healthy” as a substitute? I make no comparison to any disabilities. This is a discussion about choice.

    AGAIN: gain 10 lbs was a for instance. As I originally said, it’s FOR FAMOUS ACTRESSES who influence girls and women and it’s an improbable solution.

    And I still have a comment in moderation from yesterday. It’s really frustrating to be attacked again and again on the same points when you’ve argued against them but they’re stuck in limbo.

  79. “I haven’t bought a single RL item since that entire thing happened, even when I see them on sale, because I hate how they acted.”

    I’m with you there. I love how RL claimed the doctored ad was an oversight. Right…the thirty or so editors it went to before being released all managed to miss it.

  80. Faith said: “It’s MY body. I shouldn’t have to do what you think I should do to make -you- happy.”

    I agree with you. I’m sorry you think I’m on a personal crusade to make you fat. I’m not…as I’ve explained again and again. I’m not asking YOU to gain 10 lbs. Okay?

  81. I agree with you. I’m sorry you think I’m on a personal crusade to make you fat. I’m not…as I’ve explained again and again. I’m not asking YOU to gain 10 lbs. Okay?”

    Femspotter,

    I have had -plenty- of people tell me that I should gain weight. There are people who do believe that all skinny women are somehow responsible for other women’s feelings, which, yes, again, is exactly what you are saying.

    I fully agree that Hollywood has horrible standards for women. But that is -not- the fault of women. This is the point that you can’t seem to grasp. And you have no more of a right to tell famous women that they should gain weight than you have to tell me that I should gain weight. If Zooey D. feels that she is an appropriate weight and she is happy with her body, then it really isn’t any of your business. It is -not- your place to tell women that they should alter their bodies. I also happen to think that Angelina has a very beautiful body, thanks.

    And I haven’t got a bloody clue why you threw out the Radical Feminist remark. I don’t identify as a Radical Feminist, although I am quite fond of many Radical Feminists and of much of Radical Feminist theory. I also agree with people who aren’t Radical Feminists all the time. Like most of the writers of this blog, for example. I’m not disagreeing with you because of any affiliation you do or do not have. I’m disagreeing with you because I think you’re -wrong-.

  82. “There are people who do believe that all skinny women are somehow responsible for other women’s feelings, which, yes, again, is exactly what you are saying.”

    No that is NOT what I am saying. Speak for yourself. I’ll speak for me. Thanks!

    “I fully agree that Hollywood has horrible standards for women. But that is -not- the fault of women. This is the point that you can’t seem to grasp.”

    I do grasp that point. As I said many times before, I do not blame. I am asking us to take responsibility for finding a solution through the measures I have mentioned, or as Natalia suggested, boycotting Ralph Lauren. THESE ARE FOR INSTANCES. I am sorry I can’t seem to explain my position well enough for you to stop misrepresenting me.

  83. coldneedles, thank you for your explanation – I wonder if there’s a word to substitute for “healthy” in the context of this discussion, which has been, as far as I’ve been aware, about the desire to fit the skinny standard and the conscious choices that some people make to starve to meet that standard.

    There will always be people who take offense to any number of things any one of us writes with good intentions. I do not apologize for what I wrote, but I do apologize for hurting anyone’s feelings as that was not my intention. I think the discussion of ableism is important but off-topic when talking about the choice to starve.

  84. I am asking us to take responsibility for finding a solution through the measures I have mentioned, or as Natalia suggested, boycotting Ralph Lauren. THESE ARE FOR INSTANCES. I am sorry I can’t seem to explain my position well enough for you to stop misrepresenting me.”

    Boycotting Ralph Lauren is an excellent idea because it puts the responsibility where the responsibility belongs. I am not misrepresenting you. Until you can see that, there is nothing else that can be said.

  85. I left this conversation because I found myself at the point of not being able to offer anything substantial to the discussion on the basis of philosophical impasse, and venting frustrations that I would have otherwise kept private, for which I apologize.

    Famous women are *not* responsible to other women. In my view, this is a complete untruth. It is this attitude – that these women, any women, are especially beholden to anyone else for circumstances that are social and pervasive – that I objected to in the first and continue to find totally irreconcilable. On this, it appears that we comprehensively disagree with one another. I believe that the root of the problems we are discussing in this thread (and many other, including many expressions of ableism) is our willingness to police women’s bodies and treat them like objects and standards for other women, whatever those standards might be.

  86. I wonder if there’s a word to substitute for “healthy” in the context of this discussion

    No, there isn’t. Just like there’s no word to substitute for “tooth” in the context of a discussion about what we chew our food with. And it doesn’t matter what word you use, you are directly referencing a particular concept, and it’s the concept that is harmful, not the particular ordering of letters.

    There will always be people who take offense to any number of things any one of us writes with good intentions. I do not apologize for what I wrote, but I do apologize for hurting anyone’s feelings as that was not my intention. I think the discussion of ableism is important but off-topic when talking about the choice to starve.

    Is there a bingo card around here anywhere?

    1- “looking for offense” is an antifeminist redirection tactic. If you stomp on my foot and I wince, I am not “looking for offense.” I am expressing pain that you just caused me. Maybe I’ll even go so far as to ask you to please stop causing that pain! Boy, wouldn’t that be whiny.

    2- your intentions do not matter when we are discussing issues of oppression. Your attitudes, behaviors and actions all have real consequences for other people, no matter how you mean them. And no, saying “Well, I didn’t mean it that way” doesn’t take away the harm that has already been caused.
    Your intentions only matter if we are talking about whether you as an individual are a good individual or a bad individual. And that’s not what theseconversations are about. These conversations are about the effects of systemic oppression on certain groups of people. Your individual sense of righteousness means shit-all when we are being abused by the day.

    3- You can’t apologize for anyone except yourself. Therefore, if your apology is not for something YOU did, it is not an apology.

    4- how is it off-topic to point out that you are trying to solve one problem by creating a dozen more for us? It’s directly related and in fact is an essential component of any honest discussion about the beauty myth and fat hatred.

  87. Amandaw, the concept I am referencing when I say unhealthy is starving one’s body. I am saying starvation is unhealthy. That has nothing to do with disability.

    Faith, if we boycott RL that’s us taking responsibility. RL is not going to boycott itself.

  88. “Faith, if we boycott RL that’s us taking responsibility. RL is not going to boycott itself.”

    Oy.

    No. Actually, that would be called taking -action-. Taking action has nothing to do with taking responsibility.

    I also made the mistake of reading part of your blog. Apparently you also believe women who get raped while drunk are at least partly responsible for getting raped. Quite nice. Not only are women responsible for having eating disorders, but we’re responsible for men committing sexual violence against us.

