The Big Fat Carnival! – Call For Submissions

[Bumped to the top!]

I’m now taking submissions for the First Edition of The Big Fat Carnival. If you have a blog and you’re sympathetic to the cause, please consider linking to this post!

The Big Fat Carnival is a carnival for collecting some of the best blog posts regarding fat pride; fat acceptance; critiques of anti-fat bigotry, attitudes and research; celebration of images of fat people; practical difficulties of being fat; fat love (queer and otherwise); feminist views of fat and fat acceptance; the health at every size movement (HAES); and whatever else each edition’s editor feels fits into the theme.

(But please note, The Big Fat Carnival is not a place to advocate weight-loss diets, weight loss surgery (WLS), or feederism.)

The first edition of The Big Fat Carnival will be hosted by Ampersand on “Alas” on Tuesday, February 7th. Please read the call for submissions, and submit your posts to Ampersand via email or via this webform. The deadline for submissions is Sunday, February 5th.

Since this is the first edition, feel free to submit not only new posts, but also any old posts you’ve written – or that other folks have written – that you consider particularly loaded with merit.

And if you’d like to host a future edition of The Big Fat Carnival on your own blog, please email Ampersand and we’ll get you hooked up.

Posted in The Big Fat Carnival | 21 Comments

BDSM Sexualities vs Other Sexualities

For those of you who are following the BDSM and Patriarchy discussion, be sure to read the comments to this post on Charles’ livejournal. Charles re-posted one of his comments on his livejournal, and the exchange between Charles, by Kip and Elkins is very interesting.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Whatever | 1 Comment

I am destroying the future of free TV

We got DVR (digital video recording – a lot like TIVO) last year, and it’s totally changed how I watch TV. I seldom have any idea what days the shows I watch are broadcast, and I never watch TV live or with commercials if I can avoid it. For me, being able to watch when I watch – and fast-forward past commercials – makes TV twice as enjoyable as it was.

But me, and others like me, are going to ruin free TV.

Once almost no one – and especially, no one with enough money to afford DVR or TIVO – watches commercials, the “commercial break” model of free-TV will be ruined. I think that this will lead to one of two possible outcomes:

1) The high-production-value, high-end TV I like – shows such as Battlestar Gallactica, West Wing and Buffy The Vampire Slayer – will cease to exist on free TV (although there will still be some of these shows on HBO and Showtime). Only extremely cheap to produce shows – such as reality TV and talk shows – will be available via free TV stations.

or

2) “Commercial breaks” will be supplemented by, and eventually completely replaced by, animated ads that run during shows at the bottom of the TV screen. There’s already a limited number of these ads run – usually brief promos for other shows on the same network – and they’re dreadful, distracting and dismaying. Some of them even have their own sound track, which makes it impossible to hear what characters on screen are saying.

Perhaps it won’t be one or the other – perhaps it’ll be a combination of the two. But that’s the future. All the fault of me and the “fast foward” button on my DVR remote.

Posted in Media criticism, Popular (and unpopular) culture | 37 Comments

The Coming Decimation of Abortion Rights

Over on Pandagon, Amanda writes:

State-by-state map of abortion bans

Via PZ, the likely outcome after Roe vs. Wade is overturned. I’ve written before about this, but it is really astonishing sometimes to really take a step back and look at how much of the country loathes and resents women who want our basic liberty.

It’s been the pet theory for many on the left that women’s rights aren’t really under threat, because the Republicans can’t afford to ban abortion and therefore lose the rallying point of their base. I think there’s some evidence for this, but it’s clear now that the Repubs are going to throw the base this bone and hope that the anti-contraception/anti-gay rallying keeps them going strong.

I’m convinced that this isn’t the way things are going to go. Roe is not going to be overturned. Abortion rights will not revert to the states. And the results will probably be worse than what Amanda is expecting.

If the Republicans get a new, more anti-legal-abortion Supreme Court (and I think they will), they won’t choose to overturn Roe. Instead, the process of whittling Roe down – already well begun by the Casey decision – will be put into overdrive.

