Link Farm and Open Thread #10

March 8th is Blog Against Sexism Day

Why March 8?

Because it’s International Women’s Day. Because it’s the Global Women’s Strike. Wimmin in more than 60 countries will be participating in the global strike. Why not add dozens or hundreds or thousands of more voices to this struggle through the growing world of blogging?

Only 2 or 3 Days Left To Submit To The Next Carnival of Feminists!

Suffragettes and Disability Rights
Michael Bérubé discusses the historic ways suffragettes were abused with, and committed abuses with, anti-disabled rhetoric. This is a must-read post, imo, as is an earlier post discussing the intersection of race and disability in American history.

Greatest Hits from Antonin Scalia’s “living textualist originalism”
Terrific post from LGM reviews some of Scalia’s more striking hypocrisies.

How To Steal An Election
Entertaining and historically-informed article actually an excerpt from Andrew Gumbel’s book Steal This Vote! about cheating in American elections. Gumbel is a lefty, but that doesn’t prevent him from recognizing that the “Bush stole the 2004 election” claims don’t have much substance to them.

Walking Women To Their Destination After Dark
Happy provides an excellent feminist analysis of this social habit.

One Good Day

I felt like I had to cram six years of talking to him into this one day, because I didn’t know if I’d ever have it again. I had one day to find out if he liked Tae Kwan Do, if he had any friends at school, what he did in gym class, if he was having difficulty in any area. One day to help him with reading and tying his shoes, one day to tell him how much I loved him before he disappeared back inside himself. Which he did, today. That sweet little stranger that curled up in my lap yesterday morning and sang “Rich Girl” and showed me his fancy dance moves and looked right into my face and laughed and smiled is gone today. Is that what parents of normally functioning children have every day? And, if that’s what you have every day, why would there be a rush to put that kind of kid on Ritalin?

Why Health Savings Accounts Will Suck
Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings makes the case very well.

Comparative Funerals: Coretta Scott King and Betty Friedan

The turnout of politicians to one funeral and not another was not a measure of either woman. It was a matter of whose followings could do more for the politicians in the future.

About Those Danish Cartoons. No, Really – About The Cartoons Themselves.

Offensive Cartoons From America
Who’da thunk it? Something funny in Cracked. Curtsy: Crooked Timber.

The Dark Side of Public Sectarian Schools

So the question is whether Christians who are pro-sectarian public schools are honest in their desire for mere democratic choice, or are fair-weather fans of the doctrine who support it only when it yields Christian majorities.

White Teacher Suspended For Saying “Niggah” In Classroom
I think the suspension is justified – not because the teacher is necessarily racist, but because he displayed such staggeringly bad judgment. Incompetence is justification enough for the suspension.

Cathy Young on False Rape Accusation
Good post discussing the implications of a beyond-any-doubt false rape accusation.

Mary Schweitzer has a webpage on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Also known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.), or Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (CFIDS). Mary Schweitzer, a CFS sufferer’s advocate, is one of the best writers about CFS on the internet; even if you think you have no interest in CFS issues, her essays may change your mind.

Sweden Plans To Be “Oil-Free” by 2020

Keeping Men’s Jobs Male

How do you prevent more women from becoming firefighters, police officers, etc.? You refuse to hire or promote them. You compel them to take physical tests unrelated to job qualifications, such as requiring women to lift more than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration permits. You refuse to train women, subject them to hazing or hold them to higher performance standards than their male peers. Curtsy: Feministe

Then I said that a woman’s right to choose was nobody else’s goddamn business. This got their attention.

Western Union Quits the Telegraph Business

Past Bush Administration Cheerleader Admits Guantanamo Is Inexcusable

Bush has pledged that the Guantanamo detainees are treated “humanely.” At the same time, he has stressed, “I know for certain that these are bad people” – all of them, he has implied.

If the president believes either of these assertions, he is a fool. If he does not, choose your own word for him.

Housework Blogging
Belle, Pandagon, Ezra, Lawyers Guns and Money, Matt and Majikthise weigh in. Apologies to those I missed. Of all of these, Amanda’s is the most “must-read,” in my opinion.

PrisonSucks.com: Links to research about abuse of women in prisons
I’m putting the link in here because I think there might be a future post in it, and I don’t want to lose the link.

Holocaust Denier Professor Creates Stir at Northwestern

Theorizing Breasts

My breasts, in and of themselves, have no meaning. They are not inherently sexualized. They are not inherently beautiful. Or objectifiable. They, themselves, do not say, “Hey, I’m a female! Come, objectify me, rape me, fuck me, look at me, stare at me, penetrate me!” Outside of the discourse, they mean nothing. They’re just lumps of fat and tissue and muscle and nerve endings and whatnot.

On Ambivalence Towards Critical Thinking

When I teach moral theory to students or critical thinking skills for that matter how to spot fallacies, construct valid/sound arguments, evaluate evidence, I rarely change a student’s perspective on the world, or make that student more empathetic to other peoples’ situations. I usually make them smarter at articulating the worldview that they inchoately held before. [...] My sense is that critical thinking doesn’t make people better people, it just makes them better at playing the game. (Curtsy: The Reaction).

Israel plans to build ‘museum of tolerance’ on Muslim graveyard
Are they really that clueless, or just incredibly sarcastic? Via Jesus’ General.

The Happy Feminist on “Ladies First” and the Titanic

New To The Blogroll: Beyond Choice
Alexander Sanger Margaret’s grandson has an interesting blog about abortion politics.

Michael Bérubé Rips Apart David Horowitz
If I were a better person, I wouldn’t have enjoyed it so much.

Warren Ellis and Joss Whedon Provide Fan Service, Oh My Yes They Do
If you don’t know who both those people are, then I’m geekier than you. Curtsy: Crooked Timber.

FAT RELATED LINKS
What the heck, there were a bunch of these – mostly swiped from Big Fat Blog – so I thought I’d give ‘em their own section.

New JAMA Study Finds No Link Between Obesity and Lifespan In Americans Over 50

The State of The F-Word
Interesting article takes a look at the various books that have used the word “fat” in the title in the past year. Curtsy: Big Fat Blog.

FatShadow on Celebs Who Lose Weight
Yet another smart, sensitive, and annoyingly difficult to sum up in a single sentence post from Tish.

The Average Sized Privilege List
AKA “The Thin Privilege List.” This isn’t new, but I’m not sure I’ve ever linked to it, and I should have.

A Modest Proposal: The Next Viagra

“We have perfected the weight-loss drug. Enipaznalo not only takes off those excess pounds, it makes you beautiful. Movie-star beautiful. There’s just one catch; it also makes you crazy.”

“Obesity Epidemic” Overblown, Conclude UCLA Sociologists

The link is to a press release about this interesting and nuanced study pdf link by Abigail Saguy. Her webpage includes links to a number of interesting-sounding papers, including a few about sexual harassment and this one pdf link about media coverage of fat and health issues. Curtsy: Big Fat Blog.

New To The Blogroll: Fat Chicks Rule
How did I not know Lara Frater had a blog?

This entry posted in Fat, fat and more fat, Gender and the Economy, Link farms, Palestine & Israel. Bookmark the permalink. 

66 Responses to Link Farm and Open Thread #10

  1. Pingback: autobiography

  2. 2
    drumgurl says:

    Can you fix the link to The Average Sized Privilege Wish? It is the same as the Fat Shadow link. Thanks!

    [Fixed! Thanks for pointing it out! --Amp]

  3. 3
    Jimmy Ho says:

    Biggest Webcomic Loser:

    Biggest Webcomic Loser is about webcomic creators getting together to raise money for UNICEF, the United Nations Children Fund.
    Pledge donations for the extra pounds of your favorite cartoonists. You can pledge any amount per pound you choose. Those pledges add up so that every extra pound lost by a creator can be worth a lot of money to the Children of the World.

    From the FAQ:

    UNICEF, The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, is one of the most respected charities in the world. The effects of its programs have been felt everywhere for 60 years as of 2006. It really is great. Plus, since we’re about to starve ourselves a bit to lose weight, there was a poetic justice of sorts in picking that charity.

    Jiu zheme jiandan! How could anyone object to such a generous goal only because it might seem slightly pachyphobic?

    (Via Scott McCloud.)

  4. 4
    Daran says:

    Prisonsucks.com is a superb reference. Thank you.