    Can’t say I have much else to say to you, Femspotter.

  89. I can think of a number of suitable substitutes, since you aren’t actually talking about health, and that word has hurtful connotations: eating disorders/disordered eating, crash dieting, food and weight-preoccupation – I came up with those off the top of my head. It’s really not difficult to find words that communicate your ideas without being offensive and hurtful.
    You keep accusing people of misrepresenting you and your ideas – perhaps the problem isn’t everyone else?

  90. Just wanted to post my opinion….

    I would like to be able to discuss health problems like heart disease and diabetes without it turning into a fat/skinny argument. I tell my mom to use less salt on her food, take a walk with me, come to yoga class, etc NOT because I am fat shaming her. She is a petite woman. I do this because I know that black women are at such a high risk for things like heart disease and diabetes that I want her to make an attempt to be healthy. Because I LOVE her and I want her to be here for a long time 🙂

    However, if I said that to someone who was overweight, would it be taken the wrong way? If, for instance, my doctor tells me that to eat more fruits and drink less soda, I certainly wouldn’t be offended. I’m a small girl. But would someone else take it as fat shaming? I ask this because I wonder how much personal perception feeds into this, and if this is why it’s hard to talk about health issues. Class is definitely an issue because of the reasons mentioned above. But how do we address it?

  91. My above comment was more in regards to health (ie, how do we address it)

    In terms of looks, I think you have to love yourself. I don’t believe in fat shaming, but I certainly don’t believe in skinny shaming. Some people are naturally small, and others aren’t. However, in my experience, people don’t seem to feel bad for making someone feel like crap about being skinny.
    My best friend went through a hard time and lost weight. She (who lives states away, so I didn’t see the weight loss) told me that no one seemed concerned about the depression or mental illness but that people were either A) disgusted because they assumed that she was trying to fit into some ideal B) jealous and wanted to know her diet secrets or C) mad because “as a half black girl, she should know that black men like meat on their bones”

    That is just SAD

  92. Sorry this is my first time posting on here, and I don’t want to look like I’m leaving anyone out so I’m trying to be clear…

    For anyone who is suffering from health issues, who don’t have the energy to exercise, or are in too much pain to do so…. I apologize if my posts came across as ablelist. I realize not everyone can. I ask my mom to do things with me because she can, and because I care. However, I realize that not everyone can.

  93. femspotter, is it perhaps not that you want to tell women personally to stop starving themselves to fit a standard, as that you want to see a shift towards a culture in which women do not feel pressure to starve themselves?

  94. Mel, it’s both really because, though I am not blaming the starving for the standard, I think that a united pledge to stop starving may be one way to reject the standard. Women who are role models to other women rejecting this standard would send a powerful “love your body as it is” message, I believe.

  95. Remember when Jennifer Love-Hewitt was photographed from behind in a bathing suit exposing her to all kinds of ridicule from men and women? She responded not by agreeing that she has a fat ass and losing weight to conform, but by speaking her truth: size 2 is not fat. I give her a lot of credit for that and I think her refusal to be fat shamed set a good example for her fans.

  96. Honestly, I think you’re naive if you think that a pledge to stop starving (assuming that these women are, in fact, starving), is going to change anything on a structural level. Although individual actions do matter, and some individual’s actions are going to have more impact than others by virtue of their position, we are talking about multi-billion dollar industries (entertainment, fashion, diet, etc). The way these industries are set up, models and actresses are replaceable. Sure, you have a few Angelina Jolie’s, but most women who participate in these industries have no power. And even the Angelina Jolie’s are replaceable in the end.

    I also don’t think you have a very good grasp of eating disorders. I think it’s easier to believe that anorexia and bulimia are a direct result of poor body image and impossible standards of beauty promoted by the media. While looking at pro-ana websites definitely supports this perspective, eating disorders (including binge eating) are much more complex, and often have a lot to do with issues of control, trauma, and so on.

  97. I am using the term starving rather than talking about anorexia. They are two different things: starving by choice and knowing you’re thin and starving because you see yourself as fat even when you’re thin. I am not talking about anorexia. But on that subject, I recommend the documentary Thin.

    You’re right that one or two women refusing to starve does very little. It has to be a movement…like suffrage. It has to be all women who refuse to starve. As I said in my very first comment, this is improbable but I am hopeful. I ask famous women who serve as role models to launch the movement… But again, I do not blame them.

  98. Speaking of “countries like Japan” …

    1. This is a culture that encourages both over and undereating. You’re supposed to binge when you go out with your coworkers or to a party, but most of the time you’re supposed to try to subsist on as little as possible and always come away from your meal a little hungry. This seems to mostly apply to women, but men do it too (when they aren’t chowing on giant bowls of ramen or “stamina” bentos). And there are “ladies sets” at some restaurants that contain enough food to feed a bird, or healthy foods of little substance that are specially advertised as being “for ladies.” A kids meal might be more satisfying.

    2. Ladies fashion often comes in one or two very small sizes. Many women starve themselves to fit into the clothes. And men are getting bitten by the fashion bug more and more these days, so they’re doing it too, but they have a bit more leeway. A woman should be thin and gorgeous well into middle age. A man can get fat because men don’t need to worry about appearances. Well, not TOO fat, because …

    3. Most companies will require a yearly physical, where your doctor will inform you whether or not you’re too fat (and this makes a difference on premiums or something like that). If your waist is larger than 85cm (male) or 90 (female) you are “metabo” and need to lose weight, regardless of your height or other numbers. Additionally, I’ve heard multiple stories of doctors telling (non-Japanese) women who are around 5’4″ and 118 pounds that they need to lose weight. There seems to be this idea that every woman should weigh 50kg or less, but that’s my general impression.

    4. Then … if you’re pregnant, your doctor will order you on a diet if you gain more than 7-8kg (that’s around 16 pounds). I hope there’s some leeway for twins, but I wouldn’t bet on it. (Lots of stuff is very black/white here.)

    That’s just a taste. But this is a country with a less than 5% obesity rate and yet it’s chock full of diet products. Anorexia is almost unheard of, but you can see walking skeletons every day. And whether or not those people are actually anorexic, yeah, I don’t know. But I know that the principles ingrained in Japanese culture can make anorexic behavior seem incredibly normal. Kind of like how some of the alcohol consumption I see here would be called “alcoholism” back home. Here it’s just … normal. (I asked some people what they thought the difference was and they said it was only alcoholism if the person got sick or abusive. Anorexia as a topic was just impossible, but being a more mental illness probably doesn’t help. Japan is yearsyearsyears behind on the issue of mental illness.)

    And that’s all I have to say about that.