Here’s three changes I’d expect to see (not the only three, by any means).

  1. The remade Court will discover that “partial birth” abortion bans that aren’t limited to late term abortions, or indeed to identifiable specific medical procedures, and that provide no exceptions for cases in which a pregnancy has put a woman’s health in jeopardy, are Constitutional after all. The Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban will become the law of the land.
  2. Now that anti-abortion laws no longer have to make exceptions to protect women’s health, a bunch of of the standard laws will be passed in new versions that lack the health exception. (For instance, parental notification).
  3. The Court will decide to apply the Salerno standard to abortion laws. What would this mean? Right now, if a state passes a new abortion law – for example, a law saying that before getting an abortion a woman has to pay for and take a six-week class in moral responsibility taught by her local anti-abortion “crisis” center – someone (probably Planned Parenthood or the ACLU) sues, and the state is not allowed to enforce that law until after the courts have determined if it’s Constitutional or not.

    With the Salerno standard, however, that law will be in effect until it is found unconstitutional – a process that could take many years. Furthermore, the same law would have to be sued many times; for instance, even if the law was found to create an “undue burden” on someone who lives 120 miles away from the nearest “crisis center,” that would just overturn the law for women in that particular situation. Women who couldn’t afford the crisis center would have to sue separately on those grounds; women whose job schedules wouldn’t permit a six-week class would have to sue separately on those grounds; and so on.

    But maybe after ten years and six lawsuits, the new “moral responsibility class” law would have finally have been overturned. No problem – the legislature would just pass some other ridiculous anti-abortion law, and the process begins anew. The Salerno standard would make it possible for Republicans to ban abortion through a series of dubiously Constitutional laws creating barriers between women and reproductive rights.

Without overturning Roe, they will attempt to pass new laws that will make it in practice impossible for many or most women to get abortions. And most of these laws will be “stealth” abortion bans, laws designed to seem moderate or reasonable on the surface (and therefore protecting Republican congressfolks from voter backlash) while actually banning a wide range of abortion procedures. (The Federal “partial birth” abortion (PBA) ban is a classic example of a “stealth” ban; they marketed it as applying only to a single uncommon procedure performed post-viability, but the PBA ban’s text could cover a wide range of procedures, mostly pre-viability).

And if the Republicans continue to control Congress, many of those laws will happen at the federal level, meaning that even abortion-rights meccas like New York state will be subject to the new regulations. Contrary to what many people say, the destruction of Roe (whether it’s actually overturned, as Amanda expects, or instead whittled down to a shell, as I expect) will not mean it’ll be up to the individual states to decide.

When was the last time you heard any powerful Republican object to the federal “partial-birth” abortion ban on federalist grounds – that is, on the grounds of the (alleged) conservative belief that such decisions should be left to the states? By passing the Federal PBA ban, the Republicans have made it clear that they consider abortion to be a matter for Federal law, not for federalism. New York, California, Oregon, and the other white-colored states on the map above are not safe.

For this reason, it’s essential that pro-choicers stop talking about Roe being overturned as if that’s the only worse-case scenario. As long as voters believe that Roe not being overturned means that reproductive rights are protected, pro-lifers will be able to hide behind Roe‘s existence while quietly ripping practical reproductive rights to shreds.

NOTE: This comments thread is for feminist, pro-feminist, and feminist-friendly posters only. If you suspect you wouldn’t fit into Amp’s conception of “feminist, pro-feminist, or feminist-friendly,” then please don’t contribute to the comments following this post.
Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights | 25 Comments

Link Farm and Open Thread #5

As ever, please post links, thoughts, jokes, recipes, whatever in the comments. And you’re welcome to post links to your own stuff here too, if you like.

Here’s some of what I’ve read lately:

Some Talking Points About Samuel Alito

The Second Carnival of Bent Attractions is out.
Check it out!

