A Very StarCraft Rant

So I'm playing through StarCraft 2 again, and I seriously cannot believe just how bad the portrayal of women is. There are five total female characters that I can think of off the top of my head:

 1. Dr. Ariel Hanson starts as the damsel in distress, and depending on which plot choice you make, her part in the story either ends with death or with asking the main dude (Jim) out.

2. Mira Han "tricked" Jim's starship captain, Matt, into marrying her.

3. Protoss Executor Selendis. As far as I know, the Protoss are asexual - nothing about them is sexualized at all, and Selendis is the only decent female character. Naturally, she appears for only one mission and one cut scene. (Not to mention, of the five Protoss heros to be in that mission, she is the only female. Looks like the Protoss have problems with glass ceilings too!)

 4. Nova Terra seems generally decent, but her exit from helping Jim and company involves another dude turning to Jim and asking, "You ever think about hitting that?" COME ON NOW.

5. My personal (least) favorite, Sarah Kerrigan. She's Jim's actual love interest that got kidnapped by the Zerg and transformed into the evil Queen of Blades. But wait, Zerg are disgusting, slimy insectoid creatures! That means Kerrigan would be too, right?

HAHA NOPE! She gets to be a naked porn star with a bit of Zerg scales in the right places, and bony wing-things! This cinematic demonstrates even better Blizzard's intentions - she shows up at 1:45. I (do not) love how she is completely nude, yet somehow is still wearing high heels.

All of these women are white (there are two black dudes in the game, one of them UNBELIEVABLY stereotyped - I wasn't into social justice at all when I first played this game and I was still uncomfortable) and perfectly slender. Even Selendis is given a supermodel body. Oh, and not a single one of these women EVER speak to each other. About ANYTHING. The closest it gets is when Jim has to choose between Selendis' and Dr. Hanson's solution to the Zerg infestation. They are arguing about it! But they never actually address each other, but rather, talk directly to Jim!

Seriously, Blizzard? 14 years between the original and #2, and the best you have are these breathtakingly sexist tropes?

I can't bring myself to look forward to the next expansion. I just can't. Not after this.

On Exceptions

[TW for anti-choice narratives, incest/rape.]

Many people who oppose abortion believe that there should be exceptions for incest/rape and health danger to the mother.  Having grown up Mormon, I can say definitively that the LDS church teaches those exceptions, despite also teaching that abortion is "one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day" (President Spencer W. Kimball, 1982).  I don't know specifically about other faiths, but the concept of exceptions to the rule is common.

But, what happens when the rule prevents exceptions?

I used to be pro-life (with exceptions), just as the Church taught.  During those years, through my exultation over the passage of each new anti-choice law, it never occurred to me that those same laws made it harder for those "exceptional" people to get the care they needed.  The problem was so abstract to me that I never saw the need to put any further thought into it.  In my mind, the exceptions were so far removed from the rule that they could always get an abortion, no problem.

The reality is, every bill that restricts abortion in any way also restricts abortion for the "exceptional" people.  Is that really a price worth paying?  Forcing a 13-year-old girl to carry her incestuous baby to term because the brother that raped her wouldn't allow her to seek help until the pregnancy became so obvious that it could no longer be ignored - and by then, had passed 20 weeks or whatever other arbitrary deadline?  Sentencing a woman to death because she's carrying a 27-week-old stillborn fetus that is poisoning her?  A woman who couldn't put words to the rape she suffered until halfway through the resulting pregnancy?  A woman who promptly reported her rape to authorities only to be met with ridicule and disbelief, and thus doesn't have an in-process court case to present as proof necessary to abort?  These situations are not as rare as one would like to hope.

With the mindset of "exceptions", these things are allowed to happen.

There are no such thing as exceptions, and abortion is infinitely more complex than "KILLING BAYBEEZ".

Height and Health

[TW for fat hatred; denial and violation of personal autonomy.]

If I went out and broke both of my femurs in order to insert fancy machinery that would gradually lengthen them, which would mean 1-3 days in a hospital, the services of an occupational therapist and weeks of rehabilitation, and assuming none of the complications inherent in such a procedure were to occur, in the end, I'd be an inch or two taller.

According to many leading authorities, physicians and the media, I would also be healthier.  Despite having two broken, and therefore weakened, femurs; despite the stress and pain of surgery (not to mention financial stress); despite the exercise lost from reduced mobility and the hospital stay; despite the fact that nothing whatsoever in the procedure actually addresses health - many professionals would consider me healthier.

Because BMI.

It really is totally ridiculous when you take a moment to think about it.

What happens if you bend your knees while being measured? If you just had a large meal?  If you have heavy things in your pockets?  If you just took a huge dump?  If you're wearing platform heels?