  99. It has to be a movement…like suffrage. It has to be all women who refuse to starve.

    You surely aren’t suggesting that it was all women who fought for suffrage? Or anything close to it?

    Ever since Lysistrata people, a great many of them men, have thought that everything would be fixed if women would just all do exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. Individual women can only gain power if we agree to act simultaneously as an unindividuated mass, is the idea.

    There is a flaw in this argument, somewhere.

    Also, it has never ever happened, and never will.

    Mind you, collective action is a practical necessity in any political movement, I do realize. But that isn’t really the same as suggesting that every woman in the world do this neat thing that I, or you, or Aristophanes just thought of. Luckily for all of us, the success of feminism is not dependent on the hive vagina acting as one. Feminism isn’t synchronized swimming; we’re not going to lose points from the judges because someone, somewhere, is still on a diet.

  100. “You surely aren’t suggesting that it was all women who fought for suffrage? Or anything close to it?”

    Nope not suggesting it was all women; suggesting it was a movement. I’m the hopeful idiot who wishes feminism wasn’t as fractured as it is. I mean that sincerely. But I’m sure you’re also not suggesting that women continue to hurt their bodies for the standard of beauty, are you?

  101. Re: the whole healthy = ableist argument.

    It seems like there is a really tense misunderstanding on all sides. Encouraging a person with a chronic illness to “be healthy” is ableist. Or someone who is unable to engage in the activities that the person encouraging is suggesting as the only means to health. That much is clear, and it seems that everyone is clear on that. The people who are encouraging health are not demanding that all people, regardless of everything, BE HEALTHY NOW. That’s a gross misrepresentation. It seems implied that the health that’s encouraged is for things that are preventable for the person being “encouraged.” Discouraging smoking is one way to encourage health by discouraging engagement in risky behaviors when one does not have to. I do not have to smoke cigarettes, and choosing to do so is causing health problems. It would not be ableist for someone to encourage me to quit smoking… would it? Because it doesn’t feel offensive to me when someone makes that suggestion. It can be annoying sometimes, depending on how they address the issue, but certainly not oppressive by any means.

    Or, if someone were to encourage me to exercise, it would not be oppressive if done to me, with the knowledge that there is nothing hindering me from exercising, and that I am not what most people would describe as overweight, so there wouldn’t the risk of fat-shaming. Again, it would be annoying, maybe even offensive, but certainly not oppressive…

  102. The people who are encouraging health are not demanding that all people, regardless of everything, BE HEALTHY NOW. That’s a gross misrepresentation.

    No, it is what happens in reality. When people “encourage health,” that standard is held against disabled people. Just because you don’t do it, or don’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t done.

    Some of the worst ableism comes from the healthy upper-class white liberal types. People who think that all they are doing is “encouraging health,” but who actually demonize and marginalize PWD as they do it, and create a culture where PWD are regularly harassed for failing to meet their idea of health.

    Or, if someone were to encourage me to exercise, it would not be oppressive if done to me, with the knowledge that there is nothing hindering me from exercising, and that I am not what most people would describe as overweight, so there wouldn’t the risk of fat-shaming. Again, it would be annoying, maybe even offensive, but certainly not oppressive…

    Yes, that’s nice. But if it was done toward me, as it has been, it would be oppressive, even though I look perfectly healthy, I’m tall and young and thin, and nothing seems to be keeping me from exercising. And, strangely enough!, that often makes me more of a target. Because it’s assumed that I could be exercising, so the fact that I’m not is a character failure rather than a simple difference in capacity. And it is held against me. Why am I not being healthy? Clearly I could be if I just tried. So if I don’t, it’s my own fault. Maybe I have so much pain BECAUSE I don’t exercise enough! (I’ve had that thrown at me too many times to count, by casual acquaintances and doctors alike.) Maybe that’s my whole problem. All of my ailments must be because I am not performing those healthy behaviors that everyone is expected to perform. And because I don’t do them, and because I have those ailments, I am therefore failing the rest of society, sucking up taxpayer money, reducing productivity, failing to contribute to society. I am selfishly draining the rest of the world of its resources because I am too lazy to get up and take care of myself.

    You think we aren’t told these things every single day? I remember when I had to leave class crying in seventh grade (the year I was first diagnosed) because a classmate reacted to some article about a disabled woman by saying that all disabled people should just be killed because all they’re doing is holding the rest of the world back. And I pointed out to him that I was one of those people and he said he didn’t care.

    He wasn’t a bad apple. He was just mirroring the values his culture have taught him. And it’s stuff I’ve heard with various degrees of masking and subtlety through the rest of my life. From meaningless strangers and from people who hold power over me, over my access to needed treatment, over my ability to work, over my ability to participate in a variety of activities.

    Just because you don’t see it does not mean it isn’t there.

  103. ” “I will say that I am grateful for your help because I’m apparently not very clear in my writing and that’s causing people to oversimplify my stance.”

    You aren’t being unclear and we aren’t oversimplifying your stance. We’re just disagreeing with it. ”

    Thank you. That was very necessary.

  104. I am using the term starving rather than talking about anorexia. They are two different things: starving by choice and knowing you’re thin and starving because you see yourself as fat even when you’re thin. I am not talking about anorexia. But on that subject, I recommend the documentary Thin.

    I think that if you read my comment a little more carefully, you would see that I said this was a common misconception about anorexia. The line between disordered eating and eating disorders is not nearly as clear as many would like to believe. But I guess that might get in the way of your crusade to get women to gain 10 lbs, or stop starving, or whatever?

    Can I reiterate that I find this incredibly naive? I am all for collective action, but asking individuals to gain 10 lbs or commit to stop ‘starving.’ That seems to miss the point of collective action, since it reinscribes the idea that individual choices are all that matters. And what does it accomplish? Whose lives are better for it? Who does it liberate?

    (Those are real questions, by the way)

  105. Oh, I gave up on gain 10 pounds a while ago, Debbie, and will settle for stop starving. Perhaps if you think I don’t understand the difference between eating disorders and disordered eating, you can explain it to me. As someone who has been starving to be thin and become thin and knew I was thin, I can speak to disordered eating. I can only rely on others’ definitions of anorexia, etc.

  106. Thank you everyone for making me understand that healthy does not exist. I am now subsisting entirely on whiskey, twinkies, and maybe cocaine, in the hope of leading a long life, since health is only a fallacy that is used as a form of ableism and to discriminate against people with disabilities.

  107. Encouraging a person with a chronic illness to “be healthy” is ableist. […] That much is clear, and it seems that everyone is clear on that. The people who are encouraging health are not demanding that all people, regardless of everything, BE HEALTHY NOW.