“Girl Power” In Pop Culture Tends To Mean T&A

These women clearly fit into the idea of “girl power” that’s been floating around the entertainment industry for the past 10+ years. They are valued for their “strength,” as evidenced by how hard they can punch…. They are women who can, and do kick ass. But, is this “power” that of a true kind or is the phenomenon of women kicking ass a way to co-opt female power and bring it back firmly under men’s control?

Body Hatred: A Major Export of The Western World
I have issues with the book Fat Is A Feminist Issue, which despite it’s important – even seminal – place in the literature, is still a diet book that incorporates lots of anti-fat nonsense. Nevertheless, this introduction Orbach wrote for the new edition is excellent. Curtsy: Brutal Women.

Why Doesn’t The President Just Fire Admiral Cain?
If you’re not watching Battlestar Galactica, this post will make no sense.

Size Six: The Western Women’s Harem

Unlike the Muslim man, who uses space to establish male domination by excluding women from the public arena, the Western man manipulates time and light. He declares that in order to be beautiful, a woman must look fourteen years old. If she dares to look fifty, or worse, sixty, she is beyond the pale. By putting the spotlight on the female child and framing her as the ideal of beauty, he condemns the mature woman to invisibility. In fact, the modern Western man enforces Immanuel Kant’s nineteenth-century theories: To be beautiful, women have to appear childish and brainless.

Myths About Anthropology and Language
This cracked me up. Via Kip, who comments (or quotes?) “Sadly, the Intuit culture will die before the myth about Eskimo words for snow.” Speaking of which…

“Long Story, Short Pier” Is Back!
The blogosphere, insofar as it can ever be said to have been at one time worth, in whatever sense of worth applies, browsing, is so once again.

Books, Their Covers and The Consequences

The truth is I honestly enjoy and feel comfortable with both looks and, at heart, I don’t really understand why society doesn’t as well. (It’s like when I was little; I had Barbies and I loved My Little Ponies but I also liked my brother’s Matchbox cars and playing with He-man (and his tiger) with the boys at school. I didn’t think I should have to choose.) But each “look” has baggage. It either opens doors or closes them.

Hugh Thompson, American Hero
Although taught as a moral model in Denmark, he’s largely forgotten here.

White Priviilege 101

Brief Interview with Catharine MacKinnon

This idea that the problem of rape has something to do with the male body is vicious and sexist; at best, it puts all the blame on the wrong body part. I’m afraid we are going to have to deal with how the entire society sexualizes power, makes forcing sex on someone with less power sexy. Bodies are simple. That’s difficult.

New Iraqi Constitution May Limit Women’s Freedoms

If the “Terrorism and Cancer” Metaphor Was More Exact

The Language Guy on Sexism In Language
Also check out Sexism In Language part two.

Shakespeare’s Sister distinguishes good offensive humor from offensive offensive humor

Posted in Link farms, Media criticism | 37 Comments

Fatsuits, Blackface, and Comparing Oppressions

From MTV.com, an article about fatsuits inspired by the current movie Just Friends:

Subconsciously or not, it’s easier for the audience to laugh at the fat person if they know that the actor underneath is actually trim. Eddie Murphy in “The Nutty Professor” remakes; Julia Roberts in “America’s Sweetheart”; Martin Lawrence in “Big Momma’s House”; Kenan Thompson in “Fat Albert” … all make safe targets because they’re not really fat. (OK, Thompson’s not skinny, but he’s certainly not “Hey, Hey, Hey” huge).

But to the overweight person sitting in the audience, the experience must be similar to a black person watching an old blackface minstrel show. When the character is presented as mean-spiritedly as Mike Myers’ Fat Bastard character from the “Austin Powers” movies or scary-thin Courteney Cox-Arquette’s Fat Monica from flashback episodes of “Friends,” it becomes outright torture.

