I was listening to NPR’s All Things Considered last week and heard an interview with Sapphire, the author of the novel Push, on which the movie Precious is based. The host asked why it was important that the character be obese, and I found this question and some wording in Bob Mondello’s movie review (“her face so full it seems incapable of expression”) to be at least irritating and perhaps borderline offensive–I felt that they seemed to view Precious and to some extent Gabourey Sidibe, the actress who plays her, as some sort of strange curiosity. So I loved the author’s straightforward and beautiful response, in the context of an anecdote about a white woman who had approached her to indicate that, after seeing the film, “she would never look at an overweight black woman again with the same judgment.” It made me happy to hear.

After seeing this film, she had to deal with an obese black woman as a feeling, intelligent person as a person who dreams, as a person who wants the things that she wants. So we brought up a stereotype, and we cracked it open, and a human being comes forth.

I just wanted to toot my own horn by announcing that I finished the half-marathon I have been training for this morning in 2:15:49. I also finished in the top half of my age/sex group. I am thrilled with this result–my goal was 2:30:00, and near the end of training I was somewhat concerned I wouldn’t be able to meet it. But prior self-doubt notwithstanding, the race itself was a ton of fun and the course (over the Ambassador Bridge and back through the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel) was so scenic and enjoyable. Crowd support and the weather were also great. Interesting factoid: other than a refueling stop in Gander, NF on a flight to Europe in 1992, I have never been to Canada before. This is despite growing up in Michigan and working for 3 years in an office building overlooking the Detroit River from which I could see Windsor every day. (No, I’m not really sure why I never just drove over there.) Well, now I have been there–on foot! :) Very cool. Overall, the race was an amazing experience for me.

I also wanted to report that despite rumors to the contrary (I saw a couple of Facebook comments–which I’m sure posters  considered positive and complimentary–about how it was great to see such a “fit, good-looking” crowd at the pre-race Health and Fitness Expo–presumably they meant by contrast with the typical convention center crowd), my visual observations indicate that a number of ACTUAL REAL LIVE FAT PEOPLE, even apart from myself, participated in this morning’s races. Many of them even finished AHEAD OF THIN PARTICIPANTS. Photodocumentation of this remarkable fact is available (possible headline: “OMGWTF FAT WOMAN STOPS EATING DONUTS FOR SEVERAL HOURS, RUNS MARATHON”). But… but… Fatosphere readers, you don’t seem shocked at this news! Huh. Oh well. :)

In any case, congratulations to everyone who participated, and on a very sad note, my thoughts are with the loved ones of the 3 runners (certainly an unusually high number for one event) who died during the race. I can’t imagine what it would be like to lose a friend or family member under such shocking circumstances.

My local public radio station posted this photo essay to accompany a current reporting series on the “obesity crisis” in Michigan (Personally, I think we have other crises that are more important right now, but why not scapegoat fat people to make ourselves feel better in the meantime?). The series is called “What We Eat” (make of that what you will) and starts airing this afternoon, so you will probably be able to check the web site after that for segments that have aired, if you are interested.

Michigan Radio posted a Facebook update about the photo essay today, so if you have any additional feedback after viewing the photos, feel free to add it to their comments. (Right now it is the top update on their page, but you may have to scroll down as I can’t figure out how to link to the update directly.) I did my best, but I tend to rant and rave rather than stay on message. I also commented in this earlier thread, and I have to say there are a lot of comments there that I liked (even the one person who is all “every fat person I have known has made terrible choices, IT’S SCIENCE” is not 100% unreasonable). I really wish I had mentioned Kate’s name in that thread in case they take it into their heads to actually do an FA interview. Maybe I will go do that now, even though it is probably too late.

So anyway, I thought we could use the photo essay to play a fun little game called “spot the fat hate/fat stereotypes.” I have a lot of ideas about this, but I will post just one–see how in the first photo, the overflowing trash can is front and center, perpetuating the idea that fat people are destroying the environment with our greed and wastefulness? What other anti-fat ideas do you see embodied in these photos?

Michigan Radio posted this inspiring story to Facebook today. It may be easier and more fun for those who don’t live here to presume that Detroit is an irredeemable dump, that our work force is lazy, entitled, and uneducated, and all the other crap I hear on a daily basis. But there are a lot of people here proving those perceptions wrong.

Here’s another account of an out-of-state company looking to Michigan to meet its needs for production of green energy components, and a story about some Detroit residents who are opening businesses and artistic ventures in the city (Slows Bar-B-Q, referenced in the article, is an amazing restaurant).