    Even if it isn’t held against disabled people – even people with good intentions who explicitly make exceptions for people with disabilities when they encourage health – that’s still a problem. You are making people with disabilities the exception, the extraordinary and the other, who don’t need to be taken into account in everyday discourse. You are centring your discussion on currently able bodied people in a way that leaves little space for anyone else.

    It’s not just currently able-bodied people that you are making the norm – it’s people with the resouces to carry out the behaviour. So you may say “well yes the behaviour that I prescribe may be difficult to someone without time/money/transport/energy/whatever I’ll acknowledge that, but that doesn’t stop it being good advice.” But it creates the same problem of centring the discussion on those who already have most power in society and excluding everyone else.

    [and that’s even without looking at what behaviours and attributes get labelled healthy – which is often far more about social control than wellbeing or longevity]

    P T Smith – Do what you like.

    I think it shows how fucked up the relationship with our bodies is supposed to be, that you appear to be suggesting that the only thing stopping you from subsiting on whiskey, twinkies and cocoaine, is other people talking about ‘health’.

  108. maia

    It shows how fucked up and utterly removed from reality people are that you believe the only reason I can’t subsist on whiskey, twinkies, and cocaine is because of people “talking” about health, rather than, ya know, science, medical fact, how food works, what a human body needs?

  109. My favourite thing: When people take complicated discussions that touch on a variety of issues that affect different people in different ways, and then boil them down to absurdity. Because talking about nuances and how things affect different people in different ways and getting really into certain narritives about the imperitive to be “healthy” and the like is just too hard.

  110. PT Smith – I do not believe that.

    My point is that there is more than the discourse around ‘health’, or scientific knowledge, stopping you from subsisting on whiskey, twinkies and cocaine. That given unlimited resources people don’t subsist on whiskey twinkies and cocaine, because it doesn’t meet their body’s needs.

    The question is whether you trust people with their bodies. Whether you trust them to be using their resources in the best way that they can to get the outcomes that are most important for them. Or whether you believe that other people, without any knowledge of what resources someone has, or what is most important to that person, knows what behaviours will best promote that person’s well being.

  111. Anna:

    Thank you for taking what is keeping me from making anything besides snide, frustrated remarks, and pointing out the reason I’m so frustrated.

    I would love it if the discussion could be about nuances, the really, really complex nuances of how what is healthy differs for each and every person, but that that should not stop health from being something to value. But no one wants that discussion, people would rather be right.

  112. Fixed it for you, maia. 🙂

    P.T. Smith, it’s not about not wanting that discussion, it’s about how the valuation of health is used against people with disabilities, as has been pointed out in a thousand little ways through this thread. You yourself are taking the nuance out here.

    People, we’ve discussed how the ‘be healthy’ discourse is harmful to PWD, we’ve discussed how the ten pounds thing is problematic. I think these are important conversations to have; unless you’ve got something new to add, let’s not go around in circles.

  113. Chally, I have since I was called out for it and will continue to refrain from using the words “health,” “unhealthy” and “healthy” in this discussion – and incidentally take this to my job, which is somewhat related; but I do have one very specific question: How is telling a disabled person who is starving by choice to fit the standard of beauty ableist? I would like clarification on that one point. I have read and I think I understand all of the other explanations about this. I’d just like to understand that one point. Thank you in advance.

  114. Chally,
    It is about not wanting that discussion. There has been no discussion here at all. All that has happened here is that people have insisted that no matter how health is being discussed or considered, it is ableist. A discussion of health can be ableist, but pointing that out over, and over, and over, while not allowing for a more refined, detailed discussion of what healthy can consist of is nothing but the desire to be self-rightious and to be right, and is a denial of the existence of such a thing as health.

    So far all that has happened is people have insisted that health does not exist except as an ableist concept. People have insisted that valuing health at all, in any form, is ableist, because there are conceptions of health that disabled people would not be able to meet. But this is absurd. A disabled person can still always be more or less healthy by the standards of their existence. This is the discussion that people are refusing, the desire to move closer to a conception of health that is not ableist, that is varied, but a believes that healthy is something to value.

    Valuing something is not the same as policing, an argument that people have tried to bring up because it is easier. There are lots and lots of things we value in society, and no one sets up mock-fear, Glenn Beck style arguments about police for those values.

    If you take this logic and apply it elsewhere, you wind up with even more absurdity. We can’t value art because there are disabled people who can’t view it. Can’t value music…Can’t value going for a walk, can’t value..

    And now here I am going to be told, what? That I’m missing the point? That I’m being even more ableist? That I’m resorting to simplification or hyperbole?

    I don’t even care, the discussion here has been pathetic. There are flaws in what femspotter has proposed, and hardly any of them have been worked through because people have been trying to stop the discussion before that point.

    Alara Rogers made an effort, but everyone ignored her and set the discussion back again. Her post is the one that matters, but since no one else gives a damn, I don’t have the energy to respond.

  115. femspotter: Ouyang Dan’s post at FWD/Forward (Feminists with Disabilities for a Way Forward: No, Actually, ‘Eat a Sandwich’ is Not ‘Feminist Activism’…

    I don’t imagine that this is the answer you are looking for, but I think it’s a damned good one (including its comments section), and one that anyone else reading this thread may be interested in checking out. A shorter answer would be that you are assuming that your intent overrides your context.

    P.T. Smith, just because you and femspotter have done a poor job of talking about health in ways that are not ablist does not mean that it can’t be done.

  116. God this thread was annoying. Subsisting on cigarettes and coffee is not a healthy practice, and should not be held up as an ideal by those who have the ability to construct such ideals through the industries of fashion and Hollywood. Women should not put up with these systems, and we all need to take a stand against them, because lord knows no one else is going to do it. Thin, fat, skinny or otherwise, the problem is that already thin women’s bodies are photoshopped down to nothing in order to present us with completely unattainable ideals, no matter what we do. For me, thin is not the problem. Society punishing women’s bodies because of their very existence is the problem. One, unattainable ideal is the problem, no matter what that ideal is. Getting rid of that crappy ideal is the way forward. And that will take action from women. That’s why I haven’t so much as looked at a fashion magazine in years.

  117. Jadey 2.15.2010 at 11:10 am
    P.T. Smith, just because you and femspotter have done a poor job of talking about health in ways that are not ableist does not mean that it can’t be done.

    Can it? I haven’t seen it happen.

    It would be a good thing if more people who were able to do so were more healthy. But those benefits aren’t a trump card. You can’t justify any behavior you like merely by saying it’ll benefit some people.

    Because it WOULDN’T be a good thing to force people to try to be healthy if they weren’t able to do so. And there are arguments raised in this thread about how trying to promote “try to be healthy if you can” would be ableist. But of course that’s not a trump card either.