I ran into the MTV piece via Big Fat Blog. I was particularly struck by this dead-on comment by BFB reader “Shyly”:

I went to see “Just Friends” with my boyfriend and little brother and sister on Thanksgiving, not realizing that it was going to be so godawfully fat-phobic. The worst part was that during the real fat-mocking scenes, my sister kept looking at me, trying to figure out my reaction. I felt at such a loss, not knowing what to do. It really made my heart hurt to know that we were sitting watching this movie that essentially said that *I* am worthless, and by not getting up and leaving the theater, I condoned that and said it was okay. I could just kick myself.

Years ago, I went to see The Nutty Professor (Eddie Murphy version) with my friend Phil. After the movie, Phil and I ended up discussing fatphobia, and he remarked that during the worse of the fat jokes in that movie I was squirming in obvious discomfort. So there we were, watching the movie: Me uncomfortable with the anti-fat bigotry on screen, and Phil made uncomfortably aware of the fact that what was on screen was anti-fat bigotry by my presence.

It was a weird dynamic. Probably a bit like going to see a Farrelly Brothers movie with a disabled friend.

That’s two “comparison of oppressions” metaphors in this post: fatsuits and blackface (a comparison that a lot of comment-writers at BFB question), and fat and disability. I’ve already done fat and gay, a little over a year ago.

But of course, no two oppressions are really the same. It’s not even the case that any two fat people necessarily feel the same oppression from anti-fat bigotry. In the comments to another post, Reddecca commented that it had never even occurred to her that fat women and fat men are facing the same oppression; she had always thought of fat-phobia as a women’s issue.

I don’t think it’s just worse for women, I think fat and body issues are qualitatively different for women than they are for men, and I’m not sure that looking through the lens of fat acceptance, or fat pride, or even criticisms of fat phobia don’t hide those differences.

She’s not right – after all, that legislator in Hawaii didn’t suggest that only female fat teachers should be weighed and “dealt with appropriately.” But she’s not wrong, either – a lot of the bigotry experienced by fat women is not merely a meaner form of what men experience, but qualitatively different, because of how fat and gender intersect. (For example, disgust at fatness harms both fat men and women; but it also functions as a way of socially controlling and limiting all women, fat or not. See Naomi Wolf’s wonderful polemic The Beauty Myth – or for that matter, Jill’s recent experiences (see especially Zuzu’s comment)). Both lenses – a feminist lens and a fat acceptance lens – are necessary.

Comparisons are onerous and difficult. On a different comments thread on Big Fat Blog, PCKim, herself both fat and Black, objected to the blackface/fatsuit comparison:

If you had to read your nationality compared to every ill in the darn world you’d get sick of it, too. I come here about accepting my weight and stopping weight based discrimination. Sometimes I don’t even all of you realize you do this constantly. You need an example of the crap we as fat people go through, drag out the black comparisons for extra punch!

Usually it’s not about just racism as an example it’s racism against black people specifically that’s used as examples here constantly. It’s like do you want to be reminded that you’re not thin every time you look around. We don’t want to be reminded every second we’re a minority in this country, or how the man stuck it to us. We have sites for that type of thing.

PCKim makes a great argument. At the same time, I’d hate to think that the civil rights struggle – surely one of the most important moral movemetns in American history – leaves no lessons that can be applied to other situations. Everything is different, but at the same time, every human life is different from every other life. It doesn’t mean that comparisons are always useless, or that fat people can’t learn anything about our own situation by considering the history of racism and sexism. No oppression is totally the same, but no oppression is totally different, either. (Later in her post, PCKim does seem to say that sometimes comparisons are appropriate).

(Postscript: Be sure to read this excellent post by Reddecca, too.)

Posted in Fat, fat and more fat, Race, racism and related issues | 108 Comments

Anti-fat Bigotry Against Schoolteachers Proposed in Hawaii

State Rep. Rida Cabanilla introduced a resolution in the house requesting that the Board of Education establish an obesity database among public schoolteachers.

“You cannot keep a kid to a certain standard that you yourself is not willing to keep,” Cabanilla said. […]

The resolution calls for all public schoolteachers to weigh in every six months.