For me, not much, since I'm at about 40 BMI and am clearly a ticking time bomb or whatever.

But for someone right on the (completely arbitrary) line between "normal" and "overweight"?  I mean, their entire life and future health could be imperiled by those two pounds!  Why aren't physicians working to prevent this life-threatening scenario?  Telling patients to fast before a routine doctor's visit, sending them to pee before putting them on the scale, stripping them?  Heck, even a cavity search would be helpful - I mean, the TSA does it all the time, so it's okay, right?

Whatever is necessary for the health of our citizens. We will do whatever it takes.

Or... maybe we could, y'know, do the vaguely intelligent thing and ditch BMI as a measurement of health.

Just a thought.

"Vacant" Geek Girls

[TW for sexism and ageism.]

So, I'm a huge webcomics nerd.  I read dozens of them: Goblins, Girl Genius, OOTS, Girls with Slingshots, Questionable Content, Gunnerkrigg Court, Dumbing of Age, XKCD, The Meek, YAFGC, Lackadaisy, Sinfest, on and on.  In addition to keeping up with all these, I'm always on the hunt for new stuff, and have a ginormous bookmark folder full of "to read" comics.  Currently, I'm devouring Weregeek.

I'm also a huge geek in general - I love fantasy/sci-fi and gaming.  So, I'm positively adoring Weregeek because it appeals to all of my dorky interests.

This morning, reading along in the Weregeek archives, I came across this strip.  (If you can't see it, it's basically a four-panel comic strip in which one of the main characters has a fiery rant about a NYTimes article which posits that Game of Thrones couldn't possibly be of interest to women.)  I love reading outraged comments to horrible articles, so of course I scrolled to the comments below the strip.  And it was great!  I'm reading through these, nodding and internally cheering at the snark, and then.

Some douchebag made a comment that perfectly exemplifies why I'm hesitant to join a local LARP, or do cosplay, or D&D, or any of the things that Weregeek is about that I would love to participate in.

By commenter rb:

too bad that (vacant) geek girls appealing to the eye in my circles are as rare as epic (or similar) grade loot in a newbie area. or way off age D=

Seriously?

I read on, desperate to find among the people snarking that sexist article, someone also snarking that sexist comment.  But he went completely ignored.

I'm not here to condemn people for not calling him out.  I'm here to do it myself.

"rb", you are a misogynist (and ageist) asshole.  You remind me rather strongly of Mike from Something*Positive.  Before he started the superhero gig and actually became vaguely likeable.

Vacant is not synonymous with single.  What on earth possessed you to use that term?  It sounds like you think of single women as a parking spot that simply hasn't been taken yet.  Which is obviously so wrongheaded, I can't even.  You are the quintessential, entitled Nice Guy™.  We are not here to be easy on your eyes.  We are not here to be your potential romance.

We are here to do over-the-top roleplay of fantasy characters and go on epic quests.

Venting

[TW for sexism, racism, jingoism and classism.]

Okay, I just need to rant for a bit.

I'm a fan of country music.  I love the sound, and many of the songs are absolutely fantastic, and deal with difficult topics that most mainstream music avoids (e.g., cancer, abuse, etc.).

On the other hand, country music is a proud bastion for so many things that are horrible: racism, sexism, jingoism, BOOTSTRAPS.  This has intensified to absurd levels since 9/11.

But the one I need to rant about today is probably the most egregious example of sexism that I can think of off the top of my head (how sad is that?): Keep Me in Mind by The Zac Brown Band.

The way I listen to music is that I pretty much completely ignore the words for the first five listens, and then suddenly the words are there.  Now, Keep Me in Mind is the catchiest song EVER, and Zac is an excellent vocalist, so I kept hearing this fun new song and kind of hearing the words but not really. And then, suddenly the horrible, horrible words registered.  I don't even have to go past the first stanza, because IT IS THE WORST.  One line at a time:

How come all the pretty girls like you are taken, baby?

Ugh.  Yet another message of many reminding single women (NOT GIRLS FFS) that they're single because they're ugly, and that men are superficial enough to only be interested in women that meet the conventional standard of beauty.  Isn't it the feminists that are supposed to hate men?   Dudebros, y u hate men so much?

I've been looking for someone like you to save me

Men are not infants that require being saved.  Again with the misandry.  Which, of course, doesn't actually result in the marginalization of men but rather the women (saviors), and so it is misogyny masquerading as misandry.  Boys will be boys, and all that.

Life's too easy to be so damn complicated

If your biggest life complication is yearning after a woman you can't have (and you're whining about it like a toddler denied candy), then you are on a level of Not Getting It that no one can touch.  You are standing on top of Privilege Peak, and the reality down in the foothills is completely obscured by the mists of your white, straight, rich dudeliness.