    When you’re dealing with a single action applied to a heterogeneous group it is basically impossible not to have at least some identifiable part of the group which is harmed or at least ‘not benefited.’ Just because there are benefits of an action doesn’t conclusively mean it’s okay to ignore any -ist implications. Yet just because something has -ist implications doesn’t conclusively mean that the other benefits don’t make it worth doing anyway.

  118. @amandaw:

    But if it was done toward me, as it has been, it would be oppressive, even though I look perfectly healthy, I’m tall and young and thin, and nothing seems to be keeping me from exercising.

    What I said, though, was that “if someone were to encourage me to exercise, it would not be oppressive if done to me, with the knowledge that there is nothing hindering me from exercising,

    I’m referring here to my mother, my friends, people who know that I am not unable to exercise, that I don’t have to smoke cigarettes, etc. Telling someone, whose medical history you know nothing about, that they should “be healthy” or exercise or eat better or whatever, would obviously be inappropriate and could be ableist if the person being “encouraged” has a disability. You are making generalizations and sharing your experience with a kid in seventh grade who expressed his belief that disabled people should be killed. That doesn’t have anything to do with people encouraging people who they know to be able to excercise or eat better, or whatever, do make better choices. Your example, while a horrible example of ableism, was not an example of how it is bad and oppressive to encourage healthy choices and behaviors in people who are able to make these choices.

    @Maia:

    You are making people with disabilities the exception, the extraordinary and the other, who don’t need to be taken into account in everyday discourse. You are centring your discussion on currently able bodied people in a way that leaves little space for anyone else.

    Yes, you are right about that– it is, in a sense, excluding people with disabilities. But the whole point that everyone seemed to be making was that including people with disabilities in a discussion about health was ableist. So, I see through the later comments on this thread that “health” is the part that is ableist, because some people do not enjoy good health for reasons beyond their control, or the socially prescribed ideal of health, that we are not to use the word “health,” or any synonyms of “health,” so as to avoid excluding or oppressing people with disabilities. I’m not sure, though, that this is a wise move. It seems as though every discussion that occurs on the feminist blogosphere must include at least one “but you’re not thinking of [such-and-such group] when you say that [being anorexic, whatever else you can possibly think of] is an unhealthy, damaging, or otherwise bad choice/behavior/etc.!” To me, that screams of willfull ignorance and an attempt to make sure that everyone is prevented from attaining knowledge that will enable them to make decisions that make their lives better, more enjoyable, etc. It makes it seem as though I am supposed to feel bad about my ability to make “healthy” decisions, and that I should simply stop. And probably write off all science and medicine as oppressive garbage.

    I see the point, though, that this could be ultimately misinterpreted by “the masses” and manifest itself into ableism. There has to be another way, though. The answer that we should just eliminate discussions of health is far too extreme and completely absurd.

  119. Thanks, Jadey. “A shorter answer would be that you are assuming that your intent overrides your context.” Yes. I think this has been my problem in communicating effectively all along.

  120. Jadey, re: your link, it was an interesting essay to read but it still pertains to the inability to eat rather than a conscious choice to not eat. I’d like to address choice when available. Again, I’m not talking about force feeding women who can’t eat because of a sickness or disability. I am asking women who are choosing not to eat because they want to fit the standard of beauty to say “fuck the standard” and eat according to what their bodies need to be satiated. If they can’t eat because of illness or disability, then I am exempting them from this goal. This may be where I have been unclear and where my “intent overrides (my) context.” But again I come back to wanting to have a discussion of choices and asking women to make the responsible (what I consider responsible) choice not to starve whenever they can.

  121. Ok, but see, why are you setting the goal at all?

    The issue here isn’t that discussing PWD in a conversation about health is ableist. Obviously that’s not true – for one thing, amandaw and other PWD are discussing PWD in a conversation about health. I’m not saying it’s impossible for a PWD to say something ableist, but I am saying that since that’s what PWD are doing in this thread, it’s likely that’s not the point they’re trying to make.

    I don’t think anyone is saying that one woman trying to encourage her mother to take better care of herself is ableist either! It could be, sure, but it isn’t inherently, and isn’t the point being argued. Which I think everyone here knows.

    Saying “the goal shouldn’t be size, the goal should be health” as an attempt to move away from sizeism still incorporates ableism. Saying “PWD are exempted from my goal” centers *your goal* not people’s rights to their own bodies. Yeah, I want my family members to be around for a long time, and I’d like them to do the things that are reasonably within their control to reach that goal. But it’s really none of my business what women in Hollywood eat, or what the women in my Con Law class eat. Maybe I don’t like their priorities. Maybe they make anti-feminist choices. OH WELL. A lot of people have a problem with my priorities – I shouldn’t care so much about getting accommodations, I shouldn’t be so quick to get angry when the nine-billionth person this week violates my accommodations. I should spend more time making home-cooked meals because obviously you can tell by looking at me whether I’m capable of doing that every night or not.

    No one says you can’t make healthy choices for yourself. I try to make the healthiest choices for myself that I can, and I’ve read other PWD on this thread saying the same. The issue is when you say a) people should be healthy! b) healthy means ______ .

    Exempting PWD doesn’t make it better. Setting a standard that people generally should meet in order to be sufficiently feminist or sufficiently invested in self-care is always, always, going to leave folks out in the cold, and it will almost certainly be people whose experiences are outside of the ken of the person/people setting the standard. That’s just how it works.

  122. When you use the word “health,” you are invoking a certain concept, a certain cultural touchstone. And that touchstone is one that more or less defines itself as “disability BAD! do these things to not become BAD!”

    There is such a thing as doing what is best for your own body, your own mind, your own life. And it may or may not fit in the medical industry’s idea of health, or Whole Foods’ idea of health, or the yuppie yoga class’ idea of health.

    But if a person is to picture “health,” those are the things they will invariably picture. A young, thin person, with good muscle tone, who is highly physically active, who prepares complicated meals from scratch with specialized organic ingredients.

    And no matter what you insist YOU mean by it, when you posit an obligation of people to “be healthy,” there are people who punish US for every way we fail to conform to that image. People who harass US for not being healthy. Because YOU, and bunches of others, think that the solution to one oppression is to reinforce a structure that oppresses those OTHER people (whom you kindly exempt from your requirements, thank you, except that just because you say it doesn’t mean others won’t interpret it that way and treat us accordingly).

    And fuck, if you think the solution to the beauty myth is to enforce the exact same oppressive structure (expecting all women to obtain or maintain a certain type/size/shape/color body for other people’s purposes) — just, you know, with a slightly different body type demanded — rather than to say to hell with the idea of demanding that women change their very physical being for your purposes — well, you can think what you like, and I’ll think you’re just incredibly misguided.

