Lindsay over at BABble has an interesting thought:
They want us to change our bodies because they think it's easier than changing their minds.
My riff on this was originally posted over at BigFatDelicious, but since I'm exhausted, here are my thoughts:
Basically, I agree totally with what both Lindsay and Mariellen have to say. I’ve noticed that people who are “healthy” (or say that they are) and who tell those of us with health problems that we’d be better if only we did x, y or z seem to have a similar bent to the anti-fat hysterics. I think some of it is definitely (as Mariellen pointed out) an excuse to be “right,” even if they actually aren’t right. I also think some of it, particularly when it comes to people with chronic health problems, or who are fat, is fear-based. The people who think they’re “right” and perfectly “healthy” because they eat right/exercise for four hours a day/bathe in the blood of baby sheep do not want to acknowledge that bad things happen, because they are afraid that if it can happen to other people, it could happen to them.
Unfortunately, for those people who equate “being healthy” with having higher moral ground, the thought that they, too, are susceptible to illness and bad things happening is TERRIFYING. This is such a culturally ingrained mode of thinking that YES, it *is* easier for some to expect us (fat people, chronically ill people, et cetera) to change our bodies. Changing one’s mind about this sort of thing--and the related issues--isn’t exactly encouraged in our culture.
Also, I was planning to write a gigantic post on why I am supportive of the Fat Acceptance and Health at Every Size movements, but I am exhausted. More on that later.
26 February, 2008
12 February, 2008
The Corporatocracy, They Lied to Me! HOW COULD THEY?!!11
You know, I may feel like an idiot sometimes, but it takes little things to remind me that in the grand scheme of things, I'm not an idiot. Or at least I'm not responsible for horrific t-shirts such as the ones pictured here, or for this misguided, ridiculous ad campaign, which promotes a product that arguably smells like ass. This is not news, however; whenever I see some poor sap buy Axe, I feel a twinge of pity and a whole lotta vehement dislike.
Extra irony for extra lulz: Unilever, the company that owns Axe, is also responsible for the stupidly simplistic "Dove Campaign For Real Beauty" that nearly everyone was slobbering over, rather Pavlovianly, a few months back. It's true. More proof that in a corporatocracy such as ours, companies will resort to such tripe as talking out of both sides of their mouths to make a buck and/or make us believe that we have "free choice," or that supporting their "campaign for real beauty" constitutes some sort of radical act of self-esteem. Again, not really news, but sort of troubling nonetheless.
Oh, and Unilever also makes skin-whitening creams, which is apparently big business in countries like India. GO, UNIVERSAL WORSHIP OF WHITENESS!
Okay, enough commerciopolitical talk. My neck hurts. Off to rest.
Extra irony for extra lulz: Unilever, the company that owns Axe, is also responsible for the stupidly simplistic "Dove Campaign For Real Beauty" that nearly everyone was slobbering over, rather Pavlovianly, a few months back. It's true. More proof that in a corporatocracy such as ours, companies will resort to such tripe as talking out of both sides of their mouths to make a buck and/or make us believe that we have "free choice," or that supporting their "campaign for real beauty" constitutes some sort of radical act of self-esteem. Again, not really news, but sort of troubling nonetheless.
Oh, and Unilever also makes skin-whitening creams, which is apparently big business in countries like India. GO, UNIVERSAL WORSHIP OF WHITENESS!
Okay, enough commerciopolitical talk. My neck hurts. Off to rest.
07 February, 2008
Why I'm a Feminist, Part 7,568
OMG, JOHN GALLIANO. Way to advocate for that equality between the sexes by having a fashion line inspired by violence against men, instead of the totally old and tired trope of violence against women! It's such a fresh viewpoint, isn't it?
Need I mention the obvious--namely, that TORTURE AND VIOLENCE AREN'T SEXY? But no publicity is bad publicity, I suppose. I don't care if this is some sort of "political commentary," like some have been saying. It is still using violence to sell something (in this case, $100 underpants, $300 t-shirts, or what have you), which is just all kinds of wrong for reasons that I don't have time to get into here. It is still in poor taste, and my guess is that some people won't get what's so very wrong with this sort of display, and just default to something like, "But his clothes are so great."
Stay classy, fashion industry!
Need I mention the obvious--namely, that TORTURE AND VIOLENCE AREN'T SEXY? But no publicity is bad publicity, I suppose. I don't care if this is some sort of "political commentary," like some have been saying. It is still using violence to sell something (in this case, $100 underpants, $300 t-shirts, or what have you), which is just all kinds of wrong for reasons that I don't have time to get into here. It is still in poor taste, and my guess is that some people won't get what's so very wrong with this sort of display, and just default to something like, "But his clothes are so great."
Stay classy, fashion industry!
01 February, 2008
Quote of the Day
Early-20s male nerd, on cell phone and angrily, loudly yelling: "They shouldn't have used CGI...yeah, for Happily N'Ever After! I'm telling you, it ruined the entire film!"
Overheard by me, at my university, near the student union building.
Overheard by me, at my university, near the student union building.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)