The measure calls for the education and health departments to formulate an obesity standard and appropriate measures for teachers who cannot meet the standard.

Wow, is this disgusting.

No luck so far finding out what “appropriate measures” consist of, but I’ll keep looking.

This is a bit similar to a story a year ago, when a California legislator proposed including children’s BMIs on report cards, right under their grades. Because if there one thing California culture lacks, it’s people being judged by their weight.

Curtsy: Brutal Women.

Posted in Fat, fat and more fat | 19 Comments

Organizing the Carnival of Fatty Goodness

This is a post where I’ll be discussing the Carnival of Fatty Goodness, a proposed blog carnival for highlighting posts written from a fat pride or fat acceptance point of view.

This came up in the discussion on this thread. Here, based on what we discussed and also on what I’ve been thinking, are my proposals. I’m putting these forward for discussion; they are by no means writ in stone.

  • The Carnival should be named “The Carnival of Fatty Goodness.” Or maybe the “Carnival of Fat, Fat and More Fat.” If everyone hates those ideas and no other suggestions come up, then we could just call it “The Carnival of Fat,” but I’d personally prefer something less bland and more striking and in-your-face.
  • The Carnival is for posts discussing fat pride; fat acceptance; critiques of anti-fat bigotry, attitudes and research; celebration of images of fat people; practical difficulties of being fat; fat love (queer and otherwise); feminist views of fat and fat acceptance; the health at every size movement (HAES); and whatever else each edition’s editor deems appropriate (apart from the topics noted below).
  • The Carnival is not open for advocacy of weight-loss diets, weight loss surgery (WLS), or feederism.
  • Discussions of fat fetishism (pro or anti) are on-topic so long as they are written from a fat-acceptance perspective; in contrast, simple fat fetishism (for example, “Here’s a fat fetish story I wrote that’s really hot!”) is not on-topic in this carnival.
  • The Carnival will initially take place once every two months.
  • Please let me know what y’all think. I realize that the bit about fat fetishism may be particularly controversial, so please don’t feel that you can’t argue against that if you don’t agree with it.

    Posted in The Big Fat Carnival | 27 Comments

    Monday Baby Blogging – Boo!

    By the way, someone asked in comments why we’ve only seen Maddox a couple of times since she was born. Well, the first twelve months of Sydney’s life, I didn’t post many pictures of her, either; baby blogging didn’t become a regular feature until Syndey was over a year old.

    Here’s a secret about very tiny babies: they don’t do much. Maddox eats. She cries. She sleeps. And yes, her brain is working like a fiend, absorbing new information at a rate terrifying to contemplate. Personally, I think that’s all adorable, but it doesn’t provide a big variety of photo-ops. For photogenic cutenetosity, the material becomes much better once the little parasites are mobile.

    Or at least, that’s my experience. We’ll see if Nick’s experience is any different over the next year. :-)

    Meanwhile, let’s talk about that most venerable and time-honored game: Peek-a-boo.

    Step one: The game master (GM) initiates play by hiding her eyes. This renders her effectively invisible; other players must indicate this by saying things like “where’s Sydney? Where’d Sydney go? Have you seen Sydney?” [*] If the GM is peeking between her fingers, it may be helpful for the other players to visibly search for the GM under bowls, inside the toaster, and in their breast pockets.

    [*] It is probably for the best if you substitute the name of your particular GM for “Sydney” when you attempt playing Peek-a-boo at home. Alternatively, you could convince your GM’s parents to legally change their child’s name to “Sydney.”
    Continue reading

    Posted in Baby & kid blogging | 11 Comments

    Bondage and Patriarchy

    A few posters have requested that I transfer this discussion of BDSM and patriarchy into its own thread (right now it’s taking place in the “root of all oppression” thread). So here are a couple of posts, to get this thread started; and then I’ll copy over a bunch of the comments, where appropriate.