Take your time and I'll be waiting

YOU ARE A CREEP NOW.  Go find a woman that is actually available.  OH WAIT all of the pretty girls are taken!  Well, gosh, that just leaves you in a pickle now, doesn't it?

Go away, think about your life for a while, and come back when you've moved beyond frat boy levels of sociability.

A Barrage of Coincidences

[TW for fat hatred and child abuse resulting in death.]

So many coincidental happenings today!

There's the abhorrent childhood obesity exhibit at Disney's Epcot. Because kids are clearly stupid and don't already get the cultural narrative that Fat Is Bad, and require reminding while on a family vacation at Disney World. The dramatic rise in childhood/teen eating disorders is just coincidence.

There's the terrifying news that an FDA panel - swayed in part by none other than Dr. Arya Sharma(!), who has frequently advocated for HAES-like philosophy in the past, has unanimously voted to recommend the weight-loss drug Qnexa for approval. This, despite being rejected in 2010 due to evidence that the component phentermine causes "side effects like elevated heart rate that may lead to severe cardiovascular problems, such as heart attacks and arrhythmias; birth defects; psychiatric problems; kidney stones; decreased bone mineral density and memory impairment." In what's clearly coincidence, cardiovascular problems is what killed some of the people who took Fen-Phen in the '90s! The 'phen' part of Fen-Phen totally doesn't stand for phentermine, or anything. Ahem.

Then there's the news that few people will really connect to the obesity hysteria: the heartbreaking death of a 9-year-old girl, because she had been forced to run for three hours after lying to her grandmother about having eaten candy bars. Not one thing in that article is said about obesity or weight. But really, now. Why would they use intense exercise as punishment for lying about eating candy? It must be coincidence.

Then there's the regular parade of celebrity scrutiny and diet tips and airbrushed models that have become utterly ubiquitous both online and in the meat world. This is obviously just a coincidence, since they're just always there.

Placed side by side to these articles, I found this: 'Am I Ugly' Videos Spark Disturbing YouTube Trend (video starts automatically, but has an accompanying article). Apparently, young women have been taking video of themselves asking if they are ugly, and posting them to YouTube. Predictably, some people are kind, others accuse them of begging for attention, and the trolls have come out in force.

Why would there be a connection between the first four points in this post and this YouTube trend, nevermind the chronic insecurities that the majority of the people in this country struggle with every day?

I dunno. It must just be coincidence.

I used to be pro-life.

[TW for anti-choice narrative and discussion of sexual violence.]

I used to be pro-life. I grew up that way, feeling horror at the mere concept of abortion and only grudgingly allowing that exceptions should be made for people who have been assaulted (I considered the health exception to be the mother selfishly putting her life over that of her child's).

Then, I began to actually process the assault that I endured so many years ago, and part of that processing was reading ALL THE THINGS on the topic of rape. I learned statistics, such as the fact that 60% of assaults go unreported; that when an assault is reported, chances are high that the victim won't be taken seriously/mocked/blamed for the assault; that if the victim is taken seriously by law enforcement, the court process is grueling and frequently is dismissed, or the victim can't testify for any number of reasons, or the jury won't take the victim testimony seriously/mocks/blames the victim for the assault. It is estimated that about 1 in 16 rapes result in the incarceration of the rapist.

One in sixteen. Abhorrent.

Then, there are time constraints. The ludicrous handling of assault cases within the justice system, in tandem with the (continually more prohibitive) legal restrictions on abortion (e.g., cutoff at 20 weeks), means there is rarely - if ever - a conviction to show in time to abort the pregnancy.

On top of that, many victims don't realize that what has just happened to them was rape. Sometimes, years pass before a victim realizes what, exactly, happened. Sometimes, the victim never realizes it at all.

We Cannot Forget

[TW for discussion of sexual violence.]

Every time I listen to Andrea Gibson's "Blue Blanket" (transcript here), I hear something new. Her words are so dense and so powerful that it's impossible to catch everything on even the first ten listens; and yet, some lines are unforgettable from the moment they're first heard. I don't often listen to the poem though, because it touches on such a deep, painful topic - rape.

Tonight, the lines that struck me were "... if even a few of us forgot / what too many women in this world cannot", and the lines that have stuck with me in the years since I first heard them are "she's heard stories of Vietnam vets who can still feel the tingling of their amputated limbs / she's wondering how many women are walking around this world feeling the tingling of their amputated wings".

Those first two lines are the reason rape culture exists. Too many people have forgotten what too many women cannot. A single drop of empathy, of humanity, into the cocktail of distractions that we daily consume, would begin to dismantle the constructs that work to prevent earth-bound women from flying again.

Survivors of sexual violence have their entire worldview, their day-to-day functioning, changed; twisted into a grim shadow of the beauty that once was. We learn to live with it, but, like the amputee that can still feel the ghost of lost limbs, we still feel the tingling of lost innocence.

