feminist blogs

Happy May Day. As people around the world celebrate the struggles of laborers, and as many immigrants and supporters of immigrant rights set off on protest marches around this country, I wanted to link you to one of my favorite blog posts of the last week: Sudy’s explanation of kyriarchy, a concept coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza.

It’s a useful neologism for an idea that comes up a lot: multiple, overlapping, shifting pyramids of power. Try to focus too hard on just one, try to figure out with some kind of precision exactly which individuals are at the top, and you lose sight of the entire awful kyriarchy, that has any number of ways to crush people. It’s another trick that power structures play to distract you. I’ve heard this kind of concept discussed before — some people I know just use the word “hierarchies” to talk about this, and in some feminist writing this is what “patriarchy” means. But I like the word kyriarchy, not least because it doesn’t just focus on “fathers” as the top of the pyramid.

For me the word summons up a bizzare image of holographic, floating, disappearing and reappearing ancient step pyramids. Because that’s how complex the overlapping of power can be, and how surreal. Sometimes we talk about this stuff like patriarchy, white supremacy, or homophobia is a bunch of craggy old white guys having a meeting down the street where we can kick the doors in and turn over the table piled high with money and blood. Too bad that the history of oppressive cultural attitudes, social enforcement, the accumulation of religion and greed and control and security is never that simple. But don’t think I mean it’s all ideology either. Kyriarchy kills. Don’t let it get behind you — or under you.

What a very odd piece from the NYT on food bloggers and restaurateurs who suddenly find themselves, after years of overindulging in rich, fatty foods, to be, well, rich and fat:

Back before everyone with a fork and a laptop started nursing a food blog, Mr. Perlow was a founder of eGullet, a pioneering online discussion forum that helped obsessed food enthusiasts find one another.

It put him at the center of a community where no food was too fatty and no field trip too extreme. Ferreting out the best place for an empanada or the perfect way to braise pork belly meant tasting countless versions, often in the same day. Being the first in the group to find it was golden.

In October, Mr. Perlow was in Denver on business for his day job as a systems integration expert. He fell ill, and what seemed like a case of altitude sickness turned into a three-day hospital visit. There he heard the grim truth: He was diabetic. He weighed more than 400 pounds, his blood pressure was dangerously high and his blood was thick with glucose and cholesterol.

A doctor told him he would be dead in five years.

“I wasn’t shocked but I thought maybe it’s time the party’s over,” he said.

Yeeeeees, what a surprise, indeed, that mainlining chicken fat might lead to ill health.

The only thing that’s terribly surprising about this article is that the specific eating habits of those profiled, and not just their weight, is brought up for examination.

Indeed, other than the scorn (for, undoubtedly, the ickily public weight gain and tacky reminders that certain dietary habits can lead to mortality), I could see the descriptions of what’s being eaten among this crowd as the ultimate in indulgence in a non-belt-tightening era:

To which many members of the Fat Pack say: Shut up and pass the pork butt. Among a certain slice of the food-possessed, to suggest that indulgence might put one’s health in peril is to invite ridicule.

“I think enjoyment of food has never proven to be harmful to anyone’s health,” said Mr. Shaw, who turned from practicing law to writing about food in the late 1990s with an article for salon.com defending fat guys. He still cultivates a persona in print and online as The Fat Guy, and at 5-foot-10 weighs about 270 pounds.

Mr. Shaw said he believes the genetic component of weight and health matter more than moderation and exercise. Although his father died from heart disease, he thinks that the state of medical knowledge on the relationship of diet to health changes so frequently that it can’t be trusted.

Some of his views about diet and health border on the extreme. “I think the whole diabetes thing is a major hoax,” he said. “They are overdiagnosing it.”

Josh Ozersky, the online food editor for New York magazine, once told Mr. Perlow that they were the type of people who had their cholesterol tested for blood. Mr. Ozersky used the pen name Mr. Cutlets when he wrote the eating guide “Meat Me in Manhattan” (Gamble Guides, 2003), but uses his real name on his new book, “The Hamburger: A History,” due out next month from Yale University Press.

“Obviously, my philosophy on gastronomy can be summed up by saying the fat is the meat and the meat is the vegetable,” he said.

And here is where I part company with Mr. Cutlets and those who think like he does (why, yes, Anthony Bourdain, I’m looking at you): Meat is meat, but vegetable is vegetable, and if you can’t enjoy a vegetable without reference to meat, then what kind of foodie are you, really?

Because, honestly, why do you have to agree that meat and lard are the best thing EVAH in order to have an opinion that asparagus dredged in olive oil and grilled with salt and pepper is just about the perfect way to serve that vegetable?

Moreover, why should anyone be ashamed of liking tofu for what tofu is?

Just before Thanksgiving, Mr. Perlow told readers of his blog, Off the Broiler (offthebroiler.wordpress.com), the truth about his health. Reviews of chili dogs and videos of home tostone-frying projects gave way to meditations on lentil soup and The Big Salad.

“I can’t believe I just blogged about tofu,” he said just after the change began. But what a blog entry it was. Mr. Perlow prepared and photographed, in smart, annotated detail, ma-po tofu and tofu skin noodles with spicy peanut sauce.

