The "F" word. . . No, not that one; the one that really hurts people

Can we stop using the word “fat” and its many synonyms as insults, please? Seriously, it is a description of one’s weight, not one’s character. For one thing, it is often applied inaccurately. A few weeks ago, a blogger for a newspaper wrote a column in which she referred to a cheerleader as fat. The internet exploded, the post was removed, etc, and it wasn’t even factual. The woman in question, while not ridiculously thin, actually did not appear to be overweight. It was an insult, and, while the internet exploded over the incident, it seems that it didn’t bother too many people that fat was used as an insult, rather, the debate was over whether the woman was indeed heavy or not. She isn’t, or at least didn’t seem to be in the pictures I saw. She wasn’t ridiculously airbrushed, so her skin moved, folded, etc. appropriately, but we don’t even realize that most supermodels have those folds anymore b/c we never see them due to the insidious airbrushing that is everywhere, and thus unrealistic expectations for the human body are set, and now a cheerleader for the opposing team is “fat” b/c she has skin and muscle, and yes, body fat, but everyone has a certain percentage of body fat. It is necessary for our survival as a species. Some of us have more than others, but we all have it.

What harm is there in calling someone who is not overweight fat? S/he isn’t really, and it’s apparent whether one is carrying around an extra pound or five, right? Well, there’s plenty of harm in it. First of all, young people read that drivel, then they read the comments. Anyone with eyes and a realistic expectation of the human body notes that she isn’t heavy. Others feel that the original blogger may not have been so off-base. Person A, struggling with her own body image, thinks, “I look just like her. I am fat.” Person B, also struggling, wonders “If she’s fat, what am I?”  People become defensive and speak offensively.

We have equated fat with being ugly, of low character, lazy, etc. and absolutely none of that is true. We, as a society, seem to place so much value on being thin, that we have made fat the ultimate insult, and we continue to use it indiscriminately. We have absolutely lost perspective on what a healthy body, male or female, can look like, and that there is a wide range of healthy and beautiful. We ask people to reach for the unattainable, and when they cannot reach it, we knock them down if we don’t like them.  In the process, we offer no alternative. People give up on being healthy b/c they do not feel ideal. Others hide in the shadows b/c they feel the crushing judgment of being overweight. Fat is not a character flaw. Mean-spiritedness is.

Some people are indeed fat, others are extremely skinny, and many are somewhere in between. We try to address it superficially. Dove’s “real beauty” campaign, an occasional acknowledgement by a major retailer that it’s okay to have a model who isn’t a size 2 or less come out of the back pages of the catalog, but until we decide that it’s not an insult to be called fat, we won’t make any progress. Fat is simply the state of having a higher body fat percentage than is deemed normal or healthy for your age and sex. That’s it. For many, there may be long-term health issues if the body fat percentage is not reduced, but we make it extremely difficult to have honest conversations about losing some excess body fat when merely having it around is enough to make a person a source of derision. There are many wonderful, physically beautiful, and yes, even fit, overweight people. There are many awful, less-than-attractive, and unhealthy people whose weight falls within the normal range.

I know that one reason fat is an insult is because people view being overweight as something you could control, if you really wanted to do so. To some extent, this statement is true. Putting unusual medical issues aside, most of us have some control over our weight, but it isn’t as easy as simply, “putting down the fork and moving more.” We first have to develop a healthy relationship with our bodies and our food. We have to find the time between all of our obligations to move more. We have to learn how to move in ways that won’t injure our bodies. We almost always need the support of people around us. We need to understand that health is important and looking like a movie star is not only not important, but often not possible. We need to stop judging people who are overweight as being anything other than who they are. By the way, oftentimes the worst offenders are people who have lost a lot of weight, much like former smokers are often the most obnoxious non-smokers. It becomes so easy to fall back on, “If I can do it, anyone can. If you feel bad about yourself, just do what I did!” First of all, every situation is unique. Secondly, why would you want to diminish your own accomplishment? It’s hard to lose body fat, and while our society loves a good weight-loss story, we don’t really like the often long process it takes to get there in a way that is healthy and sustainable.

How, I ask, are we to fix any of these problems if we use the word fat as an insult? If we hurl it indiscriminately with no intent other than to inflict pain, we will only continue to make things worse. It hurts the person you are trying to insult, it hurts people who aren’t overweight, but have no idea what, other than very thin, constitutes beautiful, and it hurts people who happen to carry around a little extra body fat because you can think of nothing worse to say than that someone may resemble them.