  123. Another quick word, just a jot on, rather than supportive of any position here, because at least in *this* thread, talking about Lisa Hilton, the fat/skinny shaming stuff is pretty relevant:

    There are times when you have to let things *be*, and I’d like to carve out a place for “health” in terms of public/government provision. In order to do many of the public health activities that the government routinely provides, like water treated with chlorine/added flouride, campaigns against tobacco/alcohol, public awareness of breast and skin cancers, vaccinations, and anti-nutrient deficiency campaigns, the government provides a definition of what “healthy” means, and they can’t provide the *service* without that *definition*.

    Some campaigns didn’t do much but cause misery, like both the US and Soviet Union’s attempt to decrease alcohol use, even though there are really good reasons why you’d want to do that. That is often because of how the government defined and used “health” was political (anti-catholicism, among others for the US, alcohol was a key self-medication in the SU). Also, governments tends to use a flexible and personal term like “health” for one thing (like who’s in good enough shape to be a soldier) and apply that definition inappropriately to other areas like, say, school children fitness. Thus, there is always a great need to take advantage of opportunities for expanding, defining, and sorting what health means to different groups of people–even when it’s a public good.

    I *will* oppose amandaw‘s perspective of the problem because I believe that the problem is closer to how people use the term “health” rather than what the word actually means, even if she’s correct about that meta-meaning. I view it as grossly impractical because if you’re not around the sort of people who deliver health resources that are beneficial according to how widespread that resource is used, then you’re probably preaching to the choir. If you *are* around such people, they are going to look down on their nametags that got their names, and under it….XXXXXX HEALTH XXXXXX. It’s an intrinsic part of their work personality and culture, and you’re not making them more amenable to how you think about an issue, even though that deconstruction is *really* important to improving the access and interaction of more diverse people with medical professionals.

    We don’t want deaf people “cured” without their consent. We don’t want hospitals to make the same assumptions of what every woman feels to be a safe birth. We don’t want health officials to think that there is one natural, normal, healthy mental state and drug everyone to that state. We want our public health officials to make health care resources accessible along with the information that might advise us how those resources help and harm us. We don’t get that with a frontal assault on “health”. We’d only get lumped in with the anti-vaccine folks (of course, some of the fat shaming concerns folks ARE of that bent). We get what we want by not assuming the worst of such folks, aknowledging the issues that they want to solve, and speaking of the value of the people they purportedly wish to help’s voices in getting a happy outcome.

  124. P.T. Smith if you think you have tact, I think you need a dictionary.

    You keep insisting that we all just don’t get it, we won’t let you say health exists. Yes. Health exists. Nobody here has ever denied that. What we object to, categorically, and without exception, is the need to have a discussion about what health is comprised of. There is no point. It’s a discussion that can do nothing but be used against one or more groups of people, for no benefit to anyone. Allow me a history lesson:

    Once upon a time, scientists in the western world were obsessed with how the races and sexes of human being differed (see, The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould). Much measurement of head sizes and femurs and forearm:upper arm ratios was done to prove once and for all that white men were superior to everyone else. The measurements were all sound, but the premises and conclusions were all faulty. The statistical significance of any of the differences was doubtful, but most importantly, there was no valid reason to ask the question “is X type of person more intelligent than Y?” in the first place. No good can ever come of trying to have some sort of dispassionate objective dialogue about a subjective, fluid human property, particularly where a human’s worth can be made dependent on their property score. The only purpose of defining health or intelligence (both of which exist, but are hugely subjective and time and place dependent) is so that one set of actions can be placed in the good box, and another set in the bad box, followed by one set of people in the good box, and another in the bad box. Then articles can be written, admonishments can be made, and hands can be wrung.

    You want to discuss what healthy is? Why? So you can do it yourself? Why do you care about achieving consensus? Figure it out for your own damn self, the US has only been obsessing about defining health for the past century, enough has been said about it to read for a lifetime. So you can judge other people? Why do you need to judge other people? If they’re not hurting you, stay out of it, let their families and friends take care of them, or wait until they ask you for help. End of discussion. You and femspotter seem to have this almost hysterical need to ensure that we figure out what healthy is once and for all because someone, somewhere MIGHT NOT KNOW and that would END THE WORLD. People know what our society thinks is healthy already. People who “fail” to be healthy by some obvious choice (i.e. the smoke and coffee dieters, the people who starve themselves) aren’t somehow unaware that “they’re not being healthy” and so we need to redouble our efforts to tell them so. That’s the point the PWD and others have been trying to make here. WE ALL KNOW WHAT HEALTHY IS SUPPOSED TO BE, it is shoved down the throat of perceived transgressors all.the.fucking.time. People who are “actually” unhealthy? Yeah, they know too! If non-starving skinnies get told to eat a fucking sandwich, you think that women starving themselves don’t???

    Every asshole on the internet has felt the need to figure out which of the poor are the Deserving Poor, and which abortions are Justified Abortions, which rape was Real Rape, and so on ad nauseum. We don’t care to discuss who is a Good Skinny/Fatty or who is Legitimately Unhealthy. We’re not in the business of figuring out which people we are allowed to scorn, but you’re more than welcome to sit in your own basement devising bitter lists of the undeserving, if you simply must.

  125. I mean, yes, you can be sarcastic.

    You’d still know nothing. I’d still be your opponent because you’d be what is typically called a Know Nothing.

    You can also assume that what I said was in bad faith. Very Well, but I can do the same. So why do it, you know?

    I mean, have you ever read very much about rickets? Or seen people who’ve suffered from childhood nutritional dificiencies? Are you particularly familiar with just how hard it was to change cultural and personal habits that caused high child mortality. People had to change local ideas about what a healthy practice meant. They usually *had* to use a very image based focus on what “health” meant. Saved and improved lives when they did that.

    So yeah, I’m mansplaining, I suppose, but I think you’re into class warfare.

  126. I suppose you would know better than me, since you favor such short and content free rebuttals.

    Because hey…look, I think that what amandaw had to say was important, and I think she has good reason to say what she did. I have other opinions and ideas that I think should be a part of this discussion (as it had evolved towards), and I placed my ideas and opinions in the context of hers. I put some degree of effort to really understand what was said before saying anything. I deserve more than talkity-smack one-liner sarcasm.

  127. Yes, I understand that you feel your ideas should be part of the discussion. Even though they’re off-topic and not relevant and blame us for social structures that work to our considerable disadvantage and are condescendingly dismissive of the experiences we have lived. You have ideas and you know and so you had to make them part of the discussion and to make it real clear that amandaw is wrong about her life.