…the problems with Glee? Yes, it’s entertaining (I’m giving it another couple of episodes in the hope that it will settle some of its issues, because I enjoy the singing, the show’s potential, and the school setting), but so far it’s also pretty sexist. Beyond that, very few of the characters are remotely likable (the exceptions for me are the main female character, Rachel Berry; the teacher, Will Schuester, who is so bland and inoffensive that it is hard to have an opinion about him one way or the other; the principal; and cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester, at least for the roughly 30% of the time when the incomparable Jane Lynch is spouting hilariously demented lines rather than filling up a feminist stereotype bingo card). It’s like the show’s creator hates the entire cast in addition to hating all women everywhere.

Here are a few of the sexist characters, tropes, and images I noticed in the last couple of episodes:

  • Mr. Schuester’s wife, Terri, is a lazy, whiny, entitled princess who thinks she’s put-upon for having to work part-time at a Sheets-’n-Things store. She is also stupid, as evidenced by her “hysterical pregnancy.” Oh, the hilarity! In general, she seems to exist to fulfill the belief that your wife really is naggy and evil and out to take all your money, whereas you are a saint with the patience of Job, and furthermore the grass really is greener on the other side of the fence where that cuter younger model whose only apparent personality trait is quirkiness resides. By the way, when I was trying to find this character’s name, I came across a forum link with a discussion thread entitled “Anyone else can’t stand Terri?” Um, I highly doubt you’re supposed to like her. The one glimmer of hope I see for Terri is that she appears to realize at the end of the most recent episode that lying about her pregnancy was wrong, but was so scared she didn’t see another alternative. A true cardboard cutout would have been totally fine with the lie.
  • Which brings me to Terri’s sister, another flat stereotype whose husband is afraid to go to the bathroom without permission, who eggs Terri on to purchase an elaborate McMansion that they can’t afford (side note: their “inadequate” apartment appears to contain a giant clawfoot tub in a beautifully restored bathroom–WTF?), perpetuates the “wives and mothers are lazy spoiled princesses” trope again by admonishing Terri not to give up her “craft room” for a nursery in a mockery of the concept that stressed-out moms should dare have any outlet for themselves, and encourages her to continue lying to her husband about the mistaken pregnancy. This character is like all of the most hateful assumptions about women distilled into one person.
  • Sue is hilarious and in many ways a joy to watch, as Jane Lynch always is. But they also write self-important lines for the character that are intended to show the hilarity and ridiculousness that is feminism–murmuring “offensive” to the phrase “cock of the walk,” lashing out that she doesn’t want to be treated like a second-class citizen because of her gender when gender wasn’t really part of the discussion. This should all be just super for coddling and justifying complacent viewers’ misinformed beliefs about what “feminists are like.” Of course there is a line that reveals Sue to be post-menopausal as well, because it wouldn’t do to portray a character like her as anything other than man-hating, “dried up,” and desexualized (though the show also could have gone with “’scary’ butch lesbian”).
  • Emma, the school’s guidance counselor, has the potential to be an interesting character, so I will reserve judgment on her for now (though I don’t like the general idea of the tiny, pure, perfect ingenue who often appears on TV and in film and is always just so much more appealing than the ol’ ball and chain), but in a really gross line from last week’s show, she advises Rachel that not having a gag reflex will be a boon to her “later in life.” This line veers just a little too close to “rape is funny” for my comfort–it assumes that oral sex is de facto uncomfortable and unpleasant for women, but something that you are simply required to buck up and do anyway. Ick.
  • Speaking of which, the show’s mean girls belong to an abstinence club where they scheme behind closed doors about how to exert power over boys by denying them sex. This scene, to me, seemed designed to show that women really are controlling, cold bitches who deserve what they get. Later, when the boys and girls were attempting to interact “chastely,” one of the boy characters simulates grinding and yells “c’mon, take it!” in a throwaway line. This is what immediately jumps to mind when the writers think of sex–for women, it’s a mind game, and for men, it’s a push to dominate against a woman’s will? To me, that’s kind of depressing.
  • A wimpy, sexually frustrated male character who appeared to be portrayed as something of a Jewish stereotype was another tiresome addition to this scene. Come to that, the show’s creator appears to be none too fond of men either–a fired choir director is a druggie pedophile who harasses his students, and previews showed a presumably gay choreographer who appears to be played as a fat, bitchy, irrational, pathetic figure of fun in eyeliner. (Note that I obviously don’t think “fat” or any of those other features are negative characteristics, but you can bet this show probably does.)