That being said, if I hear another, “Real women have curves,” schpiel, I might just projectile vomit. Body shaming is body shaming. If you don’t like it when someone does it to you, don’t do it to someone else. Trust me when I say there are plenty of very thin women who would  love some curves, and “Eat a cheeseburger!” doesn’t do any more for them than, “Put down the cheeseburger!” does for heavier gals. Real women have vaginas. The relative sizes of their breasts, bottoms, stomachs, etc. do not make them any more or less a real woman than someone w/ very different proportions. 

While I would prefer that we not hurl insults at each other, if you do feel the need to insult someone, next time try being accurate and focusing on what, exactly, the person is doing wrong. “Ugh, that dancer was so out-of-step; watching the routine made me uncomfortable. How did s/he get that job?” “That politician is proving that s/he lied on the campaign trail. S/he has a serious lack of integrity. Remember s/he promised ceiling fans for all Americans and now s/he is introducing a bill trying to make ceiling fans illegal! I guess that’s what happens when you take money from the Trading Spaces lobby.” If you really just have to call someone a name, which I really do not encourage, look to Shakespeare for your insults. There are some pretty good ones in his works. There’s also just the good, old-fashioned “Jerk!” It is simple and lets one know that you do not approve of his or her actions. Calling someone fat as an insult makes no more sense than pejoratively referring to someone as a brunette. “Her hair is just so dark. Gross.”  See, it doesn’t make sense, does it?

*Disclaimer: I use the words fat, overweight, heavy, high body fat percentage and a few others interchangeably here. I do realize that someone can be overweight by one measure (BMI, for instance) and healthy by another (body fat percentage). As I use the words here, please assume that they all refer to the issue of possessing an excess amount of body fat.

And His Mama Cried

Much is being made of the Steubenville rape case, and the media’s reaction to it. I am heartened to hear how vocally disgusted most people seem to be with the rape apologists in the main stream media (and, holy lord, they are everywhere) and with all the sympathy given to the young rapists. Even the Yahoo! News comments section, where decency goes to die (it should really be their trademarked tagline), seems to be trending towards those wondering where in the world the sympathy and worry for the victim’s forever changed life is. *I am editing this to add that I have also seen plenty of victim-blaming, slut-shaming, and drunk-shaming happening, but this is not the majority of what I am seeing, and certainly none of that nonsense is on my Facebook feed or other places where I encounter people I like and respect.

   

The fact of the matter is, these young men’s lives are forever tarnished and ruined, but it is not because they received a well-deserved conviction for raping an intoxicated young woman who was slipping in and out of consciousness.  Not only did they violate her, they recorded it, photographed it, and sent it around as text messages. Some of their friends who did not participate in the actual sexual assault helped with continuing to degrade and devalue this young woman by laughing about it, recording it, and passing it along. She was not a person deserving of respect to them. She was an object to use however they pleased. All of the young men involved are guilty of that, and so help me, I wish they all had to spend a little time in juvenile detention and run around as registered sex offenders.

Yes, the two rapists will forever have to register as sex offenders. Some people seem to think that this is an injustice. I think the one year sentences are an injustice. In one year, are they going to learn to see other people as human beings worthy of kindness and gentleness, regardless of how female and/or drunk they may be? In one year, are we going to be able to undo the years of damage that a culture that cries at the INJUSTICE of their conviction for spending hours treating another human being as a prop has caused? Many people, particularly in the MSM, shake their heads and talk about what a shame it is that their lives are ruined, and that this will be with them for the rest of their days. Yet, where is the head shaking over the fact that they did it? These are not innocent youths wrongly convicted. These are boys who were taught that they were special and above the laws of the state and common human decency because they are athletically gifted. It is reported that they are good students as well. First of all, so what? Secondly, forgive me if I sound a little jaded here, but these kids had adults who were trying to cover up a GANG RAPE for them. Is it really so far-fetched that their grades could be padded? I’m sure they didn’t have to be model students to receive model student grades and perks. They may actually have been, and they may not have been, but it doesn’t change the fact that they REPEATEDLY VIOLATED A YOUNG WOMAN.