  5. 5
    Daran says:

    Good post discussing the implications of a beyond-any-doubt false rape accusation.

    I don’t think anything is ‘beyond any doubt’. Can you be sure, for example, that the tape the alleged rapists showed to the police isn’t a tape of a different orgy, with a different girl who looks just like her?

    In fact, I have ‘reasonable doubt’ about her guilt, even if I assume that the tape is genuine and the events reported and the descriptions of the tape contents are fair and accurate. Essentially, her allegation boils down to two claims:

    a. the men abducted her at gunpoint, and
    b. they coerced her into having sex with them.

    Three observations:

    1. If a. is true, then b. is automatically true if sex took place at all. If she has been abducted then everything she does while under their control is coerced. The behaviour described in the tape is nothing other than the victim behaving in the way that her captors want her to, which is a survival strategy, not consent. Nor should she be blamed for failing to attempt to escape or call for help, even when what might appear to be easy opportunities for her to do so were available. What might appear to be easy to us looking on might be seen very differently by a terrified victim.

    2. It follows from 1. that a tape of this nature cannot decide the issue on its own.

    3. Even if a is false, b could still be true if she was not free to leave.

    To convict her, I would need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at least one of those claims was:

    i. factually false, and
    ii. not made in good faith.

    To illustrate what I mean by good faith, and what I actually think might have happened in this case is the following; The woman meets a group of good-looking fast-talking young men in town, gets chatting with them, is maybe flattered by the attention, and eventually agrees to go back with them to their place, anticipating a few more drinks, some dancing, maybe some kissing and cuddling, and who know, perhaps even spending the night with one of them.

    But the drinks flow, and things go a bit too far, and then further, and all of a sudden she’s doing all these things, and she’s with a bunch horny guys, and though she’s really turned on she’d rather stop. But she’s frightened that if she tries to call a halt, she’d be with a bunch of angry horny guys, so she carries on acting the way they want her to act, even though they have done nothing whatsoever to frighten or coerce her.

    The following morning she wakes up, sore, hung-over, stinking of stale body-fluids, and feeling like crap. She recalls doing things she didn’t want to out of fear, and interprets the events as coerced and non-consensual. She then fabricates the claim that she was abducted to bolster what she considers to be a true allegation of rape.

    If that’s anywhere near what happened, then I might conclude that the core allegation, though factually false, was made in good faith. What is not good faith is the outright fabrication of an abduction.

    By the way, am I the only person wondering how R. Scott Moxley came to have such detailed information about the content of the tape?

  6. 6
    Ann Bartow says:

    Hi,
    I know it is a bit of a niche blog, but I just wanted to invite Alas readers who might be interested to visit the Feminist Law Professors Blog (http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/ ). Like Amp’s blog roll, it has a lot of feminist links and information, and also runs notices about feminst lectures and conferences that are often open to the public.

    Also, if you are involved with something you’d like to see publicized there, simply e-mail the information to feministlawprof@yahoo.com

    The blog does not do any “for profit” advertising, or any “blegging,” its only function is to serve as a community resource for feminists, especially those with interersts in legal theory .

    Thanks!

  7. 7
    Ampersand says:

    Crap. Yeah, at least half the links have disappeared. I have no idea why that happened.

  8. 8
    Ampersand says:

    Okay, I found a cached copy, and I think I’ve restored it. Although the cached copy was a bit odd – things like parentheses disappeared – so there may be some typos.

    Thanks for pointing that out, Bean! Geez, how strange.

  9. 9
    Sally says:

    Probably a nit-pick, but I don’t think this item from the “average-sized person privilege” list is actually true for average-sized women:

    If I pick up a magazine or watch T.V. I will see bodies that look like mine that aren’t being lampooned, desexualized, or used to signify laziness, ignorance, or lack of self-control.

  10. 10
    gayle says:

    Great Links Amp,

    Except I’m scratching my head over the Cathy Young link. Why should false allegations of rape be singled out from other false allegations and treated as so much more dire ?

    Seems to me if one is truly concerned about the plight of innocent people accused of crimes, one would discuss ways to safeguard the rights of all people in the system, not just those accused of rape.

    So why focus in on these types of crimes only? Particularly when rape is so woefully underreported precisely because real victims fear no one will believe them.

    Okay, I found it. Apparently the reasoning goes like this:

    “We need a serious, honest, open discussion on false accusations of rape. Being able to accuse someone of rape is a form of power (of course that’s true of any accusation, but a charge of rape packs a unique emotional and legal punch); and it would be naive to expect women never to abuse the power they have”

    –the power they have–

    You know, I would find this to be a powerful argument– if I was born yesterday or suffered some sort of degenerative brain disease! “the power they have” WTF!

    I’ve know far too many women — and girls–who have never seen the inside if a courtroom, who have never entered the police station, who have seen their claims dismissed and trivialized into oblivion to believe for one second that false rape accusation is a freaking major issue in anyone’s universe.

    Most rapes are not prosecuted in the United States. Most rape aren’t even reported. We need a serious , honest discussion on exactly why that is!

  11. 11
    Michelle says:

    Oh my, something for just about everyone!

    Glad to see Mary Schweitzer’s site listed. I’m used to reading her posts on a yahoo group regarding disability issues, but it’s nice to see her recognized outside of our little CFIDS/ME community.

  12. 13
    Daran says:

    I apologise for creating the above link properly. Please fix it.

  13. 14
    reddecca says:

    I actually think that’s not a nitpick. I think most average sized women I know would have had most of those privileges:

    If I pick up a magazine or watch T.V. I will see bodies that look like mine that aren’t being lampooned, desexualized, or used to signify laziness, ignorance, or lack of self-control.

    When I talk about the size of my body I can be certain that few other people will hope they are never the same size.

    I do not have to be afraid that when I talk to my friends or family they will mention the size of my body in a critical manner, or suggest unsolicited diet products and exercise programs.

    I can go home from meetings, classes, and conversations and not feel excluded, fearful, attacked, isolated, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, stereotyped, or feared because of the size of my body.

    I don’t have to worry that if I am talking about feeling of sexual attraction people are repelled or disgusted by the size of my body. People can imagine me in sexual circumstances.

    People won’t ask me why I don’t change the size of my body.

    My masculinity or femininity will not be challenged because of the size of my body.

    I can be sure that if I need medical or legal help my size will not work against me.

    I can go for months without thinking about or being spoken to about the size of my body.

    I will never have to sit quietly and listen while other people talk about the ways in which they avoid being my size.

    I don’t have to worry that won’t be hired for a job that I can do because of the size of my body.

    When I talked about the list on my blog I said that for women I don’t believe fat is actually a function of size, and we’re actually all in this together.

  14. 15
    Ampersand says:

    I think most average sized women I know would have had most of those privileges:

    I think you must have meant to say, “most average sized women you know would not have most of those privileges.” Am I right about that?

    (I’m not meaning to pick on you, I just don’t want to misunderstand.)

  15. 16
    reddecca says:

    Yes that’s what I meant sorry. Most average sized women, and many women who I would define as thin would have people talking about their weight, telling them to lose weight, and judging their weight. Even more women would feel excluded and judged by their weight.

  16. 17
    reddecca says:

    That should probably be ‘because of their weight’ not ‘by their weight’. Although some women may feel judged by their weight, I don’t know.

    Thanks for pointing out my other typo by the way.

  17. 18
    Tish says:

    “annoyingly difficult to sum up in a single sentence”
    That made me smile. I’m not sure it’s a good thing but it made me smile.
    I’m sorry my links are so whacked. I made a new page for the list
    http://www.fatshadow.com/ThinPrivilege.htm
    and am hoping for some help with it. You did link to it the first time. In fact, when I forget where it is, I come here to look for the link in your archives. Thanks!!
    On my blog I talked about the problem of the term “average sized.” What is average in the USA is also fat by the BMI criteria and many women think they’re fat when they have what they think is a few extra pounds. All of this loopy but it is too often too true. For the purposes of the list I’m useing the term thin but even that has problems. I dunno. With these lists the idea is to think about the privilege. So I’m hoping the terms don’t get in the way.

  18. 19
    Sally says:

    I don’t buy this one, either:

    I do not have to be afraid that when I talk to my friends or family they will mention the size of my body in a critical manner, or suggest unsolicited diet products and exercise programs.