And we look up at the people who can still fly, who mock because we have been thrust to the earth by the throat of our trust, and despair that they have forgotten.

I can never forget.

But I am determined, someday, to fly again.

lol ur copyright

One of the many gazillion things I do online is help moderate a user-generated art gallery, Storm-Artists.net. I love it there, great community, pretty art, good friends. We do get the occasional art thief, though, and we delete stolen art as soon as it's discovered.

I've gotta say though, I LOVE - really, truly, LOVE - this trend among art thieves to announce that the image they've submitted has been stolen. Phrases like, "Original images from Google. Photomanipulation © me" in all caps, right underneath the image. Because clearly, when something has been stolen, announcing to the world that you stole it makes it all okay! These people are hilarious!

Well, it certainly makes my job easier! Instead of having to dig around the internet to find the original version of the stolen art as proof if the thief pleads innocent and wants a second opinion from another moderator, I can just hit the delete button. Boom, stolen image nuked. Half the time the thief throws a hissy fit: "But I gave proper credit! I didn't steal!"

Yes indeed, you gave credit, but you also totally stole. "Giving credit" just made things way easy for me.

The funniest thing is that these people typically have ginormous galleries bursting with badly Photoshopped collages of their favorite Harry Potter characters, with descriptions along the lines of: "Whipped this up in like less than five minutes...because I obviously didn't do much to it ^^; But the manip is still © me."

The only thing that makes this go from HILARIOUS to SO AWFUL is on massive art websites like deviantART, where these thieves congregate like flies on a cowpie.* Find one of them, you'll find that a single stolen collage is in a dozen fan groups, each group with hundreds of members all submitting the same type of stolen artwork. There are tens of thousands of stolen images.

Which is a rant I'll get into some other time.

For now, I'm laughing, and deleting (on Storm), and reporting (on dA).

ETA: The best example I've ever seen of an art thief's stupidity is an image I just found, in which the stolen background image had a large copyright notice across the center, and the thief even pointed it out in the artist's description area! With no sense of irony whatsoever! LOL!

*Disclaimer: I'm not comparing dA to a cowpie. I'm comparing the festering piles of stolen artwork to a cowpie.

Before That Moment

[TW for ableism.]

My primary job is in apartment management, and last week I was sent to a three-hour training on the Fair Housing Act. One of the most important aspects of the Act is something that rings familiar to most: "It is illegal to discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin."

The real estate lawyer giving the presentation used a variety of examples to show what was and wasn't against the law; for example, a property that disallows all pets refused to allow a disabled tenant to have a companion animal as recommended by a doctor. That's discrimination based on handicap, and the tenant was awarded thousands of dollars in reparations.

Interestingly, much of the discussion focused on ableism, including mental illness. Schizophrenia was mentioned, as was bipolar disorder. Throughout, the presenter was sensitive and used generally acceptable language when discussing these things.

Then, completely out of the blue, he used the term "crazy" to refer to something entirely unrelated to mental illness.

Before that moment, I knew that "crazy" is an inappropriate word to use, at least in the way most of society uses it: "It's crazy to try the black diamond slope if you've never been skiing before!" "You want to study advanced physics? Are you crazy?"

Something about the disingenuity of his use of the term really struck home for me. He was talking about how very wrong it is to discriminate against the disabled, and then in the same breath used language that encourages marginalization of the same population.

"Disabled people deserve to be treated equally with the able-bodied. You would have to be crazy not to."

Before that moment, I didn't quite get it. And then, it clicked. Instead of token, not-quite-getting-it outrage, I felt genuine outrage, and hurt, and simultaneously amazement at my realization.

I guess my feminism leveled up.

Raising the Bar

[TW for ableism, sexism, homophobia, Christian supremacy, classism.]

Via Juanita Jean's blog, I found the website of Dr. Stuart Spitzer, a Republican running for Texas State Representative.

Just for kicks and giggles, I read through the page, and the penultimate paragraph is one of the most... um, telling I've yet read about the wrongheadedness of Republican politics [emphasis mine]:

"I believe there are two competing ideologies in play. One would debate the role of family, the rights of the unborn, the merits of gambling, and even whether absolute truth exists. This worldview says that if we can’t all get over the bar, we need to lower the bar. I think we need to raise the bar. ... we should not lower the bar just to get everyone over it. I would rather try my whole life for a bar set too high and fail, than walk over a low bar into a pool with the sediment of all, but the virtue of none."

Republicans: "If you're too poor, too disabled, too low-class, too minority, then reaching the bar is not for you." And lets not forget the depiction of these people as virtueless dirt. That is not raising the bar, unless you happen to be standing on your head, then 'raising' to the rest of the world looks a whole lot like 'lowering'.