This fact is the real shame. They have ruined their own lives, and, more importantly, what they did to this girl will be with her for the rest of her life. Through no fault of her own, she was sexually assaulted, humiliated, and has to live with the fact that not only did all that happen to her, but that many people saw pictures and videos of her degradation. She will need counseling, she may very well end up with trust issues and issues around her own sexuality and sexual maturity, she is now at a much higher risk for suicide, depression, anxiety, and eating disorders, amongst other issues. Let me repeat that first part for the slow people in the audience, THROUGH NO FAULT OF HER OWN. Being drunk, being high, wearing something alluring, wearing red lipstick, walking home in the dark, going anywhere alone, hanging out with guys, etc. etc. are actually not versions of consent.

Men do not rape women for these reasons. They are the red herrings of a culture of rape apologists, and every lawyer who has ever defended a guilty rapist thanks society for creating them. Rapists may use these things as excuses, but rape is about control and seeing someone as less than you. When someone violates another human being, it is not because they were so irresistibly drawn to that person that they couldn’t help themselves, or they were confused about whether someone who had vomited all over herself and was no longer conscious wanted to have sex. No. They do it because what they want is more important than what is right. They do it because they do not see any value in that person beyond what they want from him or her (yes, men get raped, too), and this, this is where we fail every time we talk about any rape, but specifically the Steubenville case.

We do not recognize that no one who sees past his own pleasure, no one who recognizes the value and dignity of other people beyond what those people can do for them, can harm another person the way they abused that girl, and, to make it more disgusting, they did it for fun. It was just a night of partying, and they expected to get away with it. Where I cry for these boys is at a more fundamental level. I cry that they were convinced that it is true that they cannot and should not have to control themselves around others. If they want it, they should take it, especially if it involves sex. After all, who doesn’t secretly want the golden boys, and how can they be asked to control themselves in the face of drunken availability? What a load of crap to sell those boys.  They can control themselves. They can treat a drunk girl the same way that they would likely treat their drunk buddies, which is get them to a safe place, put a bucket next to the bed, and tease them the next day by eating in front of them and making really loud noises.

 I read that one of the boys’ mothers became hysterical during sentencing. I hope she was crying not because of her son’s not remotely harsh enough punishment for his brutal actions, but because at some point he failed to grasp that you don’t hurt other people. People aren’t there for you to use however you please. If someone is at a disadvantage, self-inflicted or otherwise, you take care of them. I hope she wept because her son’s life was ruined long before he raped that girl. I hope she raged because he had become a person who thought it was fun to assault another human being. I hope his mama sobbed because she is ashamed and disappointed, not because he has to face the music for forever changing the life of a young woman. Mostly, I hope she cried for that girl, and all the others like her, who are raped by young men who have not been taught the value of another person.  

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

It seems that one theme that runs through a lot of my posts is treating others with a basic level of courtesy and respect. This post will be no different. Today, I am going to tackle another aspect of the “Mommy Wars” (*gag*). The stay-at-home-mom vs the work-outside-the-home mom battle is one that has been raging for quite some time and shows no signs of slowing, which is aggravating as Hell because here we are fighting amongst ourselves over who works “harder” while the politicians are busily chipping away at our rights to vote, be treated equally in the workplace, and make the best choices for our reproductive health, amongst other things.  Don’t fool yourself; whether you are pro-choice or anti-abortion much of the current legislation will do little to stop abortions and much to curb you and your Dr.’s authority to make the decisions that are the best for you.

Let’s get one thing straight. It is a privilege to be able to talk about this topic at all. It’s very First World. I can promise that none of us work as hard as those who live below the subsistence level. Also, back in the First World, this debate completely discounts single parents (who are amazing), child-free people, and what and how men should be contributing. The whole of this topic is too big to cover in one post, so I will likely return to it at some point.

As the title of my blog implies, I am a SAHM, and have defined myself as one since my oldest was born.  I have actually only been a full-time SAHM since my youngest was born. Previously, I had a seasonal job that I was able to work around my husband’s schedule. After the birth of my oldest, I worked close to full-time hours that first summer, but as my husband is the main wage earner as his job demands changed, my availability changed because I did not make enough to justify paying a sitter, gassing up the car, and commuting. It is a position in which many people have found themselves. While the experience of one person is not definitive, I will say that that first summer wasn’t easier or harder than being home, but it was different.