    And actually, I think that the list kind of doesn’t take into account the actual way that anti-fat prejudice functions in our culture. It’s not directly analogous to male or white privilege, because sex and race are taken to be fixed, immutable things. (Whether they are or not is a different story, but most white people don’t stay up nights worrying that they’re going to turn black, and most men don’t stress out that if they wear pink, they’ll grow a vagina.) Race and gender are used to discipline white people and men, but not in the same way: the fear is that they’ll be *like* women or people of color, not that they’ll actually turn into those folks. Whereas American (don’t know about New Zealand, Redecca!) culture doesn’t take weight to be fixed: we’re told that when thin people “let themselves go,” they turn into fat people. I don’t know that any woman ever totally has thin privilege, because no matter how thin a woman is, she knows that she could get fat, and her thin privilege could be taken away. We are constantly reminded of that fact, and we’re constantly told to do all sorts of things to make sure it doesn’t happen.

    So anyway, I think a couple of items on your list are just flat-out wrong. And I suspect the reason that they’re wrong is because you’re treating fatness as if it were a fixed characteristic, when in fact our culture treats it as fluid.

  19. 20
    Tish says:

    Nothing on the list is indented to be flat out right. It’s a thought experiment and I’m open to ways to hone it and make it more accurate. And the list isn’t intended to be analogous to anyone else’s oppression. I think there is common ground but comparing oppression is rarely useful.
    There are women in this culture who can NEVER be fat. They don’t have the genetics for it. There are others who can make small changes in food and exercise habits and maintain what they, and whatever standard they’re using to describe size, a thin body. But for many people extreme changes in food and exercise will only produce temporary and limited weight loss. The extremeness often feels punitive and impossible to maintain. A conversation for the first two women about body size and food and exercise may feel casual. In fact, there are few people in this culture of any gender and size who don’t have these conversations since we are so crazed. For the third group these conversations feel like shame and may exacerbate the sense that no matter what they do there’s something wrong with them. In fact, there is nothing wrong.
    Fat is a gentically fixed chacteristic for some people. How fat may be somewhat fluid but, really, that’s not the conversation I’m trying to have. I’m sure there are places and people who will argue the mutability of fatness with ya.

  20. 21
    Ampersand says:

    “annoyingly difficult to sum up in a single sentence”
    That made me smile. I’m not sure it’s a good thing but it made me smile.

    Good! It was intended as a compliment. :-)

    (Sorry not to participate more, I’ve got a lot of work to do now so can’t spend time here).

  21. 22
    drumgurl says:

    Tish, I hate to pick on you, but I liked the list better when it said “average” rather than “thin”. As an ultra-thin person who could never be fat (thank you for acknowledging that), I argue that average people have the most privilege. Their bodies are the majority. Their bodies aren’t “extreme”. Their bodies aren’t stared at everywhere they go because they are “normal”.

    As a too-thin person, I am constantly harassed and told I need to change. I am definitely grouped by the size of my body. I am often told I’m not enough of a woman. My body seems to be something that everyone is obsessed with, from my family to total strangers. It isn’t so bad now that I have had a child. That made me curvier and more “womanly”, but before that I only weighed 95 pounds at 5’7. My body used to shock people and they would make all sorts of nasty drive-by comments about how sick and disgusting I was.

    I would agree that the magazine/TV comment is accurate for thin people. However, I don’t think that’s such a privilege either. Thin women in the media are portrayed as shallow sexbots, which I do not consider flattering. It is also one thing to have that body on TV, but quite another to live in the real world with that body.

    The comments at this Pandagon thread more accurately describe what I’m trying to say.

  22. 23
    Tish says:

    I take your point about the use of thin vs average. I think “ultra thin” people deal with some of the same stuff I do. I’m going to think about it but my initial reaction is that changing it back to average is a good idea.

  23. 24
    reddecca says:

    I think this underlies the point that women’s bodies are problematic in our society, whether they’re large or small. You can see this in the tabloids that can’t seem to decide of Lindsay Lohan is anorexic, or fat from one issue to the next.

    I would divide the priviledge list into two sections. I would link issues like seat size, and clothes shopping with other people whose bodies are different. Whether that’s because they’re extra short, extra tall, missing a limb, or joints not working. I think it’s useful to draw people who don’t have problems with the physical world we create that this is a prviledge.

    But I don’t think the bits about how society treat us, and how we feel about our body, are usefully thought about as priviledge. I’ve known women much smaller than me who were much more likely to get comments on their body than I am, and to be judged because of it. I don’t think it’s just because body size isn’t fixed, and I don’t agree that thin women are priviledged over average sized women because they are normal (in NZ the average size is 16, which I think is a 12 in US sizes). I actually think the fundamental problem is that no woman’s body is OK. I think this is a strategy of capitalism and patriarchy (a term I don’t usually like), which has gotten more important over the last 30 years or so.

  24. 25
    reddecca says:

    I agree that average sized people probably have fewer of the problems with the physical world we have built Tish. But average sized people do get offered diet advice, and judged for their size etc.

  25. 26
    RonF says:

    White Teacher Suspended For Saying “Niggah” In Classroom

    Fool. This is what comes of thinking that you need to be friends with kids when you’re trying to teach them. I don’t mean that you can’t be friendly with them. But trying to ingratiate yourself with them by being “cool” or whatever sets up an improper relationship between teacher and student. Be friendly by all means. But your primary role is teacher, not friend. There is bound to come a time when there’s a conflict between what a kid’s friend would do or say and what a teacher should do or say. Don’t blur the relationship prior to that point.

    I wonder, though; would a black teacher have been suspended if he or she did that? Would the kids even have reported it? If I were this guy, I’d start asking around to see if any of the black teachers have ever used the word.

  26. 27
    RonF says:

    From “Then I said that a woman’s right to choose was nobody else’s goddamn business. This got their attention.”

    I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion … one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus)

    Is that true? I’ve seen a lot of pro-choice folks, some here on this blog, that have advanced the viewpoint that there are not two human lives involved. I’ve seen the word “parasite” used, and the phrase “blog of cells”. It seems to me that many pro-choice proponents don’t think there are two human lives involved.

    … but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right.

    Indeed, parents have that right and that responsibility for their children. It diminishes as children get older, and goes away (from a legal viewpoint) when they reach 21. But children have basic rights that no parent can legally violate. The question then becomes, does the unborn life referenced above in the first quote have a right to live that the mother cannot violate? Currently, under American law, a first-trimester fetus has no such right at all. A third-trimester fetus generally does. While many pro-choice proponents cast the abortion debate as one where the opponents’ primary motivation is to control and subjugate women, in fact many pro-life proponents have this question in mind. And, a different answer than the law or pro-choice proponents have.

  27. 28
    RonF says:

    Israel plans to build ‘museum of tolerance’ on Muslim graveyard

    This seems to be an outrage. Various Islamic spokesmen have vociferously objected on the grounds that Islam forbids the disinterring of human remains. However, a story I saw in the Chicago Tribune gave examples of Islamic authorities granting the redevelopment of cemeteries for various civic reasons. And here in Chicago, devout Catholic Mayor Daley II is trying to get a cemetery in O’Hare Airport dug up and moved to enable the expansion of that airport. So maybe the problem is that it’s something that a Jewish authority wants to do.

    Of course, building a “Museum of Tolerance” on top of a graveyard certainly has an ironic twist.

  28. 29
    RonF says:

    “Walking Women to Their Destination After Dark”

    This is billed as a feminist analysis of this phenomenon. But what I actually read was an analysis of what the author thought and felt about people who insisted on doing this, or trying to enforce having it done against the will of the women in question. Having been asked to do just this by more than one woman, I wonder what the author would think of women who voluntarily ask for such a thing.

    I’d certainly agree that a guy who gets assertive about this against the will of the women involved is out of line.

  29. 30
    RonF says:

    “Keeping Men’s Jobs Male”

    “You compel them to take physical tests unrelated to job qualifications, such as requiring women to lift more than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration permits.”

    I pick this out because unlike the other things brought up in this article, this one seems a bit different. If we are talking about a job where the kind of physical effort inherent in the job can be constrained within OSHA’s limits, then fine. This is wrong. But say you’re a firefighter. The fire doesn’t care what OSHA thinks. You could be in the middle of a building and be presented with a situation that requires physical strength and lacks the time to get help. Here I’d say that as long as a woman wasn’t required to lift more than men were, it would be non-discriminatory, at least in theory.