And though he is still in mourning for his old loves, especially pizza and burgers, he says his pleasure receptors are better tuned to the joys of vegetables and legumes.

While the former eGullet partners don’t speak anymore, Mr. Shaw said he admired Mr. Perlow’s latest venture.

“I’ve got to hand it to Jason,” he said. “He’s not part of the culture of deprivation. He is really enjoying what he eats.”

It’s not like you should jump off a bridge if you can’t get the perfect slice of bacon; there’s a whole world of tastes out there to discover.

This is what happened when Tamara Nopper got on a plane recently:

Shortly after sitting down, an older white man sat in the seat next to mine. He then proceeded to spread his legs wide open as if, to quote a wise person I know, “he thought he had balls the size of pumpkins.” In response to the uninvited pressing, I requested room for my legs. The man then proceeded to imperiously point his finger to the floor to emphasize that his feet were within the boundary of his seats. He never addressed the fact that his legs were spread beyond them so as to invade my space and press up against my body. Instead, he said to me, “You’re a big girl.” Talking on my cell phone, I interrupted my conversation to calmly tell the man “Don’t fucking talk to me that way.”

With his right hand, the man reached across himself to grab my left arm. With my arm in his grip, he looked me in the eyes through his glasses and replied, “I’m going to slap you in your mouth.” I freed myself from him and then stood up.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
(more…)

I’m still reeling from the insanity of Clinton wanting to yank due process out of deportation. But wait… there’s more insanity before bedtime!!

Mississippi House Bill 282 would make it illegal for restaurants to serve food to anyone who is considered obese by the State Department of Health. And apparently the legislator who introduced this bill is completely serious about it, even though he’s aware it’s unlikely to get passed.

Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies.

This kind of thing cannot be ignored when talking about the “War on Obesity” and how distorted it is by people’s ingrained cultural attitudes and paranoias about fat. Fat is so bad and evil that you need laws against it; you need to legally restrain restaurants, sources of food, from potentially propagating fat. You need to hang signs saying “We Don’t Serve Fat People.” Sometimes bills like this are introduced without expectation of passing, to raise awareness about an issue. But is it really awareness-raising to suggest something so blatantly discriminatory? Especially when fat people already get discriminated against — even refused service, in some cases — for being fat? It’s so absurd that it would make a good joke about how out of control the obesity scare has become, if it weren’t being done with some serious anti-fat intentions.

I’m with Becks; if you really think that poor people are fat simply because they make bad food choices, I’d suggest you take this challenge. See how well you can eat a healthy, well-balanced diet on a food stamp budget — that’s about $3 a day, by the way.

Cutting off money for food isn’t going to help low-income people eat better, and government-sponsored starvation is not the antidote to obesity. I know this is going to sound totally crazy, but if you give people access to fresh, healthy food they can actually afford, they’ll buy fresh, healthy food. If you give them $3 a day, they’ll buy ramen and frozen fish sticks.

I’ve never been obese, but my weight has fluxuated pretty significantly depending on my diet — and, strangely enough, I’ve been at my heaviest (and my least healthy) when I was stretched for cash and didn’t have access to a gym (or time to go). I was healthy as a kid in large part because my parents could afford and had time to prepare fresh, healthy food; I went to schools with gym classes and sports fields; my mom packed me a well-balanced lunch every day so I wasn’t eating tater tots in the cafeteria; and my parents could afford to put me on sports teams. Growing up in a body that was a socially acceptable size was largely a function of privilege coupled with genes. I gained weight once I was living out of their house and had to buy my own food on a limited budget, and I discovered very quickly that pasta is cheaper and more filling than fruits, veggies and whole grains. Shocking, I know. It’s Grad Student Economics, not brain surgery.

Are we seriously so cynical and so disgusted by obesity that it’s become acceptable to suggest cutting off food to the poor in order to make then thinner? And, the question I can’t get past, is why does Megan McArdle care if other people are fat? I mean, she clearly isn’t all that concerned with their health if she thinks that limiting the food supply is the solution to poverty-related obesity; so, with health off the table, why does she give a fuck about how fat my (or your) ass is?

Also, is McArdle unable to spend 15 seconds on google before she starts blaming poor people for being fat?

Plus what Zuzu said.

Thought the whining of Aravosis was bad? Check out Megan McArdle on the economic stimulus package, and why she agrees with the GOP that food stamps shouldn’t be included:

1) The poor don’t need more food. Obesity is a problem for the poor in America; except for people who are too screwed up to get food stamps (because they don’t have an address), food insufficiency is not.

2) Food stamps only imperfectly translate into increased cash income, meaning that the poor will spend . . . more money on food…

5) The economy doesn’t need a food sector more distorted by daft government programs than it already is. If you want to give money to the poor, give it to them. Even if they spend it all on drugs, it will hardly be much worse than spending it all on increasing their already astronomical obesity rates.

See, if we give poor people food stamps, they’ll just buy food with them! And they’re already fatty fat fat! But if we give them money, they’ll just buy drugs. Which is better, because at least the drugs won’t make them fat.