How about we try raising the bar of human compassion, hm?

Outrageous

[TW for discussion of rape, rape culture and victim blaming.]

A 7th grader with special needs [PDF] in Missouri endured harrassment, multiple assaults and two rapes from a classmate, compounded with the worst sort of victim-blaming and dismissal from the people who should have protected her, before her family was forced to take legal action.

"After the mother notified the school, the girl described the rape and "multiple sexual assaults" she'd experienced at school that year to [the school principal, counselor and resource officer]. They then told the mother that they thought that her daughter made it all up."

Emphasis mine.

These administrators then made the girl write a note of apology to her rapist and deliver it in person.

She was then expelled for the rest of the school year.

Upon her return the next year, she was raped again by the same boy.

School administrators said they'd "been through this" already, and suspended the girl.

The girl's family then took it to the police, and then the courts. Predictably, the defense denies everything, is calling them liars and gold-diggers, and saying that the girl didn't do enough to protect herself from the "conduct of third parties over whom the District Defendants had neither control nor the right to control." [PDF]

The enormity of my sadness and empathy for the victim and her family is cavernous. The enormity of my disgust and contempt towards the school administrators who allowed the behavior to happen regularly and without punishment for the actual rapist, and instead punished the victim, is equally cavernous.

The greatest of my contempt is reserved for the counselor.

It says no little thing about the influence of rape culture that a counselor, someone specifically trained to be an advocate for victims, would commit such atrocities against a child in her care.

Really, CRACKED? Really?

[TW for fat hatred.]

Have you ever been to the humor website CRACKED? It's one of those places full of interesting tidbits of mostly useless information. I've gotten lost there for hours, reading article after article, and laughing all the way through.

Tonight, I read 6 Lies About the Human Body You Learned in Kindergarten. Since their lists count down to #1, I enjoyed the first five. Yep, I knew that the tongue tastes things pretty much equally everywhere; yep, I understand neuroanatomy enough to know about elasticity; yep, I know that there are many more than just 5 senses. And then I reached #1: Your Metabolism Makes You Fat or Skinny.

The image that follows this subtitle is a montage of a slender, muscled man on one side sitting in front of a plate of raw spinach, a fat man on the other side shoving a huge burger into his mouth, both superimposed on an image of fat-creased skin. The article predictably goes on to characterize fat people as gluttons who eat far more calories than they can expend, as time bombs to a horrible fat-related death and as incapable of accurately reporting their true caloric intake. Naturally, since CRACKED is fond of including hilariously subtitled images, there are six images of either fat people, food, or fat people eating food. I'm not going to paste any of the subtitles here; they're easy enough to find if you really want to read them.

In short:

Calories in != calories out. I'm not a machine.

Fat people live just as long as "average" [sic] people. Quit conflating fitness with weight, please.

Individuals are a better witness to their experiences than strangers are. Calling fat people liars because your experience/culture/really bad interpretation of scientific research tells you that 99% of fat people eat themselves into fatness is an extremely dishonest and stigmatizing approach that serves only to inflate ego and marginalize fat people.

To preempt the commentary that CRACKED is a comedy site and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously, bigotry of any kind does not happen in a void. Each instance reinforces prejudice and hostility.

P.S. If you choose to read the article, for the love of all that is holy do not read the comments.

Disposable

So, President Obama has decided that Medicare and Social Security need to be cut in hopes of gaining Republican support for raising the debt ceiling. In essence, he is willing to gut the nation's most vulnerable citizens in exchange for being able to spend more money on (presumably) military and defense.

Let me put this in on-the-ground terms. I work as an assistant manager at an affordable apartment complex for seniors. A large number of these people live only on Social Security, typically a measly $900 before Medicare is taken out. The SS COLA has been at 0% for the last two years - the first flatline since COLA was instituted in 1975. My county has consistently raised the maximum rent limits for affordable housing, meaning that if our private owners chose to, they could charge up to $863/mo rent on a 2-bedroom, 50% AMI (meaning the income limit is 50% of the median income for the county) unit. Our cheapest unit is $537/mo.

Compare that Social Security number with the rent numbers. Personally, I would love to see President Obama, or anyone who advocates cuts in SS funding, survive on $300/mo after paying rent - nevermind paying for the additional health care that comes with aging.

At this rate, we're looking at another 0% - or possibly negative% - COLA, coupled with increasing inflation, increasing rent, (presumably) increasing Medicare fees, increasing gas prices.

Yes, SS needs to be overhauled.

No, SS doesn't need to be cut.

Whatever is done with SS, it needs to be done with the welfare of the people who depend on it to survive as first priority. The financial lifeblood of millions of Americans is not a bargaining chip.