Finally, the way the show’s ensemble is set up is fairly ridiculous. OK, to be fair, many TV shows contain a white character or couple around which the entire plot revolves, with a supporting group of minority characters who exist mainly to make the cast look “diverse,” but sometimes attempts are made to alter this structure or present it in a more subtle manner. Not on Glee! Nope–you have the patented characters of black girl, gay guy, Asian girl, and disabled guy all literally backing up the white main character and leading man. Furthermore, it would seem that Rachel’s dark hair is meant to symbolize her status as unpopular misfit (in opposition to her blonde head-cheerleader nemesis)–never mind that she is still white, thin, pretty, and otherwise TV-perfect in every way–so the show doesn’t really even break the mold that the golden girl or couple must always be not only white but blond to boot.

The black singer’s personality seems to consist entirely of “loud diva,” and the rest of the characters have not really been given personalities to speak of yet. I suppose they could be playing this structure so blatantly as a means of satirizing the white-lead/minority-supporting-cast structure, but personally, I am not really seeing that.

In any case, this show is on probation for me. Treating the characters like actual human beings deserving of a baseline level of respect would go a long way toward helping the show live up to its own hype, in my opinion.

I recently read Laurie Ruettimann’s excellent post at Punk Rock HR on Deficits and Debt and found that I agreed completely with her premise. I left a super-long, hard to read comment to the post (as is my customary practice :) ), and Laurie very kindly suggested that I turn it into a post–so voila! Basically, I don’t think government spending is a bad thing, and here’s why:

I live in Michigan and I see important education, public works, public assistance, public health, etc. programs being cut because lawmakers want to (and know they can) score easy points with a bunch of stingy people who can well afford to pay their taxes but choose to be mad about an expensive painting in the Capitol building or something, and somehow decide that means they shouldn’t have to pay any taxes whatsoever.

Honestly, I think the services we need to pay for and any government waste that is going on are two separate issues and should be discussed separately. As it is, people use (admittedly egregious) anecdotal examples of waste to dishonestly shut down any opposition to their position, so a productive discussion never takes place, especially in scary places like newspaper comment threads. Like, we may all agree on paper that we want to pay for great schools, roads, and services that serve the state’s residents well and attract others to the state. OK, good. Then the fact that a particular bonehead assistant to the department head (or whatever) is wasting money on something (which, let’s be honest, is usually like 1/1,000,000 or less the cost of any real substantive line item) still does not mean that the prioritized programs should not be funded–properly, not with money that doesn’t really exist or with a bunch of symbolic caveats designed only to make it clear that said governmental unit is being “tough on waste.” The two are not really related in my mind. Instead, it means that particular bonehead should be fired or have his budget taken away, or if it is an endemic problem in some department, get someone better in there to clean house.

To my mind it would be better to borrow now, use the money to address some of the situations that are keeping us in this crisis for years at a time (if Michigan works only within what it can immediately pay for right now, then good luck keeping anyone in the state, much less getting anyone else to come here. Of course we have to to some extent because we have a balanced budget amendment. I do not like balanced budget amendments. Anyway). Then pay it back when the situation is better. I would also add that if you can afford to send your kids to private school if you have to, replace your vehicle when terrible roads destroy it, and live in a safe neighborhood (among other things), of course you’re going to feel your taxes are too high because you’re lucky enough not to need any help. To me this is an example of where the majority (reasonably well-off people and those who are making it one way or the other) should not get to decide for the minority (desperately poor people who NEED these services) whether they get to live or die and whether their kids ever get to escape the cycle of poverty with decent nutrition, education, etc. because realistically most do not have that option without some assistance.

How hard is it to make a lip balm with an SPF rating of at least 15–and preferably 30 or higher–that has adequate UVA protection (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, or avobenzone) and does not contain a) useless irritating crap (“soothing” mint, ginger, etc. etc. etc.) that is supposed to be a positive feature but actually does nothing but cause you to use more and more of the product because of the irritation, b) ridiculous and nauseating saccharine-based tropical, fruit, or other “flavors,” as I neither need nor wish to eat my lip balm (DO YOU HEAR ME, BLISTEX? I WILL NEVER BUY YOUR PRODUCTS AGAIN), or (and I’m really reaching now), c) parabens, phenols or other commonly allergenic/irritating ingredients? I’m not even ASKING for things like antioxidants and whatnot, or specialized solutions like a vegan option for my friend who is allergic to beeswax.