  30. 31
    Janet says:

    As a fat woman, I…

    Can go a meal without people theorizing that I “starve myself.”

    Can have seconds without people saying that I’m “putting on a show” and “won’t eat for a week” to make up for it.

    Can come back from the bathroom after a meal without people asking if I just threw up.

    Can walk down the street without having people wolf whistle, cat call, comment about my breasts, ass, ask me if I want to have sex with them…

    Can talk to my friends in a bar without being interrupted every two minutes by a guy buying me a drink or hitting on me.

    Can work at my computer in public in peace without having to hide behind sunglasses, headphones and baggy clothes, and still getting hassled.

    Can talk to married men without his wife glaring at me or gossiping about me.

    Can talk to a guy without him thinking I’m hitting on him.

    Can have female friends who don’t constantly tell me how bad I make them feel because I’m so thin.

    Can go without being frozen out by women who are heavier than I am, who don’t want to hang out with me.

    Can trust that I got a job because of my skills, not because of how I look.

    Can trust that when someone praises me at work, it’s usually not to get me in bed.

    Can trust that when a man is nice to me, it’s usually not to get me in bed.

    Can go without hearing jokes about how I must have AIDS.

    Can go without hearing jokes about how I must snort cocaine.

    Can go without hearing jokes about how I must have anorexia.

  31. 32
    Rob-ot says:

    You all do understand that reducing calorie intake and increasing calorie expenditures for long periods of time will result in weight loss, right? After that, keeping calorie consumption in line with calorie expenditure will keep one at a stable weight.

  32. 33
    RonF says:

    With regards to “Israel plans to build ‘museum of tolerance’ on Muslim graveyard”, this article sheds some much needed light on it. Some pertinent quotes:

    “One news source after the next, including the Associated Press, Reuters, the BBC and the LA Times, quote Irkima al-Sabri, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories. Al-Sabri shamelessly crowed: “it never would have been approved if Jewish graves were being disturbed.” Au contraire – it is quite common for Jewish cemeteries to be moved for building purposes consistent with the Antiquities Authority rules. In fact, there have been dozens of unsuccessful protests by the Jewish ultra-Orthodox community when the State approves the removal of certain “never before disturbed” Jewish cemeteries.”

    “A second irony: Muslim authorities removed graves from, and built upon, this same cemetery! In the early 1920′s the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a fatwa declaring that the Mamilla Cemetery was no longer sacred ground and therefore available for building. In 1929 Arabs removed graves and built the Palace Hotel atop the southern part of the cemetery.”

    “Shortly after the hotel was built, the Muslim Supreme Council began developing plans to build a pan-Islamic university on a site that included the entire Mamilla cemetery grounds. The plan was eventually scrapped due to lack of funds, but the architectural drawings were displayed, and articles with names of donors to the University appeared in Arabic newspapers.”

    “When the Arab League attacked the reborn Jewish state, the Jordanian army pillaged the 2500 year old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The uprooting of 38,000 gravestones by the Jordanians to build houses, roads, and even latrines, is well documented.”

    “The holiest of all Jewish burial sites, HaMachpela, is described in the Bible as where six of the seven Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried. In the Book of Genesis there is a detailed description of the place and of the price paid for the site by Abraham so that he could bury his wife, Sarah. Since the fall of 2000, Palestinian gunmen have initiated gun battles around this holy site. Jews must be accompanied by armed soldiers if they wish to pray there today. Rachel is the lone Matriarch whose remains are not interred in Hebron. Rachel’s Tomb has also been the site of Arab violence. During riots in 1996, Palestinian mobs assaulted the site, hurling rocks and firebombs at it.”

    “The most heinous act committed by Arabs of an ancient Jewish tomb was the October 2000 attack upon the tomb of Joseph, son of the Patriarch Jacob. A mob of Palestinian Arabs attacked and then entered the holy tomb, set fire to it, and burned prayer books, Bibles and other sacred objects.”

    “According to the Koran, both Abraham and Joseph are revered as prophets of Islam. The Arab disrespect shown Abraham’s burial site and the destruction of Joseph’s, means Arabs have debased some of the holiest Muslim cemeteries in their own canon, as well as in that of Christians and Jews.”

  33. 34
    dorktastic says:

    Janet, are you for real? Is that supposed to be a list of privileges fat women have over thin women? What I’m reading from it is that fat women are privileged over thin women because they are totally desexualized/couldn’t possibly be attractive to anyone, and they are sometimes mean to thin women. Do I need to even point out how ridiculous this is?

  34. 35
    Ampersand says:

    You all do understand that reducing calorie intake and increasing calorie expenditures for long periods of time will result in weight loss, right? After that, keeping calorie consumption in line with calorie expenditure will keep one at a stable weight.

    Oh, thanks. I’ve never heard that idea before, but now that I have, all of my positions have changed. Good job setting me straight!

    Well, your work here is clearly done. You can go now.

  35. 36
    Sally says:

    Gosh, amp. It seems to me that the thing you quoted was perfectly civil. Why the smackdown? If a feminist got mad at your buddy Robert for saying something equally inane about, say, single mothers in an equally civil tone, you’d discipline her for being so very inappropriate and rude. There seems to be a bit of a double standard.

    So yes, I know: your blog, your rules. But I think your rules reflect the fact that you have a personal stake in fat acceptance and not in feminism. You tolerate anti-feminists in a way that you do not tolerate people who oppose fat acceptance. And for that reason, it strikes me as really shitty that you bill this as a feminist blog. Your double standard shows that feminism is just a charity project for you, that you don’t have a stake in it. You behave differently when your dignity is what’s being discussed.

  36. 37
    Rob-ot says:

    Also, water is wet and stuff falls down. If you need anymore help with reality, let me know.

    What is the FA position on calories?

    I’m really overweight. I only ate 800 calories yeserday, and I’m still really overweight, therefore my weight has nothing to do with calories?

  37. 38
    Jake Squid says:

    Yes, Rob-ot, your suggestion has been proven to work by the millions who have successfully lost large amounts of weight & kept it off for the rest of their lives. Just look at all those commercials with those people who have lost 30 pounds in 8 weeks (results not typical) and kept it off long enough to have photos or video taken! Just look at all the scientific evidence proving that caloric intake & caloric use are the only things that affect a persons weight! “Metabolism is a constant!” scream all the studies ever done.

    “If only fat people were less slothful & willing to conform to my tastes in terms of sexual attractiveness (no matter the cost to them) then they would be decent human beings worthy of respect,” I chant with you.

  38. 39
    Rob-ot says:

    If you aren’t cold all the time, or sleeping more, your metabolism isn’t slowing down.

    If it is not calories, what juju is it?

    How does The Biggest Loser only find people who respond to calorie in/calorie out and not the magic people who can’t lose weight?

  39. 40
    Jake Squid says:

    Rob-ot escrited:
    If you aren’t cold all the time, or sleeping more, your metabolism isn’t slowing down.

    Yes. And all the studies done on weight loss agree with that. Like I wroted already:
    “Metabolism is a constant!” scream all the studies ever done. with sarcasm dripping from every digital pore.

    Read the studies & then come back & talk. Get some knowledge before you come back and spout this ignorant crap. Or at least cite some evidence that we can refute for you.

  40. 41
    Q Grrl says:

    How does The Biggest Loser only find people who respond to calorie in/calorie out and not the magic people who can’t lose weight?

    Hey, if someone wants to pay for my shwank housing for a couple months, a personal trainer, a personal chef, $250,000 in cash, and time off from work, I’ll quit eating.

    …and hypothyroidism is the *extreme* version of your body’s difficulty with metabolising food. All adult metabolism changes over time. Further, you can be deeply hypothyroid and *not* be cold. Or “sleeping” all the time. I know from my first hand experience.

  41. 42
    Jake Squid says:

    How does The Biggest Loser only find people who respond to calorie in/calorie out and not the magic people who can’t lose weight?

    You may also notice that they eliminate the folks for whom this doesn’t work (or works least for) first (I think. I must admit that I’ve only seen short moments of the show whilst churfing. But that’s the way these “reality” shows generally work, so it seems like a good guess). That leaves a minority for whom your program works for losing weight in the short term. But it tells us nothing about the results even after a longer very short period – like 6 months.

  42. 43
    dorktastic says:

    Well, gee, if I saw it on reality television, than it must be true!