The Power of Words

[TW for fat hatred, depression.]

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will forever haunt me.

About two weeks ago, I was at my mother's and step-father's house when my step-father, during a discussion of the (horrible) show Biggest Loser, abruptly said, "I hope you're not using this new interest of yours [HAES] as an excuse to stay fat."

It's not often I lose control of my jaw muscles, but this was one of those times. I was paralyzed. My mind went totally blank. I wanted more than anything else to refute the shame that had been foisted upon me; to counter the ugly enthymemes within that short sentence, but no words came.

Things were heading downhill before my step-father said this, and went further downhill afterwards (ending in being fully silenced and prevented from defending myself), but that sentence sticks in my mind as the most damning. I've blogged before about why I'm ardently dedicated to the fat acceptance movement. I am sad to say that in the two weeks since this encounter, I have slid significantly backwards; reverted in many ways to the way I used to think. The cognitive dissonance and the unmitigated hurt have been nearly overwhelming. When I read articles or blogs or research about obesity and health, I find myself questioning the conclusions that one can be both fat and healthy.

I've gone through that single sentence and ripped it to shreds in my mind, over and over, and yet, I still wonder. I am learning, I am growing, I am still dedicated to fat acceptance, but my foundation of surety in the message has been shaken. In my head, the battle looks something like this: "The basis of that statement is that fat is bad." "It ain't exactly good, though." "Fat just is. You cannot divorce me from my fat - I am not a person despite my fat." "No, but you can certainly lose that fat if you weren't so lazy." "Weight doesn't matter!" "Of course not, but fitness does, and if you just took a twenty-minute walk around the block a few times a week, you'd lose plenty of weight." "I already do that." "It's obviously not enough." "But he implied that this whole thing was just an excuse to stay fat!" "Well, isn't it?"

This, from one sentence. From one instance of concern trolling. Because it came from family, and in a form more concentrated than I'd ever experienced from that direction.

I know the italicized voice is wrong. I can verbalize precisely why it is wrong. But the new voice, the one that developed with my discovery of fat acceptance and HAES, is mere months old, whereas the voice of internalized self-loathing has been strong throughout my life.

The road to fat acceptance is a journey that involves confrontation of internalized misconceptions and a willingness to change. The willingness is there. The confrontation, ongoing. But I'm still walking this path, regardless of the occasional stumble.

Because of You, I am Afraid.

[TW for assault, self-harm, homophobia, and transphobia]

In the last two days, I've been betrayed by people I trusted- all over an article I posted to facebook (of all places) The article proved the point that female comic book characters are over-sexualized to the point of being non-functional as superheroes. The author (who is also an artist) did this by drawing pictures of male characters in the same clothes and positions as female ones (thus showing that female's costume is actually functionally useless, even when on a male superhero). Someone I considered a friend read it and posted a 'helpful' response of "Get better articles," because apparently if men were over-sexualized, they wouldn't be dressed in that way. (And zomg they said bad things about fishnets).

I read the response and honestly did not have the energy to right then explain the point of the article, so I went the nice route and just asked him to read it again, as he missed the point (I even included a smiley face to show that I did want him to learn, cause friendship.) But nope, examples weren't up to his standards, need better articles. Other friends tried explaining it to him, nope, he continued on. Finally I was starting to get upset so (being as it's my space and all) I asked him to stop, as I would soon start to be less nice. He stopped, but soon after another person who I thought was a friend jumped in and started attacking me to 'prove a point' - basically, that though I was being patient and nice, the very fact that I didn't accept my male friend's opinion was me 'being nasty'. Because opinions can't be wrong or something. But at that point I snapped and fought back in defense of myself, but she just would not back down. She got nasty enough to trigger me very badly. Repeatedly I asked her to stop and reminded her it was my space, but while she acknowledged it was my space, she did not stop. She continued violating me with her words.

At that point my real friend jumped in and defended me, but the other commenter just kept coming, gleefully mocking me with phrases like "This is the most I've seen Ange post in years" and "lol I'm being a dick (her words) to prove a point" and other choice phrases. Violation after violation. No after no. Finally I just gave up, tried one last explaining comment, and went to sleep (or tried to, as I was still triggered and my anxiety prevents me from actually sleeping), with no support system.

[Boyfrog and company are going through their own stuff, and got defensive when I couldn't -literally no capacity for it when triggered- comfort them, then got angry when I called them on something. I admit, my words were pretty close to mean (for which I am sorry), and I know I can't speak for others' experiences, but I don't really have much control over my word choice when triggered- I react; I word vomit in a knee-jerk way. I don't sugarcoat. I describe what I see. Anyway, we'll see if that can get back on track at some point, but for now that's besides my focus].

