(no subject)

Thursday, 21 May 2009 07:50
earthbelow: (Default)
While my decision to remain childfree has not changed any, I do find myself getting fed up with some of the childfree communities on LJ.

Discussion of being childfree, the communities on LJ, my own reproductive decisions and why I think some CF people and parents hate each other so much. )
earthbelow: (Default)
Okay, I'd like the opinion of my very learned, very wise f-list about this article here, because I happen to think that this woman is not so much writing about the neurological/genetic causes of anorexia and the impact it's had on her life as she is bragging about the fact that she's thin and can eat whatever she wants.

I also think her article is chock full of contradictions. She says:

For example, I am absolutely positive that the physiques of Kate Moss, Posh Spice, or any other convenient scapegoat had no more than a kernel’s worth of influence over my decision to live on raw broccoli and Swedish crispbread for most of my college years. This is what we’ve always been taught—Barbie makes us hate our bodies as girls, and some unholy alliance between the worlds of fashion, Hollywood, and advertising keep feeding the furnace well into womanhood, until we’re supposedly too old to care.


But then she goes on to say:

As a small child, I remember telling my mother that when I grew up I wanted to weigh 110 pounds, which was what the National Enquirer said Princess Diana weighed at her thinnest.


Am I the only one who thinks that this is completely illogical of her to claim? That she wasn't influenced by media culture and their obsession with utterly unrealistic bodies?

More under the cut, and some musings about the lack of education about health and nutrition in the United States. )

I'd also like to note how suspicious I find it that my comments on the article have mysteriously gotten lost but other comments were approved. Hmm. Maybe I should have read the invisible "No Fatties Allowed" sign before I commented.
earthbelow: (Default)
I'm really getting sick and tired of people (notably thin people who think they know everything about health and weight loss) who feel the need to pressure us larger types into considering/getting weight loss surgery as though it's somehow really easy just to pop into a doctor's office and get that little obesity problem fixed right up.

Even with systems like the LapBand, it's still fucking surgery, which comes with additional risks the larger you are, due to anesthesia and other factors. And if you have diabetes, heart problems or other health issues, surgery becomes even riskier.

It's also not a guaranteed fix. Yes, you lose weight on that system, but you can gain it back as well. Not to mention that it requires a rather radical shift in lifestyle and how you eat.

We won't talk about the side effects of it, or how things can go permanently bad. With any surgery, death is a risk.

I'm not saying that surgeries like that are bad, or that people are wrong to get them. I think that for some people who have health concerns and reasons to take weight off quickly and can't diet and exercise (or for whom it is demonstrably not effective), having a surgery like that is life saving. If you're 700 pounds, can't get out of bed, are severely diabetic, and facing the loss of life and limb, and surgery can save your life, go for it.

But only if it's the best choice for you, not because people convinced you that you weren't getting skinny fast enough.

I wish people who say, "Oh, why don't you just get weight loss surgery?" would realize what they're saying. You're asking for me to have my body invaded and an organ surgically altered because you don't think I'm where I should be on your Scale of Fitness.

I'm sorry if I'm not shedding these pounds fast enough for you, Oh Thin One, but I'd like to keep attempting something short of having my digestive tract rearranged with surgical tools, thanks. And I think you should help yourself to nice fat glass of Shut The Fuck Up.
earthbelow: (mood: sad/blah)
Someone on the [livejournal.com profile] freestuff group I'm on posted a free anti-gay book for all the members to download from some nutbag fundamentalist website (of course in a locked entry, because why expose your bigotry to LJ at large?).

Ugh. I just can't even begin with the EPIC FAIL inherent in this.

Somedays, I wish I had a free license to punch people in the face. Because there is a lot of face punching that needs to go on around here. Starting with this and continuing on to people in Congress and that lady who just popped out a giant litter of kids when she had six already using IVF from taxpayer money and says that "God will take care of us".

ETA: Apparently this person on their LJ identifies as a lesbian. I have now decided that this person is either a troll or batshit insane. Maybe both, because I'm not sure one can be a troll without being at least partially batshit.
earthbelow: (mood: sad/blah)
I've been working out with the Wii and my weights since the weather lately has not been conducive to my usual morning/walk jog, plus I wasn't getting the results I wanted.

I mean, when you only eat 1000-1200 calories and walk/jog three miles each morning and you're not losing a single pound, then you can rest assured that something isn't working.

But I'm not sure I'm getting the most out of my weights. I feel like the exercises I do with them (bicep curls, lunges, etc) aren't being done right, or maybe I'm not doing them enough. I'm not sure. I can't seem to find any references on the internet for weightlifting that aren't geared towards steroidally enhanced Ahnold wannabes.

If anyone knows of a good place to get information on this, please fire off a comment.

And now for the gnashing of teeth. It burns twenty calories and strengthens your jaw muscles. )

In conclusion: I need more help and information, but don't know where to get it and people who want to wrap everybody's weight issues up with a neat little bow of their intolerance and ignorance and come right over here and get my fat ass up their foot.
earthbelow: (pensive statue)
Dear People Who Make Sugar Free Things,

When you make an item that is sugar free, please try not to make it taste like crap. I know you may think you're doing good by having foods like that at all, but you're not.

It's actually really hard to adjust to having to eat different and have different medical concerns than normal, completely healthy people. It's overwhelming, depressing, and makes you feel like God hates you and wants you to be miserable as long as you live.