  43. 44
    Rob-ot says:

    I know people in Overeaters Anonymous, and every single one of them who has reduced calorie intake has lost weight.

    If you had difficulty metabolizing food, you’d lose weight, not gain it.

    “Hey, if someone wants to pay for my shwank housing for a couple months, a personal trainer, a personal chef, $250,000 in cash, and time off from work, I’ll quit eating.”

    So you do admit that by not eating you would lose weight? Now we’re just negotiating amounts of not eating.

    Please just cite a study that says “these people ate no more than 1500 calories a day (not self-reported) and did not lose weight.

    If you’ve found a way around the laws of thermodynamics, you owe it to humanity to share.

  44. 45
    Q Grrl says:

    “If you had difficulty metabolizing food, you’d lose weight, not gain it.”

    Uh, no. You would either 1) gain weight or 2) lose weight. That would depend upon the particular “difficulty” your glandular system was having — hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, or a pituitary issue. I wrongly assumed that you knew what you were talking about in regards to “cold” and “sleeping all the time” — which would indicate hypothyroidism.

    Yes, not eating will make you lose weight. Not eating is *not* the same as decreasing caloric intake. Not eating is not eating. Now, if you want to talk *only* of caloric intake, you’re going to have to mightily revamp your arguments. Anyone can make their weight fluctuate — not everyone, however, can maintain someone else’s opinion about appropriate body image.

  45. 46
    Jake Squid says:

    Please just cite a study that says “these people ate no more than 1500 calories a day (not self-reported) and did not lose weight.

    Which, I can only imagine, is a response to me writing:
    Or at least cite some evidence that we can refute for you.

    “Uh oh, ” Rob-ot thinks to itself, “I’ve been asked for evidence. If I ignore that and ask them for evidence, I win! Hoorah!”

    If you had difficulty metabolizing food, you’d lose weight, not gain it.

    Yes, Rob-ot, if you think it is so then it must be true regardless of the facts.

    I know people in Overeaters Anonymous, and every single one of them who has reduced calorie intake has lost weight.

    Oooh, oooh. Anecdotal evidence.

    I know people who’ve done WW, Atkins, various liquid diets, Scarsdale diet and on and on and followed them faithfully & not lost weight over the long term. Ha, hah! My anecdotal evidence wins because while you mentioned only one program, I noted 3 & hinted at many more. Many more than 3 is greater than 1, therefore my anecdotal evidence is superior and wins the day.

    Have you found any studies indicating that metabolism is not affected by caloric intake, yet? Have you found any studies that conclude that metabolism is constant? Or would you rather ask me to provide evidence since that way you can just spout what you believe without actually having to have any evidence to back it up? I’m anxiously awaiting the learning of something new.

    All together now! If I saw it on TV, it must be true. Jenny Craig would never lie or mislead us to make money!

  46. 47
    Rob-ot says:

    Sadly, not being morbidly obese, I’m not particularly invested in the subject, because you keep saying there are studies on your side, post a link. just one link. You keep saying they exist. I know there are tons (haha) of lazy gluttons who don’t consume fewer calories than they burn for long periods of time, regardless of what fad diet they are on. What I said was that people who actually eat less for a long period of time, lose weight.

    People with hypothyroidism don’t need understanding, they need thyroid hormones. If there are true defects which prevent people from being healthy, of course they should be treated.

    Obese people lost weight eating fewer calories (but not zero calories):
    http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=333231

    Metabolism and weight loss. But note, their metabolism slowed while losing weight. ie burned more calories than consumed:
    Welle SL, Campbell RG: Decrease in resting metabolic rate during rapid
    weight loss is reversed by low dose thyroid hormone treatment. Metabolism
    1986; 35:289-291

    http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/picrender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&blobtype=pdf&artid=1026533
    says:
    There is little question that reducing caloric
    intake below expenditure is associated with changes in body
    composition. This phenomenon has been shown repeatedly
    over the past 100 years. The careful studies of many investigators
    have found that when caloric intake is reduced below
    expenditure, there is a predictable rate ofweight loss.
    Have you ever seen a fat marathoner in the Olympics?

    Kinsell and co-workers showed that the rate of
    weight loss of obese patients admitted to a metabolic ward
    and fed a fixed caloric intake was constant and predictable.

    Moreover, no adult patient who has been
    studied in a metabolic chamber has needed fewer than 1,200
    kcal per day for maintaining weight.

    The first point about all 800-kcal (3.4-MJ) diets is that
    weight loss will occur and is predictable, given an estimate of
    energy expenditure and an adequate compliance with the
    diet. The second point is that measurements ofenergy expenditure
    using an indirect calorimeter have shown that those
    who claim to be “metabolically resistant” to losing weight in
    fact require more than 1,200 kcal per day; none have been
    found to require less.

    I thinks that’s enough for now.

  47. 48
    Q Grrl says:

    “People with hypothyroidism don’t need understanding, they need thyroid hormones. If there are true defects which prevent people from being healthy, of course they should be treated.”

    Ah, and here we get to the nub, er root, of the issue: all ye’ damn fools without “true” defects, your fat is a moral issue for which neither understanding or cure is applicable. Hie thee to a metabolic chamber, pronto!

  48. 49
    Jake Squid says:

    Dude,

    Look at your first link. In the first sentence it says:
    The effects of starvation, an 800-kcal mixed diet and an 800-kcal ketogenic (low carbohydrate-high fat) diet on the composition of weight lost were determined in each of six obese subjects during three 10-day periods.

    That’s starvation, not a weight loss program. Anybody can lose 2 pounds/day while not eating. Nobody can be expected to be healthy in the long term eating less than 800 cal/day. This study does not even attempt to measure metabolic rates over a long period. Also, we are talking about a 10 day period. There is no mention about viability over a period of years (or even months).

    Also, let me quote from this study a little bit about metabolic rates
    Basal metabolic rate (BMR). At the start of the
    study, two of the subjects (I. H. and P. A.) had BMR
    values significantly below normal. I. H. had been on a
    weight-reducing regimen immediately before the study;
    P. A. apparently had not restricted food intake before
    entering the study.
    Table IV gives the BMR values for each subject at
    the beginning of the experiment and throughout the
    course of the entire study. Except for P. A., all the subjects
    exhibited a gradual decline in BMR, which, at the
    end of the study, ranged from 9.6 to 18.9% of the initial
    values. The mean decrease in BMR (12.3%) almost exactly
    paralleled the mean decrease in body weight
    (13.3%).

    (bolds mine)

    Thanks for providing a cite for my point about metabolism not being a constant.

    They also note that when the 1200 k-cal diet followed either the starvation(fasting) or the 800 k-cal diet that weight was gained. But, otoh, weight was lost if the 1200 k-cal diet was the first one followed. Hmmm. How could this be? Could it have something to do with metabolism not actually being a constant?

    And what’s the title?
    Composition of weight lost during short-term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and nonketogenic diets.

    Do you see the problems with citing this? The first problem is that this is about short term weight reduction. Anybody can lose a couple of pounds a day in the first week+ of fasting. Your second problem is that this study reports a decrease in metabolic rate almost exactly parallel to weight lost. This means, for those of you watching from home, that as you lose weight your metabolism slows. This makes it harder to lose further weight, never mind not gaining weight back based on the same caloric intake.

    Should I even bother looking at your other links? Well, maybe if I have some time this weekend.

  49. 50
    Crys T says:

    “As a fat woman, I….

    Can go a meal without people theorizing that I ‘starve myself.’”

    Yeah, maybe. But of course being made to feel like a criminal for daring to put ANY food in your mouth at all *instead* of starving yourself is just so much better, isn’t it?

    “Can have seconds without people saying that I’m “putting on a show” and “won’t eat for a week” to make up for it.

    Can come back from the bathroom after a meal without people asking if I just threw up.”

    Ditto my previous comment.

    “Can walk down the street without having people wolf whistle, cat call, comment about my breasts, ass, ask me if I want to have sex with them…”

    No, getting screamed things like “FAT PIG!!” “LOSE WEIGHT!!” and graphic descriptions of how repulsive you are is, again, just SO MUCH BETTER. Right?

    “Can talk to my friends in a bar without being interrupted every two minutes by a guy buying me a drink or hitting on me.”