    Myca wrote:

    …To call BDSM a representation of male dominance and female submission is both 1) factually inaccurate in the huge and important number of cases where there aren’t any women, aren’t any men, aren’t two people, the woman isn’t submissive, or the man isn’t dominant, and 2) it seems to miss the point even in the cases where it’s not factually inaccurate on the face of it.

    What I mean by #2 is that . . . well . . . hmm . . . look, I don’t think that gay male relationships are sexist because they exclude women. In fact, I lose respect for people who make that argument. I don’t think that a relationship between two white people is racist because it excludes black people. Once again, I would lose respect for anyone who make that argument. For me, BDSM is the same thing.

    “Excluding women” in the bedroom or in a romantic relationship isn’t the same thing as excluding women outside of it. “Excluding black people” in the bedroom or in a romantic relationship isn’t the same thing as excluding black people out of it. A deliberate choice to play out a power imbalance in the bedroom isn’t the same thing is perpetuating a power imbalance outside of it. Maybe it’s just that I think of sexual/romantic relationships as something “different.” It’s just how we are. We’re attracted to who we’re attracted to. We get off how we get off. Our kinks are our kinks.

    Then, cicely wrote:

    Yes, Myca, I think along those lines as well. I’m not ready to concede that anyone on the planet has the complete answer to the question ‘why is the eroticisation of power so pervasive in human sexuality?’, and certainly not adherents to any political ideology, even one that I consider myself in harmony with on more than a few issues. I guess I’m just not big on foregone conclusions. I prefer to keep asking questions, especially about other peoples lives and eccsperiences.

    In any case, it is not impossible for an individual to work in a battered womens shelter, campaign for better childcare facilities, a more even distribution between the seccses of wealth in society, whatever – i.e make a significant practical contribution to the betterment of womens lives, then go home (or somewhere) and engage in consensual d/s sexual activity! These things are not mutually exclusive.

    After that, Charles responded:

    Myca and cicely,

    As a fellow pervert :), I have to strongly disagree with your rejection of the idea that BDSM practice should be subject to radical feminist analysis (cicely, your position seems more nuanced than Myca’s blanket rejection, but I still find it problematic).

    The fact that sexual preference is largely not subject to conscious control does not mean it shouldn’t be examined critically. The fact that one can both be a feminist and have BDSM desires (and practices) does not mean that one’s BDSM practice and desire is positively compatible with one’s feminism (one can also be an asshole and a feminist, or a professional torturer and a feminist, so coexistence doesn’t equal validation).

    Likewise, that BDSM does not consist of a trivial replication of men oppressing women does not mean that it is unconnected to patriarchy.

    While it is possible to have specific meaningful discussions of the basis of the eroticization of power without referencing patriarchal domination, I think that refusing to talk about the relationship between eroticization of power and patriarchal domination (or rejecting such arguments as naive) is crippling to a full understanding of either.

    I think treating sexuality as something that just is is a mistake, and I think that trying to understand sexuality under patriarchy while ignoring that the sexuality under discussion exists under patriarchy is a mistake. I also think that recognizing that BDSM sexuality is constructed under patriarchy is not a simply blanket condemnation of BDSM sexuality, particularly not in comparison to unconsidered vanilla sexuality, which is (obviously) also constructed under patriarchy. While it is possible to work to reconstruct one’s sexuality in a direction that is oppositional towards patriarchy (and I think that Safe/Sane/Consensual BDSM is to some extent such an effort), I think that to do so requires recognizing the relationships between one’s sexuality and patriarchal oppression.

    Incidentally, my own views on my own sexuality are (strangely enough) strongly influenced by Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse (originally by osmosis in the late 80’s, but when I actually read it a few years back I was impressed with how strong the osmosis had been), so I feel strongly that radical feminism can provide useful tools for understanding BDSM sexuality in terms that are more complex than “BDSM is bad”.

    cicely, I realize that you commented that you were not trying to start this conversation here, but I think it might be an interesting one. Perhaps it needs a top level post of its own? Amp expressed to me a willingness to have such a top level post, if you and Myca would be interested in going into these questions further.

    Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 106 Comments