    It didn’t merit a longer response. The one you got bothered you enough that you accused me of wanting children to die of malnutrition. Which made my day. It’s not often my aura of pure evil shines through the internets that well.

  128. Well, I think I can confidently say that your snark was of even less merit in the thread. I only engaged with you at all because I was kind of shocked, and then angry at your comment. And you persist in a kind of glibertarian “I know I am but What Are You?” vein. How would you expect anyone to take you seriously, you know? I mean, unless I agree with you, I’m wrong and unworthy of respect seems to be your attitude. While I have a sufficiently healthy amount of self-respect such that my feelings aren’t hurt, I still wonder what the heck is up with you? Even if what you thought was important, how could I have ever engaged with your concerns (because you pretty much said nothing)? Does it make you feel better to blow off someone? More superior?

    I can’t even engage with your more substantive comment @149 because your first paragraph is so absurd to the point of not even being wrong–and it would have been easy to be right if you actually had read anything.

    I’m thinking any thread that has anything to do with fat is just going to have be tightly moderated

  129. “When you use the word “health,” you are invoking a certain concept, a certain cultural touchstone. And that touchstone is one that more or less defines itself as “disability BAD! do these things to not become BAD!”

    Yes….. to an extent that is what I was saying, not in terms of disabilities, but disease. People tell me not to smoke to avoid lung cancer. Because no one really wants lung cancer. It IS bad. That is not offensive- it is a fact. Maybe because I’m talking about preventable diseases and you are talking about disabilities that people are born with.

    And I don’t think anyone was talking about those when they said health. I think I get what cacophonies/april and PT Smith meant. I should be able to suggest that my friends and I jog without it being ableist because someone somewhere cannot jog. I wouldn’t suggest them to do it. It should be politically correct to say hey, health is important. Take care of it the best you can. In whatever way you can.

    Why can’t it be…..whatever healthy is for each person? Quitting smoking, eating more fruits and vegetables when you can, doing what exercise you know your body can handle.

  130. And of course you would be saying this to people you know, people you are close with.

    Part of why this is important to me is because my best friend lost her mom last year. Now she is making an effort to work out, eat healthy. Being unhealthy, being overweight, or underweight, or whatever can be FATAL. Like smoking. Or being an alcoholoc. Or whatever. So my question was, how can we address the serious problem that that is?? Do we need to define healthy in a clearer manner? And distinguish between what we call disability and what we call preventable disease. Perhaps that is where I wasn’t clear in my earlier posts.

  131. Oh and its my understanding that anorexia nervosa has less to do with weight and food and more to do with control, compulsion, and anxiety.

  132. Sorry for the back to back comments. I just read what happy feet wrote and I get it. The idea of healthy is shoved down our throats.

    My point was more along, how can we help. How can we make it not about “you are fat and that is not cool so lose weight” and more “develop your own healthy habits so that you can be in better health.”
    Not to scorn or make fun, but to try to change the dialogue so that it wasn’t hurtful.

  133. That’s a start and it would be less harmful to more people. But a socially-constructed obligation to be healthy is still harmful to people who aren’t, for whatever reason, healthy. Smoking [tobacco] and lung cancer gets mentioned a lot. There’s an assumption that because the correlation between smoking tobacco and lung cancer is known and has been for a while then anyone who smokes and gets lung cancer deserves it. There’s resentment that they get treated for their illness, there are people who say that the resources used to treat them would be better used to treat people who are more deserving of care. The endpoint of that being that people who smoke and get lung cancer should be left to die slowly from a very painful disease: that’s what they deserve.

    We aren’t saying that all public health initiatives are harmful. Ones that aren’t targeted, that nearly everyone in a society participates in in the same ways, are immensely helpful. Sanitary water and sewage treatment and vaccinations against formerly pandemic diseases (to keep them formerly pandemic) have been as close to unqualified successes as any human endeavor.

    What we’re saying is that by establishing this obligation to be healthy we create assumptions analogous to those around smoking and lung cancer. If a person isn’t doing absolutely everything possible to be healthy — and absolutely everything possible gets defined by “what the most privileged people are doing” because it always does — then they are less deserving of treatment when they become sick or injured.

    And the only trait that should be considered if a person deserves treatment or not is if they need treatment.

    (There’s more, like the tendency for those of us who are obviously unhealthy to get unwelcome advice on how to be healthier from strangers. They are just trying to help. They want us to develop our own healthy habits so we can be in better health. It’s not pleasant.)

  134. Health Shmealth.

    What does “good health” get you anyway? Long life? Yeah sure – who’s guaranteeing that, and can I get it in writing? The only people who have a real stake in society’s health as a whole are the people trying to sell us a product or the people worried about spending money to keep our saggy cancer-ridden asses on life support for the last worst years when they’d rather spend it on corporate yachts. The HMO Pinafore, for example.

    Sheesh. Care about health? Cancer? REALLY? Then ban the combustion engine and industries of production for a start. Just criminalize sickness, that’ll take care of the problem. Ha. Any life-extending mega-change will be coming from genetics anyway, so yeah, whiskey twinkie coke me up. Who the fuck cares. Except I hate twinkies – make mine Devil Dogs (do they still make those?)

    Frame this crap as a “quality of life” issue and you’re right back to being ableist and paternalistic and presumptive because quality of life is totally subjective. Frame this crap as a “but I want my mom/dad/whoever to live for a long time” issue and you better get a grip and prepare cause it’s you or them and your ‘whoever’ probably wants to go first. Worried about your kids and wanna live to raise them? Well you might ought to worry about your will before your gym membership.

    ‘Health’ is something sold to the highest bidder – and shit – they probably want us all healthy and fit so they can harvest our organs when they need them. hmph.

    Fuck you “health”. Fuck you “well-being”, and what the hell, fuck you too, “dignity”. It’s all temporary, when not an outright illusion, and can be snatched away from you, given back, and snatched away again and again.

    And not to mention, goddamn, mental health and the millions of people without mental health services who are self-medicating, and how maybe making hyperbolic jokes about living on whiskey and cocaine isn’t helpful at all.

    (and byw- it’s “living on reds, vitamin C, and cocaine” – not whiskey and twinkies. 🙂 )

  135. “Now she is making an effort to work out, eat healthy. Being unhealthy, being overweight, or underweight, or whatever can be FATAL. Like smoking. Or being an alcoholoc. Or whatever. So my question was, how can we address the serious problem that that is??”

    S.L., the problem is that BEING BORN is FATAL. Always has been, and, at least for the foreseeable future, is always going to be. Overweight, underweight, smoking, alcoholic, no vices. Eat healthy, work out, and DIE. If your friend finds comfort from her grief in “working out” and eating “healthy” (subject to changes in medical knowledge and pop culture), then she should by all means continue to do so.