You should be able to find something like this in the drugstore for a couple of bucks with no problem whatsoever. Meanwhile I do internet searches and largely fail to find anything that is halfway suitable, if the manufacturer deigns to allow even drugstore.com to post the full ingredient list, never mind rinky-dink sites that don’t post ANY of the ingredients for otherwise-promising products. (Hint: If you say “SPF 15″ but do not tell me what is in the product, I do not believe you and will never buy your product. If you demonstrate that the product does have SPF 15 but only provide the absolute minimum of information allowed by law as regards the remaining ingredients, I get mad and will never buy your product.) Also, you really hate to pay shipping on A LIP BALM that you have to order online.

I feel like advancements in science and consumers becoming more savvy, largely due to watchdogs like Paula Begoun and knowledgeable users of internet communities such as acne.org, have greatly improved the quality of sunscreen lotions in recent years–you rarely find one anymore that doesn’t have UVA protection, many options are fragrance-free, you can get antioxidants and anti-irritants in even some inexpensive products, and therefore I have a large selection to choose from these days when trying to pick a sunscreen that works with my sensitive, acne-prone skin. Lip products, however, seem to still be in this 30-years-ago snake oil phase where they tell you something does something but don’t reveal what is in it or how it is supposed to work, and instead continue to use outdated formulations and load them up with non-functional ingredients that “tingle” (so you’ll think the product is doing something, I guess) and heavy fragrances. I hate it when consumer-products companies treat me like I’m stupid.

(Speaking of Paula, I generally love her products, but the Moisturizing Lipscreen SPF 15 is a rare total fail for me. It is super-white and therefore makes me look like a clown, and is really soft and messy. The Sheer Cream Lipstick SPF 15, on the other hand, is a great product and comes in a colorless version, but considering how much of the stuff I go through–I had some dark spots on my lips biopsied some years ago that seemed to be sun damage, so I am now paranoid about lip protection, and I spend a lot of time outside running and doing yard work–I hate to pay that kind of money for such a small amount. I guess rewarding the only company that doesn’t seem to regard me as a complete clueless sucker is probably the right thing to do, though.)

Does anyone else remember this brand of athletic wear from the ’80s called “Le Coq Sportif”? (And apparently it still exists). Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this refer to something like an athletic chicken? And why didn’t I think this was strange at the time?

A friend of mine recently contacted the anti-abortion organization LifeNews.com in protest of a recent call to action they sent out to their members, targeting author Judy Blume. Read what my friend had to say–and decide for yourself who was “harassing” and “threatening” whom in this scenario.

I don’t usually write notes, but I’m so upset that I am asking you all to read through this if you have the patience, and then please email LifeNews.com, send a donation to Planned Parenthood, re-post this on your page, or do anything else you can to combat this kind of hateful bullying.

So in case you haven’t heard, an anti-choice, radical conservative group called LifeNews.com sparked an outrage when they chastised author Judy Blume for “supporting the abortion business” and listed Blume’s contact information, urging readers to send her their complaints because Blume sent out a Mother’s Day fundraising letter for Planned Parenthood. Blume’s letter was in support of motherhood, you can read it here for yourself – http://www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=17513064

I was personally horrified by this sort of behavior and so wrote LifeNews.com this email -

“I want you to know that there is a very large contingent of people (pro-choice or not) who think your outcry against author Judy Blume is outrageous and disgusting. I am personally horrified that you would
set up such a hateful smear campaign against another human being, especially one who has contributed so generously to society, and speaks so lovingly about her own children in the letter supporting Planned Parenthood you find so awful. The fact that you encourage your followers to personally attack another human being makes you as monstrous as you believe those who fight for choice to be.

Neither Blume, nor actor Cynthia Nixon, mentions more women going to Planned Parenthood for abortions in their letters as you claim. In fact, they tout the non-profit organization’s support of motherhood. Just because they also support the right to choose is no reason to twist their words.

I have many words for you, but will refrain from most of them except to say that your organization is despicable and grotesque for your misrepresentation of facts, personal emotions and your dedicated abuse of women’s rights.”

This is the email I received in response from the editor and CEO of LifeNews.com -

“Your harassing and threatening email has been reported to gmail. Do not email again or I will take legal action.”

I do not feel that my email was at all harassing and threatening – it only expressed my disdain for their disgusting tactics. Afterall, this is an organization that encouraged its followers to harass and threaten another person and provided contact information in order to do so – and they call me threatening?

If you are as outraged as I am about these kinds of fearmongering bullies, pllease take a moment to react in some way.

Thank you.

You know that there is prejudice & manipulation at work when they constantly assure you that you are ‘too fat’ for surgery which you actually NEED, then try to pressure you to have WLS.

Patsy Nevins, commenting on “superobesity” at Living ~400lbs