    I won’t even go into the stupidity of assuming that fat women can never get laid. But, again, of course having to deal with nasty smirks and comments is a cakewalk.

    “Can work at my computer in public in peace without having to hide behind sunglasses, headphones and baggy clothes, and still getting hassled.”

    ????? Excuse me?!? Since when aren’t fat women a target for hassling? Are you for real? Or do you think that just because it’s not sexual in nature (well, it is actually, just not in a “hey, baby” kinda way) that it doesn’t count?

    “Can talk to married men without his wife glaring at me or gossiping about me.”

    Oh right. Again, maybe this one is true, but why is being seen as an asexual lump somehow “positive”? And is it just me, or is the idea that women–or at least married women–see every other female as a potential rival plain offensive all on its own?

    “Can talk to a guy without him thinking I’m hitting on him.”

    BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!

    Sorry, but on what planet does THAT ever happen? The guy may feel it’s beneath him to *respond*, but I’d say that, if anything, he’d be even *more* inclined to believe a fat woman is hitting on him (you know, with us being all pathetic and starved for not only sex but any sort of affection). Please.

    “Can have female friends who don’t constantly tell me how bad I make them feel because I’m so thin.”

    Cos getting their constant pity & condescension for being overweight would be such a blessing. BTW, if those are your “friends,” I suggest you have a rethink.

    “Can go without being frozen out by women who are heavier than I am, who don’t want to hang out with me.”

    Yes, of course this is far more typical than thin women not being wanted to be “dragged down” by being seen with a fatty.

    “Can trust that I got a job because of my skills, not because of how I look.”

    Right, if you can get the job at all. Have you not heard that there is rampant job discrimination against the overweight?

    “Can trust that when someone praises me at work, it’s usually not to get me in bed.”

    Shit, if you’re normally that paranoid, I can’t do a thing for you.

    “Can trust that when a man is nice to me, it’s usually not to get me in bed.”

    Again, you’re assuming a hell of a lot. How would you know?

    “Can go without hearing jokes about how I must have AIDS.”

    But have to hear all those OTHER jokes about what an unattractive heifer you are.

    “Can go without hearing jokes about how I must snort cocaine.”

    See above.

    “Can go without hearing jokes about how I must have anorexia.”

    See above. Again.

    You really haven’t the slightest clue, have you?

  50. 51
    Rob-ot says:

    Metabolism slowing: it slowed while they were LOSING WEIGHT. Let me reiterate that: they lost weight.

    But at least you finally agree that calorie consumption matters. Metabolism is not infinately flexible.

    The chamber studies show that no one is resistant to weight loss from consuming fewer calories, ie, eat less and your metabolism does not slow equivelently. If 2000 cal would maintain your weight and you eat 1000 cal, your BMR does not drop to 1000.

    Before considering long term weight loss, one has to understand the cause of short term weight loss: fewer calories in, more calories out.

    Calories out includes metabolism. Run a few miles and feel your metabolism go up. As one loses weight BMR goes down because there is less of you to support and move around. Carry around a heavy backpack and your BMR will go up, if you had to pump blood to it, your BMR would go up even more. Reduction in BMR almost exactly matching reduction in body weight shows that BMR is dependent upon mass, not on juju factors.

    As for keeping off weight, people start gaining weight when they eat more calories than they burn. Why this happens is an important issue. One adjusts activity levels down and calorie consumption up. Where is the juju factor in these studies?

  51. 52
    Sheelzebub says:

    You know what? As a woman who was seriously underweight for most of her life (and is on the light side of ‘normal’ now), I ate–and eat–like a fucking horse. So Rob-ot, get a fucking clue. (And BTW, a huge reduction in calorie intake can actually slow the metabolism down because your body thinks it needs to preserve energy. Jeez.)

    And Janet. . .

    As a fat woman, I. . .

    Can go a meal without people theorizing that I “starve myself.”

    That is just SO OPPRESSIVE. I’ll bet it’s prevented you from getting jobs and good service. I mean, what with the dearth of thin people in the media, our plight is difficult. Truly it is. Here’s a hanky, dear.

    Can have seconds without people saying that I’m “putting on a show” and “won’t eat for a week” to make up for it.

    I usually hear, “I’m glad you like the cheesecake. You want the recipe?” In contrast, my overweight friends have gotten lectured by snippy cashiers over buying a candy bar.

    Can come back from the bathroom after a meal without people asking if I just threw up.

    This did happen to me once–but it was because we were forced to eat at McDonald’s and it was therefore a valid question. But seriously, dude, you’re friends sound like they have the social graces of a rabid warthog. Oh, well, you know what they say. . .birds of a feather. . .*ahem*.

    Can walk down the street without having people wolf whistle, cat call, comment about my breasts, ass, ask me if I want to have sex with them…

    That has happened to my overweight friends. It happens to WOMEN, and we immediately turn into ugly bitches when we don’t respond or get hostile. It’s just that the overweight women are supposed to be grateful the monkey-brained goatfucker is harassing her. Whoo! Lucky fat woman!

    Can talk to my friends in a bar without being interrupted every two minutes by a guy buying me a drink or hitting on me.

    See above.

    Can work at my computer in public in peace without having to hide behind sunglasses, headphones and baggy clothes, and still getting hassled.

    The fuck? You in witness protection or something? But you’re right, overweight women are never hit on with the attitude they should be grateful for the attention.

    Can talk to married men without his wife glaring at me or gossiping about me.

    Who knew I was such a temptress? I’d better tell my guy friends to wake up and bow to my ultimate bony-ass hotness. I will schedule a catfight with their wives double-quick. Bitches. They’re just jealous because I am so. fucking. hot.

    Can talk to a guy without him thinking I’m hitting on him.

    Is this before or after he asks if you just threw up when you went to the bathroom? ‘Cause like, every guy I know thinks that puke talk is HOT HOT HOT foreplay. Oddly enough, my overweight friends have run into this problem–see: stereotypes about fat and desperate people.

    Can have female friends who don’t constantly tell me how bad I make them feel because I’m so thin.

    Even though they ask you if you just puked in the bathroom? I’d feel pretty good about myself in comparison. But then, my friends don’t say such things because they aren’t shallow assholes who think they’re God’s gift to hotness and cloak whiny screeds in an ode to their oppressed and misunderstood lives.

    Can go without being frozen out by women who are heavier than I am, who don’t want to hang out with me.

    This might be because you come off as annoying and whiny, with a vision of yourself as an irrestistable sex vixen that men can’t resist. Just sayin’.

    Can trust that I got a job because of my skills, not because of how I look.

    Yeah, I got my job because I am so fucking hot. Exactly. And overweight people aren’t judged poorly and discriminated against in the job market at all. EVER. Did you know the world is flat and that the moon is made of cheese? I know because I read it from troll on the internet. It must be true!

    Can trust that when someone praises me at work, it’s usually not to get me in bed.

    Translation: Every man at work wants my hot ass. Even the gay men. And some of the women too. I am hotter than Angelina Jolie, baby. And it’s all because I’m thin. I could be a meth-head and it would be okay ’cause like I’m thin and that makes me hot even though people always ask me if I puke my breakfast up or make comments about me having seconds. It’s all part of the North American Cublicle dating ritual.

    Can trust that when a man is nice to me, it’s usually not to get me in bed.

    See above. Being thin means one is automatically hot, hot hot. Oh, BTW, it’s happened to my overweight friends, who contend with jerkoffs who think that fat women are desperate and should be grateful for any “nice guy” who spits on them.

    Can go without hearing jokes about how I must have AIDS.

    I don’t assume you have AIDS. A raging superiority complex, well, that’s another story. . .

    Can go without hearing jokes about how I must snort cocaine.

    Oh, please. Coke is sooooo 1987.

    Can go without hearing jokes about how I must have anorexia.

    Yeah, you’ll just hear jokes about your size, and have people assume that because you’re fat, you don’t have any feelings.

    Shorter me: get bent. Seriously. Hearing an annoying an unoriginal crack about anorexia is hardly the same as having people quite literally stomp on you as a person because you’re fat. I’ve seen that shit happen, and I’m tired of the whining about “thin oppression.” It’s not the same, and it’s disgusting and childish that you’d even draw such a parallel.

    Here’s a ticket to the clue train–my friends–both fat and thin–never made me feel bad about my body size, or said that they felt insecure around me. (And if they did, it would hardly count as oppression, for fuck’s sake, so drop the hysteria.) Also, being thin doesn’t mean one is hot or stunning and that everyone wants to nail you. Get a grip (and come back to Earth). Sheesh.