Once morning comes, I eventually find the strength to go downstairs and at least check my email (yep, I felt my stomach and heart tighten in the grips of a panic attack as I checked), and sure enough, another reply. At that point I was too upset and defeated to bother replying, so I tried to calm myself, until I noticed I got a message from 'friend' number one- the guy who brilliantly pointed out I should get better articles, and whose entire position smacks of both misogyny, heteronormativity, and a dash of homophobia and transphobia (Men would never be dressed like that! Cause men.)

See, I even went so far as to try to reply and apologize (seriously, apologize for being repeatedly violated and attacked, and of course my 'nasty tone' -_- ), but he apparently has either blocked me or removed his facebook account. So, I figured I'd put it here on display.

If you want to help a cause quit spamming every article without a critical eye. If an argument is bad, the author loses credibility even if the overall point being made is in fact a good or valid one. I've been on the side of the author in almost every article you've linked that I read. However, there were so many that were so poorly written such a flood can only drown out those people that are better at doing it. I wasn't trying to help feminism, I don't have the time or the passion, I was trying to help you do better at what you've been doing.

Also, the point of the article was directly stated early in the article. Anyone who felt the need to state it themselves should reevaluate their own comprehension levels.

Comparing Women dressed in sexy women's clothing to Men dressed in sexy women's clothing to come to a conclusion regarding how men dress is a fallacy. Ignoring something does not make it refuted. Arguing logic isn't semantics. Saying after looking down on semantics that words have meaning is hypocritical. What I'm doing now is being an ass, while also not being wrong.

Anyone who thinks I'm dumb needs a SERIOUS reality check.

I hope the rest of your life is as miserable as the betrayal I felt yesterday. I have nothing but hatred for your kind.

You want betrayal? Try being verbally assaulted by two 'friends' over the course of 2 days, (a month after another, separate 'friend' decided to assault me in person), being gleefully triggered so badly that you want to slice yourself to ribbons, having little to no support system because they're all involved in their own stuff, having people 'secretly' show the attackers support though Likes and whatnot, and then being told to have a miserable life (while assigning things to me that I did not say). That is true betrayal, and I hope not one of you ever has to live through it.


ETA: I took down the whole article and attack, and put up a status basically saying that I'd been effectively silenced and triggered......and the woman who triggered me just asked if I was 'ok', cause it was 'nothing personal'......what fucking world do people live in that they can verbally assault someone until the point of trigger, and then ask a question like that, especially with any real seriousness.

Self-Depreciation Isn't Harmless

[TW for fat hatred.]

A number of years ago, I was involved in an activity that included getting all participants new shirts, and so everyone had to line up and give their shirt size to a woman with a clipboard.

When it was my turn, she asked, "What's your size?"

I sighed, chuckled and said, "Too big."

The woman choked. "Excuse me?!"

Too late, it struck me that she was significantly larger than I was, and that I'd badly insulted her. I stumbled over an apology, mumbled my shirt size and slinked off to be mortified in private.

Off-hand self-depreciation is all too common, and almost no one is aware of how much it hurts. The example above is something I will forever be ashamed of, but I use it to remind myself precisely why this sort of thing is entirely unacceptable.

It hurts ourselves.
When we attack ourselves (for it is, indeed, an attack), we reinforce our own internalized fat hatred. Reactions from anyone who happens to hear the attack also have a powerful effect. There are a limited number of possible reactions: Ignore, Agree With, Disagree With or Teaspoon.

Ignore: Default assumption is Agree With; reinforce internalized self-hate.

Agree With: Reinforce internalized self-hate.

Disagree With: Experience the high of receiving compliments but never take them to heart. Continue self-depreciating. Reinforce internalized self-hate.

Teaspoon: Be taken totally off guard by a new approach that, instead of agreeing or disagreeing, provides a different philosophy of body image; learn, grow (or, alternately, disagree vehemently). Do not reinforce internalized self-hate (in the alternate scenario, do internalize self-hate, with a bonus dollop of anger and frustration at the teaspooner). Needless to say, this scenario does not often occur as compared to the other reactions.

Further, it is nearly impossible to maintain a high opinion of someone engaged in self-depreciation. The more the hatred is repeated, the more people around you will agree... or, at least, they will stop commenting and trying to convince you otherwise.

It hurts others.
See my example above. We so commonly compare ourselves to each other; is it any wonder that hearing self-depreciation from someone we like or admire - or even a stranger! - will result in feelings of inadequacy? Too often, people who hear these negative things will apply them to themselves, yet again reinforcing internalized self-hate.

It hurts everyone.
Just as sexist comments don't simply occur without consequence, fat-hating comments also have consequences. They encourage the cultural hatred of everyone who is fat; they present as intolerance, discrimination and stigma against fat people.

If you hate yourself because you are (or perceive yourself to be) fat, how can you possibly regard or treat fat people equally with thin people?