    However, she’s still going to die, as are the rest of us. People who never do anything “wrong” get injured, get sick, get disabled; “bad people” who smoke and drink and engage in risky activities LIKE SPORTS can live to be 90 and never be ill – and they’ll all die in the end. “HEALTH” is often used as a club to beat other people with, as is “behave in X way FOR YOUR OWN GOOD”. Who’s going to check up on all of us to make sure we’re all conforming to the current pop image of “health”? Do those of us who did everything “right” and got shortchanged have a department we can complain to? Can we sue? Because if MY responsibility to the rest of society is to be HEALTHY because of what it could cost THEM – well, I did EVERYTHING RIGHT, and it DIDN’T WORK, so why isn’t society taking care of me?? Because it ISN’T.

    Put the onus on the people who manufacture automobiles that dump carcinogens into the air that I breathe, and the manufacturers who dump poisons into the water, and the fact that nobody, apparently, is responsible for the pesticide runoff, not ZOMG, it’s unhealthy PEOPLE who are the burden.

  136. To FW: Your comment “Frame this crap as a “but I want my mom/dad/whoever to live for a long time” issue and you better get a grip and prepare cause it’s you or them and your ‘whoever’ probably wants to go first.” was unnecessary and somewhat hurtful. It’s not crap that I care about someone close to me.

    To LaBellaDonna: Thanks for your post. I totally understand what you said, and I do agree. I have seen the arguments that if someone has an illness resulting from their actions, they don’t deserve treatment as much as someone who is ‘innocent.’ And I think that is a horrible argument. And illness can strike anyone at anytime. Everyone deserves treatment.

    I guess I was thinking along the lines of…. how do we talk about health without being hurtful? Or without being judgemental? Maybe I was being naive… 🙂

  137. The very idea of “health” IS a judgment. That’s the point I’ve been trying to articulate. There is no nonjudgmental way to talk about health, no way to talk about health without leaving out some people, hurting some people, making life worse for some people. Because the entire concept is a valuation of personhood based on characteristics we imagine we have total control over when in reality, that control is 98% illusion.

  138. Because the entire concept is a valuation of personhood

    Was it always, though? Does it have to be?

    I’m honestly wondering, because there’s no disputing that what you go on to say is true: That we control health is 98% illusion. And the 2% generally vanishes into ridiculousness: Barring coercive circumstances, I can control whether or not I jump off the roof of a five-story building, and I will probably be healthier/a lot less dead if I don’t do that, but so what? The whole exercise/eat healthy/live Puritanically, and you will live longer/better/happier–I know that’s false. That kind of preachy-preachy wears me out and always has.

    I guess I’m saying, a lot of the healthy/unhealthy talk I hear nowadays, I recollect as having once been stuff that used to fall under the domain of nobody’s damn business but your own. I liked it better that way, without all the judging. That could just be the rose-colored glasses acting up again, or just my personal experience, but I could swear people used to butt out more.

    At the same time, I don’t see why “I feel better, healthier, or happier if I do this” has to be tied to a valuation of anyone else’s personhood in the first place. It’s only when it gets a tacked-on “so you would feel better if you did this, too, NO, SHUT UP, I KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU!” that I think it becomes that. Or am I missing something?

  139. amandaw 2.20.2010 at 12:38 pm

    The very idea of “health” IS a judgment. That’s the point I’ve been trying to articulate. There is no nonjudgmental way to talk about health, no way to talk about health without leaving out some people, hurting some people, making life worse for some people.

    This mush seems obvious.

    But as I said, it’s not final. Yes, promoting health in a certain way would cause some problems. You have pointed some of them out. But your argument lacks the other side; you’re talking only from one perspective. What are the benefits? Do they outweigh the costs?

    Your post seems to be assuming both that health causes harm to people, and also that the harm is unjustified (i.e. that the solution is to change the concept of health.) Where are you getting the second assumption?

  140. I work from the assumption that additional marginalization of already marginalized persons is not an acceptable cost for the comfort of the nonmarginalized folks.

  141. First, I hope you guessed that I meant to type “much;” your statement is not “mush.”

    Next: When you say it’s not an acceptable cost, do you mean almost never, or never? If you mean “never;” then: No matter how small the cost? No matter how large the other benefit is?

    If it’s “almost never,” then, like I said, the stuff you are assuming needs to be discussed, not taken as a given.

    If it is “never,” (from my reading of your posts, I’m guessing that you come down on this side; sorry if I’m wrong) then what justifies such an absolutist position? As you can guess, I’m in the “almost never” camp, not the “never” camp.

  142. As a highly privileged individual with chronic illness, I’m torn by some of the things I read here.

    I understand, personally and politically, that the idea of ‘just be healthy’ is problematic for those who may not have the resources to do so (Hey, fresh fruit, vitamins and a gym pass don’t come for free!)

    As someone who makes every effort to ‘be healthy’ but clearly cannot attain whatever ‘healthy’ seems to be, due to chronic illnesses that are out of my control, I can still see how ‘be healthy’ could be used as a positive framework for elitist discussions about ‘weight in Hollywood’ or the modeling industry, or what not.

    And getting back to the issue at hand, Lisa Hilton’s article isn’t exactly sophisticated and so simply telling her “Actually, people should just be healthy and we should make health the yard stick” (as problematic as that is) is still enough to shoot down her entire article. Especially when you consider that she’s referring to the often targeted actresses, models, etc; people who are publicly shamed/praised for their body sizes; models who are publicily given or rejected work based on their body size.

  143. I always think people miss the point with the fashion industry.

    The point is worker safety for models. They’re very young, they’re often foreign, and their contracts require them to be extremely thin. Potentially, thin enough for health risks. That’s not right, and in a perfect world I would like to see the industry require physical exams for models. If a doctor can’t confirm your health, I’d like to see respectable agencies refuse to hire you.

    If you’re thin but well, no problem. But if you’re being manipulated into taking a job that harms your health, then it is a problem, the same way coal lung is a problem for miners. Capitalist societies allow people to take some risks for cash, but we also tend to strike a balance by enforcing (or letting industries self-enforce) some safety norms.

    As for the rest of us, whose only relationship to the fashion industry is as consumers, I don’t see much to worry about. You are the captain of your ship, you are the master of your fate, and all that. If it wouldn’t be good for you to obsess about your body, then don’t obsess about your body. If you enjoy vanity, then be vain, and aspire to whatever beauty ideal suits you. We aren’t so frail as to be mere tools of advertising.

Comments are currently closed.