Many things have inspired this post lately. The weird dichotomy of Mitt Romney being upset when Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist, said that Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life contrasted with the Mitt Romney who was the governor of MA and offering/forcing on women w/ very young children the “dignity of work” while forcing them into dead-end jobs. Which is it Mitt? Either what Hilary Rosen said is true, or that “dignity of work” thing was a load of BS in an attempt to put a pretty bow on a policy that was forcing a lot of single mothers into an untenable position. Also, while I suspect what Ms. Rosen was trying to say was that Mrs. Romney, with her staff, money, etc. didn’t understand those of us who don’t have those benefits (and it is what Ms. Rosen claims she meant), many people took it as a knock on the SAHM. Hilary Rosen even apologized for the comment, later. Still, it was not a politically bright thing for someone who is a political strategist to say.

.

Then there is the tired, old “This is What a SAHM is Worth” articles that tend to come out around tax time and Mother’s Day. I hate them. First of all, I am not a psychologist, a nurse, or a chef. Yes, I deal with emotional conflict, first-aid, and I cook. I am not actually trained in any of that (although I do have an expired first-aid certification and I was a psychology minor, so I’m totally qualified), and for the heavy stuff, I would still go to the professionals, the people who went to school and trained for years to earn those titles. I don’t need some outside organization to crunch some numbers and validate my choices. What I do has value. Yes, part of it is monetary, but much of that value is intangible. Those articles also raise the hackles of many women who work outside the home. “Well, *I* do all that AND work. Should I get two salaries?” Actually, they don’t do all of it, and they don’t do as much of it. Yes, they care for their children, but someone else does that while they are at work (This is NOT a judgment; it is a statement of fact; much like the fact that while being a SAHM is work, it isn’t a job in the sense that you have a boss, office politics, and a salary, is true), someone they likely pay, unless it is a family member who is gracious enough to do it for free. Since they aren’t home all day, there is less daily care of the house, less cleaning up the family room after the whirlwind, fewer diaper changes, etc. They also sometimes have to call on those of us who don’t work outside the home for help, “Can you please get Billy to soccer practice for me? I have a late meeting.”

That being said, of course they raise their own children, take care of their own homes, and juggle a lot of the other things. The charges to the contrary are ridiculous. Working outside the home and then coming home and being “on” for the family can be hard. Of course, there are also the days with late meetings and travel. There are days when a WOHM might not get to see her children at all, and not because she’s having a fun night out, either, but because she is out there busting her hump. Not that there is anything wrong w/ time away for fun; we all need that, sometimes.

 I once read an abstract of a study that found that WOHM work harder than SAHM, but when I searched for more information and dug into the study, I discovered that the results were based on self-reporting and journal-keeping. When interviewed and asked specifically about tasks around the home, it turned out that the WOHM were much more likely to report every single activity they did in and out of the home, and the SAHM just sort of hit the highlights. If the SAHM actually logged the housework, childcare, and errand-running, amongst other things, as assiduously as the WOHM, it was probably a wash. In other words, while it is tempting to draw a conclusion about who works harder (and those who ran the study did, despite the evidence of the interviews; that is bias at work right there, folks), one really cannot be drawn here, although I would love to see a follow-up study on how women value what they do and their time and whether working a job affects the value we place on ourselves. I will tell you there are plenty of people who work harder than I do, and plenty who don’t work nearly as hard as I do. It has little to do with who has a paying job and who doesn’t, though. I honestly hate that this study was even run. It just propagates everything awful about the SAHM vs WOHM debate out there, and leads to things like this: 

Now, it is tempting I suppose, if one has a “little gig on the side” to see this, high-five other women in the same boat, and let us bon-bon eating people who *only* raise kids and run a house know how it really is. They obviously work harder and are superior to us. Of course, those of us who actually stay at home and prefer Peanut M&M’s to bon-bons thankyouverymuch, may take issue with this little “joke” that isn’t actually a joke. Then we are sensitive and can’t take a joke because we see that there is a little bit of basic respect lacking here, and a lot of not understanding what it is we do all day. Did you know that SAHM are much more likely to be depressed than the rest of the population? Did you know that one of the reasons is that we are continually told that we have no or less value than people with jobs in many ways (unless we’re getting head pats in “mom salary” articles, or worse, from Focus on the Family), including things like this little “joke?” Also, it is full-time, not full time.

“Hey, you get a break from your kids and house for at least eight hours, five days a week, and you get paid for it! It must be nice to only parent and run your house part-time while you eat lunch w/ out worrying about sweeping and cleaning after! Here’s your bon-bon!” is terrible, un-true, hurtful, and not funny.  If I saw that, or something similar, I would seriously be appalled.