Here's a hint.

You can't.

Those Womenz and their Public Sexxorz

[TW for slut-shaming and objectification]

So, Reese Witherspoon won an MTV Movie Award last night, which is awesome for her. I actually enjoy her acting in the movies I've seen her in. And of course, as she's accepting the award, she gives an appropriate acceptance speech:

Accepting her MTV Generation award, the Oscar-winning actress slammed stars who have appeared in sex tapes and nude-photo scandals, telling them they should be ashamed of themselves.

....waitasecond.

Really? I mean, really really? You've just been given an award for acting and you take the time to blast other celebrities (read: women) for their bedroom preferences?

Of course, if Ms. Witherspoon was actually concerned about 'sex-scandals' (aka, the general public finding out) you'd think she'd place the blame on those who actually deserve the blame, such as the paparazzi, or the 'liberal media', or, I don't know, the culture which shames those who have sex lives that deviate in any way from the perceived 'norm' [Hetero, monogomous, no kink whatsoever, and definitely no women enjoying themselves or having sex because they want to have sex]. But no, she places this squarely on women (or as she says, girls), with this gem of a line:

“I get it, girls, that it’s cool to be a bad girl,” the mom-of-two told the crowd. “But it is possible to make it in Hollywood without doing a reality show. When I came up in this business, if you made a sex tape, you were embarrassed and you hid it under your bed.

Oh Patriarchy, the only culture where women don't enjoy sex, but simultaneously 'go after' enough sex to 'make it in Hollywood'. Oh and of course, add a large helping of slut-shaming with no mention of any male participation or activity whatsoever.

Oh, but she's not done, she has some 'helpful' words of advice:

Said Witherspoon, “And if you took naked pictures of yourself on your cell phone, you hide your face, people! Hide your face!”

Cause if there's anything we need more of, it's disembodied breasts or genitalia. Objectifying women ftw, amirite?

*vomit*

Lettertime

Dear Mayo Clinic/Science

You have disappointed me today. I looked up the risk factors for gestational diabetes, and you told me that one of the risk factors is "Nonwhite race." I became even more disappointed in you when I read the description after the risk factor, which says "For reasons that aren't clear, women who are black, Hispanic, American Indian or Asian are more likely to develop gestational diabetes."

Please consider doing studies on actual factors, such as socioeconomic ones and ones in which either the effects of a lack of privilege is studied, or ones in which privilege is accounted for and taken into consideration. The world would be a better place for it.

Still expecting more,
Ange

"Ordinary" and "Conversational"

[TW for rape apologia/stereotyping and ableist language.]

Kenneth Clarke, the British Justice Secretary, has just proven that he's not qualified for his post. Earlier today, he declared on public radio that Not All Rape Is Equal. I do not have access to the full 15-minute broadcast since it's not available in the States, but quoting from the above-linked article:

Clarke: "Assuming that you and I are taking about rape in the ordinary conversational sense, some man has forceful--"

Victoria Derbyshire: "Rape is rape."

Clarke: "No, it's not.

"If an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she is perfectly willing, that is rape, because she is underage, she can't consent, anybody who has sex with a 15-year-old, it's rape.

"But what you and I are talking about is a man forcefully having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to, that is rape, a serious crime, of course it's a serious crime."

No, Mr. Clarke, rape is rape. It doesn't matter the age of the victim - and Clarke completely fails to recognize that children cannot legally give consent. Therefore, sex with a minor is legally nonconsensual, and therefore rape.

Further, rape can happen to anyone, no matter the gender. Defining it as "a man forcefully having sex with a woman [when] she doesn't want to" marginalizes victims of other genders, as well as makes invisible aggressors of other genders.

Insert foot deeper in mouth:

"Date rape can be as serious as the worst rape, but date rape in my ... experience of being in trials, they do vary extraordinarily one from another and in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances.

“But I’ve never met a judge who, confronted with a rapist as you and I would use the term in conversation, would give him 12 months, that would be a crazy sentence."

No, Mr. Clarke, rape is rape. (Oh, and "crazy" is ableist.) It doesn't matter whether the victim knows the aggressor. Suggesting that date rape is somehow not as serious as rape "as you and I would use the term in conversation" (please keep me out of that generalization) is wrong-headed in every conceivable way, and is blatantly sympathizing with the rapist, who, contrary to what you apparently believe, is actually a rapist.

A rapist is a rapist.

Rape is rape.

Period.

--

Apparently Clarke has apologized: "I apologise if an impression has been given which is not my view and which I don't think I stated. My view is that all rape is serious."

Only rape as Kenneth Clarke defines it, of course. His apology has all the sincerity of a schoolyard bully apologizing to the kid he just beat up while his mother has him by the ear.