  52. 53
    Sheelzebub says:

    Sadly, not being morbidly obese, I’m not particularly invested in the subject. . .

    You’re not acting like someone who’s “not particularly invested in the subject.” You’re acting very invested in proving how very righteous you are and how very weak, undisciplined, and worthless fat people are.

    Fuck off.

    Oh, was I being uncivil? Tough. Fuck off.

  53. 54
    Jake Squid says:

    Metabolism slowing: it slowed while they were LOSING WEIGHT. Let me reiterate that: they lost weight.

    If you don’t eat, you lose weight. If you don’t eat you die. Short term weight loss does not translate to significant weight loss nor does it translate to long term weight loss. Also, your study notes that most of the weight loss was, IIRC, water and not fat. Short term loss of water weight cannot be extended to long term weight loss in anything except a corpse.

    But at least you finally agree that calorie consumption matters. Metabolism is not infinately flexible.

    I never claimed that calorie consumption was irrelevant, just that it is not the only or even the most important factor. And, hey, you were the one claiming that metabolism doesn’t change. I never said that it is “infinitely flexible,” just that metabolism is not a constant.

    Where is the juju factor in these studies?

    I don’t know. Maybe in the fact that there is not a single weight loss program that has a long term success rate of significance? Or the fact that people can’t be healthy by steadily reducing caloric intake indefinitely as their metabolism slows down?

    If 2000 cal would maintain your weight and you eat 1000 cal, your BMR does not drop to 1000.

    This is in direct contradiction to the study that you cited. BMR, in that study, drops at the same rate of weight loss. So, eventually, if that study is correct, your BMR would drop to 1000. Or, perhaps, you would die first. But at least you would be thinner than you were.

    Reduction in BMR almost exactly matching reduction in body weight shows that BMR is dependent upon mass, not on juju factors.

    Damn. You live in a fantasy world, don’t you? BMR is dependent upon mass? So an infant has a much lower BMR than a 60- year old. In all cases. Uh huh. A hummingbird has a much lower BMR than an elephant. Gotcha.

    Just as an example of how goofy a concept that is, let me quote something for you.
    A recent study by Dolezal and Potteiger (1998) examined the effects of concurrent endurance and resistance exercise on basal metabolic rate (BMR, which is very similar to RMR only using stricter measurement criteria), body composition, aerobic power, and muscular strength in 30 physically active males (20 yr of age). One group did only endurance training, while a second group did resistance training, and a third group did a combined resistance and endurance training. The BMR increased in the resistance training (6%) and combined training (5%) groups, whereas the endurance training group showed a decrease of 2%.

    Lookey there! One type of physical training (caloric output) actually decreased BMR. Oh. Perhaps that group lost more weight & therefore, as BMR is related to mass, that explains it all. There are a lot of things that affect BMR. Here is a partial list:

    Genetics. Some people are born with faster metabolisms; some with slower metabolisms.

    Gender. Men have a greater muscle mass and a lower body fat percentage. This means they have a higher basal metabolic rate.

    Age. BMR reduces with age. After 20 years, it drops about 2 per cent, per decade.

    Weight. The heavier your weight, the higher your BMR. Example: the metabolic rate of obese women is 25 percent higher than the metabolic rate of thin women.

    Body Surface Area. This is a reflection of your height and weight. The greater your Body Surface Area factor, the higher your BMR. Tall, thin people have higher BMRs. If you compare a tall person with a short person of equal weight, then if they both follow a diet calorie-controlled to maintain the weight of the taller person, the shorter person may gain up to 15 pounds in a year.

    Body Fat Percentage. The lower your body fat percentage, the higher your BMR. The lower body fat percentage in the male body is one reason why men generally have a 10-15% faster BMR than women.

    Diet. Starvation or serious abrupt calorie-reduction can dramatically reduce BMR by up to 30 percent.Restrictive low-calorie weight loss diets may cause your BMR to drop as much as 20%.

    Body Temperature/Health. For every increase of 0.5C in internal temperature of the body, the BMR increases by about 7 percent. The chemical reactions in the body actually occur more quickly at higher temperatures. So a patient with a fever of 42C (about 4C above normal) would have an increase of about 50 percent in BMR.

    External temperature. Temperature outside the body also affects basal metabolic rate. Exposure to cold temperature causes an increase in the BMR, so as to create the extra heat needed to maintain the body’s internal temperature. A short exposure to hot temperature has little effect on the body’s metabolism as it is compensated mainly by increased heat loss. But prolonged exposure to heat can raise BMR.

    Glands. Thyroxin (produced by the thyroid gland) is a key BMR-regulator which speeds up the metabolic activity of the body. The more thyroxin produced, the higher the BMR. If too much thyroxin is produced (a condition known as thyrotoxicosis) BMR can actually double. If too little thyroxin is produced (myxoedema) BMR may shrink to 30-40 percent of normal. Like thyroxin, adrenaline also increases the BMR but to a lesser extent.

    Exercise. Physical exercise not only influences body weight by burning calories, it also helps raise your BMR by building extra lean tissue. (Lean tissue is more metabolically demanding than fat tissue.) So you burn more calories even when sleeping.

    So, given all of that, what is your program for weight loss & sustaining that loss for a long term (a decade or more)?

    But the crux of the question is… Why do you think that fat people need to or should lose weight?

    Well, that was my longest post in a long, long time.

  54. 55
    Rob-ot says:

    “If 2000 cal would maintain your weight and you eat 1000 cal, your BMR does not drop to 1000.”

    I meant of course metabolism does not drop 50%.
    “This is in direct contradiction to the study that you cited. BMR, in that study, drops at the same rate of weight loss. So, eventually, if that study is correct, your BMR would drop to 1000. Or, perhaps, you would die first. But at least you would be thinner than you were.”

    Wrongedy wrong wrong. BMR dropped with weight, not calories. In other words, going from 100 to 99 pounds would drop BMR 1%. If one only ate 1000 calories instead of 2000 BMR would not drop 50% if one only lost one pound, it would drop 1%.

    It is certainly possible to starve to death, and I do not recommend it for anyone, but if one is 100 pounds overweight, it is not an immediate threat.

    “BMR is dependent upon mass? So an infant has a much lower BMR than a 60- year old. In all cases. Uh huh. A hummingbird has a much lower BMR than an elephant. Gotcha.”
    Nope, hummingbirds have much faster metabolisms, but in a chamber, it is easily proven, or one could measure how many calories they consume without gaining weight, and determine metabolic rate.

    “Weight. The heavier your weight, the higher your BMR. Example: the metabolic rate of obese women is 25 percent higher than the metabolic rate of thin women.”

    Yep, BMR depends on mass, you can say weight if you want to though.

    Which study said the participants lost no fat, only water? Eating low carbs will make you lose water, but did they actually lose 0 fat?

    It does not bother at all that some people are morbidly obese, it does bother me that they lie to others. And I’m willing to think instead of emote about it.

    Sheelzebub, don’t read my posts. It clearly upsets you.

  55. 56
    Jake Squid says:

    It does not bother at all that some people are morbidly obese, it does bother me that they lie to others.

    What the hell does that mean? Morbidly obese people lie? How? To whom? Your prejudices are showing.

    “This is in direct contradiction to the study that you cited. BMR, in that study, drops at the same rate of weight loss. So, eventually, if that study is correct, your BMR would drop to 1000. Or, perhaps, you would die first. But at least you would be thinner than you were.”

    Wrongedy wrong wrong. BMR dropped with weight, not calories. In other words, going from 100 to 99 pounds would drop BMR 1%. If one only ate 1000 calories instead of 2000 BMR would not drop 50% if one only lost one pound, it would drop 1%.

    You need to actually read what you quote & then respond to. See, the sentence, “This is in direct contradiction to the study that you cited. BMR, in that study, drops at the same rate of weight loss.” actually does say that BMR drops with weight. You, sir, are getting to be ridiculous.

    I meant of course metabolism does not drop 50%.

    But, according to the study you cited that is exactly what will happen eventually.

    Which study said the participants lost no fat, only water?

    Your first link. Did I say that they lost 0 fat? No. No, I did not. I believe the words I used were “most of the weight loss was, IIRC, water and not fat. ” Can you at least debate honestly? What’s the point of debating somebody who lies about what was said/written earlier in the encounter?