Remember, kids: she gets paid for these fine opinions. Welfare for poor people is bad, but wingnut welfare? A-OK!

H/T: teratologist, who rightly notes that it’s getting really hard for the Onion to keep up.

When I was looking for articles on that WLS/diabetes study, I noticed a little link on the Yahoo! News page I was looking at with the following teaser:

ABC News: ‘Fat Acceptance’: Bloated and Gloating Online.

If I knew how to do a screen cap, I’d have grabbed it for ya. Here’s the URL, so you can see it (mouse over it, since the full URL is long and will break the page).

If you click the link, you go to an ABC News story that doesn’t actually carry that headline on the article (”Bloggers Preach ‘Fat Acceptance’”), but it does have that as the whaddayacallit at the very top of the screen, the one that tells you where you are (”ABC News: Fat Is Hot: Bloated and Gloating Online”).

I realize, from having worked at a couple of newspapers, that the people who write the articles and the people who write the headlines are not the same people. But, seriously, where do you get either “Fat is Hot” or “Bloated and Gloating” (I mean, really, “Bloated and Gloating“, FFS?) from the linked article?

I saw the AP version of this article yesterday*, and I was immediately struck by what was missing. Sad to say, the Times version isn’t any better:

Weight-loss surgery works much better than standard medical therapy as a treatment for Type 2 diabetes in obese people, the first study to compare the two approaches has found.

The study, of 60 patients, showed that 73 percent of those who had surgery had complete remissions of diabetes, meaning all signs of the disease went away. By contrast, the remission rate was only 13 percent in those given conventional treatment, which included intensive counseling on diet and exercise for weight loss, and, when needed, diabetes medicines like insulin, metformin and other drugs.

The study was done in Australia, on patients who had had lap-band surgery (more popular there than gastric bypass). Lap-band surgery involves putting a band around the stomach to create a small pouch rather than removing parts of the stomach and intestine. In theory, it’s less invasive and risky than gastric bypass, and reversible. In reality, it carries a number of risks, such as erosion of the stomach (rendering the procedure irreversible) and death.

In the study, the surgery worked better because patients who had it lost much more weight than the medically treated group did — 20.7 percent versus 1.7 percent of their body weight, on average. Type 2 diabetes is usually brought on by obesity, and patients can often lessen the severity of the disease, or even get rid of it entirely, by losing about 10 percent of their body weight. Though many people can lose that much weight, few can keep it off without surgery. (Type 1 diabetes, a much less common form of the disease, involves the immune system and is not linked to obesity.)

What’s interesting about this bit is that the AP article mentioned that the diabetes often went into remission within days of the surgery. Which tells me that maybe the effects are due not to weight loss itself but to some other factor. One not mentioned in the article, perhaps. What could it be? (more…)

Starbucks is, apparently, introducing something called “The Skinny Platform,” which proposes to simplify ordering by designating as “skinny” drinks with the following characteristics: skim milk, sugar-free syrup, no whip. I have some issues with the perpetuation of the idea that a drink should be designated “skinny” (because the ones with whole milk are “fat” or something?), particularly when it’s not exactly calorie-free anyhow. It seems like Starbucks is just reacting to the fact that people are starting to wake up a bit to just how many calories and grams of fat are in their drinks. So we’ll just introduce the Skinny Platform! Now everyone can hear how virtuous you are as the barista calls out your order and you pick up the Venti Skinny Mint Mocha!

But it appears that there are some real concerns that baristas have about the potential for customer confusion. See, “skinny” is pretty universally understood in current ordering language to mean simply nonfat milk. But if you go into a Starbucks and order a “Skinny Mint Mocha,” you’re going to get a set drink that maybe you didn’t want. “Hey, dude, where’s my whip?” you might ask. And maybe you wanted the sugar syrup.

Starbucks Gossip has a long letter from a barista to Starbucks HQ complaining, on several grounds, about the Skinny Platform. In a nutshell, here are the barista’s concerns:

1. Potential for customer confusion, leading to longer wait times, more frustration, wasted product and money.
2. Potential for barista confusion, leading to miscommunication, longer wait times, frustration, wasted product and money.
3. It’s going to hurt the feelings of fat people to hear “skinny” called out over and over.

Now, I happen to think #3, at least the way the barista argued it, is overreaching. I would probably avoid ordering anything specifically labeled “skinny” because it’s slightly embarrassing to have to ask for that when you’re fat, but just hearing the word spoken by others isn’t a blow to my self-esteem. If it were, I’d never leave the house, what with the saturation of the culture with weight anxiety.

However, that’s not really what I want to discuss right now. I want to give you some of the comments at Starbucks Gossip, and point out what a pure example they are of class and weight anxiety. Gender, too, since the barista is female. The thread starts out with a discussion of the wisdom of actually making the change, given presently-understood usage of “skinny,” some corporate background, etc. (more…)

I really hate Subway. I especially hate the way the bread smells. I hate walking by Subways in New York, because they make me feel like I’m going to vomit when I smell them. But apparently my lack of Subway-eating explains my low self-esteem, my stint in therapy, my expanding waistline and my current state of single-hood:

And here I thought law school was to blame for all of that.

Thanks to Morgan for the link.