If all the things the “other side” says about you are un-true and hurtful, why oh why would you assume that the things said about them are any more truthful and any less hurtful? Is it so hard to understand that we’ve all made the decisions that we felt were best for our family, and that we all work hard for our families? I respect any woman who is trying her best for her family. I don’t assume I do everything she does and vice versa, even if we are both SAHM. I think it is high time SAHM were offered the same courtesy as a whole. WOHM don’t do everything I do, and that is okay; I certainly don’t do everything they do.  

I sometimes think that in fighting to be allowed to do other work and to be respected as just as, if not more capable than men, in every field, we have helped devalue what is seen as “women’s work” (*shudder*). Instead of equality, where people choose what is best for them, and all work is respected, we have come to a place of women disdaining other women who make the choice to be home, and in return, the women who are at home are lashing out at the women who have jobs. It sets everyone back when all work isn’t respected. I also include blue-collar and service work here. Those jobs used to be seen as important work, but now too many see it as beneath them. I won’t get into how women’s rights and worker’s rights are intertwined. That topic is a different post entirely, but just remember that ALL work has value, and we couldn’t get by without each other.

Speaking of Free Speech

“I have a right to my opinion!”

“Excuse me, I thought this was a free country!”

“What about freedom of speech?”

You may have heard or seen these arguments or some variation on them when you have witnessed or been a part of a disagreement. I feel that it is especially prevalent online, so let me explain a few things. Outside of libel if you’re writing, slander if you’re speaking, revealing classified info if you have access to it, threatening someone’s life, screaming “Bomb!” in an airport, and a few other special cases, you do indeed have the right to say and/or write whatever you desire without intervention from the government. That last bit is key. Freedom of speech and expression is not, nor should it be, freedom from others expressing their disagreement with you. It is also not Freedom from Facts. You can believe the earth is flat. You can spout off about it, quote the “scientist” who wrote a book about it, and post links from the Flat Earth Society, but you will still be wrong, and people will tell you that you are. They are not infringing on your right to free speech by exercising their own.

 Like many rights, it comes with consequences. If you are posting on Facebook, for instance, you need to abide by their terms of service, or your content can be removed. In extreme cases, your account can be terminated. This bit of information happens to be true all over the internet, and is also likely true of your contract with your ISP. You can say what you like, but if you don’t abide by the rules, which you have agreed to follow, you can lose your services. The government isn’t shutting down your Facebook account because you posted your Hustler spread. Facebook is because you violated their TOS. Whether one agrees with the restrictions and enforcements of the terms of service of various websites and ISPs is a different topic.  In addition, some people’s opinions of you may change after you explain why you believe the earth is flat. As a matter of fact, some people may not even like you anymore. It is not an infringement on your rights, but it is a consequence of your actions. To put it another way, you can smoke, but that doesn’t mean that you won’t get cancer.

Also, to paraphrase pretty much every speech from the Voice of Reason to a Superhero, with great power comes great responsibility. The freedom to say and believe what you want is power. It is one that much of the rest of the world doesn’t have. Don’t believe me? Ask a Syrian. When you are not responsible with that power, you can do terrible, hurtful things. At best, when you just say things to say them, without expressing your thoughts civilly, with no desire to check for inaccuracies or logical fallacies, and without making sure that you are not needlessly hurting someone (sometimes the truth hurts, but it is necessary to tell it for the Greater Good, in keeping with the Superhero theme of this paragraph), you look like an idiot. At worst, you become a Supervillain of the information age, spreading lies and inaccurate information, engaging in ad hominem attacks, treating the slippery slope argument as if it were a god, rather than a smokescreen, and just generally contributing to the serious lack of civil discourse we are experiencing in this country. When someone finally stands up, takes off his or her glasses, puts on the spandex, very politely but pointedly makes known all the inaccuracies, and states the truth, the Supervillain retreats behind free speech, attempting to hide behind the mantle he or she has just sullied. In the end, the Supervillain is a coward who yells, “I thought this was a free country!” rather than actually respond to anything that could challenge him or her. Those lines should be reserved for times when there is an actual abuse of power, like the infamous pepper spraying of the college students. They are not to be used when someone merely disagrees with you.

All that being said, I love comments, and I do hope people will comment on my blog when they feel compelled to do so; however, if I feel that what is being said is not respectful to me, other commenters, or anyone else, I reserve the right to delete your comments. Those are MY terms of service, in addition to the Blogger TOS. If you possess it, you can take your vitriol someplace else.