    And I’m willing to think instead of emote about it.

    Yet you don’t think about what folks who disagree with you have offered here. Actions and all…

    Hey, did you happen to notice the other 10 things on the list that affect metabolism? Or are you going to continue to ignore all evidence that disputes your off-the-cuff assertions?

  56. 57
    Rob-ot says:

    I cited studies that claimed it was possible to lose weight.

    Metabolism, yes if one required 2000 calories at BMR, and lost 50% of their body weight, their BMR would drop to 1000 cal/day. I did misread read your post. I thought you were claiming that BMR dropped in lock-step with caloric intake, instead of with mass. But for this to happen, one would have to lose alot of weight, which some people think can’t be done.

    Most weight lost was water, as long as you admit that reducing caloric intake reduced body fat, I’m cool.

    On endurance training changing BMR, did it reduce total calories burned all day? I’ve seen so few fat endurance athletes.

    Fat people lying: um, about how much they eat, how much they exercise and how no one can lose weight.

    I think we need to distinguish between total BMR and BMR/pound. You cited body fat as a determinant of BMR for example. Well, wouldn’t this mean that losing fat ups your BMR? No, it ups BMR per pound. If two people weigh 200 lbs, the one who has less body fat burns more calories.

    One does not have to continually cut calories to nothing to lose weight, once your down to a goal weight, you have to eat enough to maintain that, metabolism shouldn’t slow more.

    My bad for citing extremely low calorie diets, but they are the easiest to monitor for scientists, and typically do not depend on subjective reporting of calorie intake.

    I’m certainly willing to discuss honestly, in matters of science, there is no “debate” only theories that describe evidence, and those that don’t

  57. 58
    Jake Squid says:

    Fat people lying: um, about how much they eat, how much they exercise and how no one can lose weight.

    Why do you think this is? Why does it matter?

    Fact is, very few people are capable of losing 10%, 20%, or more, of their current weight and keeping it off for even 2 years (never mind decades). That doesn’t mean that “nobody can lose weight.” That means that a miniscule percentage of people who attempt it can lose significant weight and maintain that new, lower weight over the long term. Fact is, most people can lose 5 to 10 lbs in a week, but that has no bearing on long term weight loss & maintenance.

    Fact is, for most people, losing 20 pounds and gaining it (or more) back, as is the case in the overwhelming majority, is less healthy than not losing 20 pounds in the first place.

    I’m at a loss to understand both your vehemence in calorie reduction as a long term weight loss plan (as that is clearly not a viable strategy for human beings) and your injury as a result of fat people lying about themselves. If you insist that you are 9′ 2″ & weigh 37 grams, why should I care? What effect does that have on anything?

  58. 59
    Q Grrl says:

    Well, this fat person might not lie, but I sure as hell lay. Like in tonight. I’m going to go home, drink some cheap American beer, do some dishes and then when my Big.Fat.Girlfriend comes home, we’re going to get the chubby love going long time.

    You just ain’t been loved, ’til you been chubby loved.

  59. 60
    alsis39.5 says:

    Way to flaunt two completely improper lifestyles at once, Q. I bet that you eat meat on Fridays, too.

    Show-off. :p

  60. 61
    Tish says:

    I have seen Cheryl Haworth. At 5′ 8, 297 pounds she could run the 40 yard dash in 5.5 seconds, had a 30 inch vertical leap and took home an Olympic bronze medal in weight lifting.

  61. 62
    Rob-ot says:

    Tish,

    What is his percent body fat?

  62. 63
    Tish says:

    Her. Her percent body fat. And I don’t know.
    You’re pretty entrenched in your position and for that reason and because Amp has already asked you to move along I’m not gonna get into a big back and forth with you. But if you Google Cheryl and see her picture I’m sure you will think she is fat. She is. And she’s an athlete.
    Eat less. Exercise more. So simple. But, how much les? How much more? Is the same metric true for everyone? Can you consider that for many people how much less and how much more are extreme? They may eat their fruits and veggies and they may exercise and be relatively healthy. There have been studies that say a fat person doing these things in moderation is healthier than a thin person who doesn’t. And there were studies done in the forties by Ancel Keyes that demonstrated that an extreme level of caloric restriction is not sustainable physically or emotionally and can mess up a person’s metabolism to the point where weight loss becomes almost impossible.
    I suspect you aren’t interested in learning about the complexity of the subject. I suspect you’d rather be right about how lazy and lacking in voracity fat people are. But I do wonder why you continue to push the argument in a place where it is unwelcome and possible hurtful.
    Bigotry is a powerful drug.

  63. 64
    BStu says:

    Typical Internet Exchange…

    Person: FAT PEOPLE ARE GROSS!

    Fat Person: Um, no we aren’t.

    P: Are too! You’re morbidly obese!

    FP: Obese is a judgemental slander. And I’m no more morbidly anything than you are.

    P: Are too! Dude I bet you must eat a TON! LOL!

    FP: *sigh* No, I don’t.

    P: LIAR! You are lying! I know.

    FP: No, I’m not lying I eat less than 2000 calories a day and get 45 minutes of moderate excercise every day.

    P: No you don’t.

    FP: Yes. Yes I don’t.

    P: No you don’t. I’ve got proof.

    FP: What proof? I’d never heard of you until just now.

    P: You are OBESE!

    FP: I’m fat. What does that have to do with anything.

    P: It means you’re a big fat liar! LOL!

    FP: What?

    P: Yur so fat you eat tons! Fatty!

    FP: No, I don’t. I’ve checked. I eat around 1900 calories a day.

    P: Liar! To be as fat as you, you have to eat enough for 2 or 3 people. You can’t argue with math.

    FP: I can when the math makes unsupported assumpsions.

    P: Liar. I don’t care if you’re an ugly stupid fatty but I don’t like it when people lie.

    FP: Whatever. You’re clearly too entrenched in your bigotry to consider the possibility that you’re wrong.

    P: Lying fatty. LOL! pwned!

  64. 65
    Ampersand says:

    Sally wrote:

    You tolerate anti-feminists in a way that you do not tolerate people who oppose fat acceptance. And for that reason, it strikes me as really shitty that you bill this as a feminist blog. Your double standard shows that feminism is just a charity project for you, that you don’t have a stake in it. You behave differently when your dignity is what’s being discussed.

    I try not to be obnoxious to anyone on “Alas’ – be they anti-fat or anti-feminist. (And for the record, I’ve banned way more anti-feminists and misogynists than I have fat-haters.) But out of the thousands of comments I’ve posted over the years, I have given in to temptation to be overtly obnoxious a handful of times. And on those rare occasions, the victim is as likely to be an anti-feminist as an anti-fat bigot.

    As it happens, I do think I have a personal stake in feminism. But even if I didn’t, I’d still think it was legitimate for someone without a personal stake in feminism to be a feminist, just as I’m okay with white anti-racists, non-jews against antisemitism, etc.

    But let’s put aside you being wrong about the entire factual basis of your post. I think there are other concerns with your post.

    1) This is the second time you’ve attacked a poster on “Alas” for advocating fat acceptance. (The other time was when you implied Bstu was anti-disabled because he criticized the anti-fat bias of a Wal-Mart memo which singled out fat people for criticism.) That’s pretty remarkable, considering how infrequently you post; you pretty much only post here when the subject is disabled rights, or when you can tell people off for unduly supporting fat acceptance.

    2) I want everyone to support feminism, but it wouldn’t occur to me to tell American Indian activists that sexism must stir their emotions exactly the way that anti-Indian racism does, or else their claims to support feminism are “really shitty.”

    Since when it is a rule that it’s not enough for people to support feminism, unless they do so with just as much or more passion than any other issue they support? My mother is more passionate about her Jewish community volunteering efforts than she is about feminism – are you going to get in her face and tell her she’s “really shitty” to consider herself a feminist, too?

    I don’t think people have to reduce other idealogical commitments and passions to be feminists. I especially don’t believe in an “equal passion” rule. Not every feminist is going to make feminism her number-one political passion; some will be more concerned with anti-racism work, or environmental work, or whatever. Why shouldn’t that be okay?

  65. 66
    Sally says:

    Do you actually expect me to answer that, or is it just a nice way of telling me that you don’t want me commenting on your blog?