And you know what doesn't help? Having the food that's supposed to be for you taste like backwashed horse manure or worse. That's like you're saying, "Here you go, here's your punishment for having insulin issues. Enjoy the inflated price and the diarrhea afterwards!"

Nothing convinces diabetics and others who need sugar-free food to just give up and stop eating healthy like having nothing but shitty sugar free substitutes to look forward to for the rest of their lives. It's hard enough when you get a diagnosis that your body is doing the wacky, it's even harder when it's a diagnosis that comes with a lot of stigma and scorn from doctors who basically tell you, "It's your own fault, you stupid obese person. I despise you, why did you even come in for treatment that you don't deserve? Why can't you just stop being a fat slob and get skinny? STFU and die already, kthnxbai." And yes, I've gotten that treatment from doctors before, as have many others, I wager.

So, maybe, when you make a sugar free product that's designed for people who are facing this sort of thing, try to have something people would actually want to put in their mouths.

Kind of Tired,
Meg

PS - Splenda does not taste like sugar. At all. It tastes like an artificial sugar substitute because it is an artificial sugar substitute. Please quit trying to convince me that my tastebuds are wrong. Nothing tastes like sugar but sugar. Maybe keeping this in mind when you make your reduced sugar/sugar free food will help you to make things that are better tasting.

Huh

Saturday, 5 January 2008 16:52
earthbelow: (paulbettany)
I jumped around a few links after seeing an article on [livejournal.com profile] br0ken_dolly's lj about how Divorce is not environmentally friendly - which actually sounds more like a problem with the way Americans expend energy than with divorced.

The article noted that divorce rates are going up worldwide while in America divorce rates and marriage rates are dropping. The article is getting it's info from The Rutgers Marriage Project. I started reading the Rutgers University Natioanl Marriage Project website and the section that says "About the NMP"

What I'm about to say next is rather hypocritical, perhaps, but when I got to reading the information the Rutger's site I noticed that they're all about preparing young people for marriage, but then I stopped and I asked myself: Why?

Why is marriage so important in the first place? Yeah, I know. I'm about to get married myself (eventually), but there are a lot of aspects of the entire thing that I'd like to chuck in the bin.

For one, I don't even really want a wedding. Frankly, if we all wore jeans, had a cookout so that my family and his could finally shake hands with each other and then went home, I'd be just freaking fine. In fact, I'd be overjoyed. I'd like our families to meet, but I don't want to have to be in a stupid white dress for it to happen. I don't want to spend the exorbitant amount of money that even a low-key wedding will cost, and I certainly don't want to have to commit the time, effort, and attention that it will take to get everything done.

For second, I have no intention of ever taking anyone's name. The Boy is okay with this. There's no reason for me to change my name. My last name (Freeman for anyone who's curious) is infinitely easier for people to pronounce than his (which is Ukranian in origin).

For third, we have no intention of having children. Ever. In a few years I'm going to seriously look into get sterilized so that I can quit having to worry over varying methods of birth control. We're both in agreement on this issue as well.

What I *DO* want is to spend the rest of my life with him, share everything with him, wake up in the morning to him, and go to bed with him at night. I want to do all of this so long as it's both making us happy (in the true, long term sense of that word, not the immediate one).

Well, honestly, you don't even need to be married to achieve the things that we've already achieved. I have what I want. I'm living it right now. As we speak.

That's because the institution of marriage isn't designed for a love relationship. It was never intended to be about love.

The way marriage was designed, with all the trappings, was about property, reproduction, and finance. More than that, it was designed in a society where men were little rulers over their households and women were assets rather than partners. It was also designed in a world where 70-90% of the population all did the same thing: farming.

You got married to have kids, you had kids so they could work the farm and at least one of them could take over the farm and keep farming it so people could keep eating. It was all about the farm.

Well, in America, less than 10% of our population farms. So an agricultural, patriarchal system just doesn't work in today's more cosmopolitan, egalitarian society.

Frankly, if we just restructured a few financial things and tweaked the laws concerning inheritance, property, and child custody a little, we could effortlessly get rid of all marriage, as we know it, and the world would flow a lot smoother. Because we wouldn't be trying to lug around this huge, unwieldy, out of date concept while trying to make everything else work.

Trying to teach young people to achieve a good marriage in today's society, with our society's ideals? Is like trying to teach them to play tennis with a baseball. If you really work hard, and really want to win, and don't mind sweating a lot, you can do it. But most people will just end up failing, because the design and the use of marriage have deviated too far from each other.

Frankly, we need a new institution. It's not people that need to change, it's marriage.

And the first thing that should change is the ability of the government to EVER define, control, legislate, or interfere in marriage. The second - well, that's another rant.
earthbelow: (paulbettany)
So I got this link from [livejournal.com profile] matociquala, and I went right to Helen Fisher's video on the site, because I know her from a lot of programs concerning sexuality.

And most of her talk was informative, funny, and wonderful.

Then she got to the bit about antidepressants, and her warning about using them long term. And I sort of lost some respect for her, especially because her reasoning for not using antidepressants long term was that it kills the sex drive and that love is necessary to life.

Which I found to be so horribly ignorant of her.

Yes, the sex drive is nice and all - but it is not the end all, be all of life.

Furthermore, long term antidepressant use is the only way that some people can keep from offing themselves. I challenge her to try to live with massive, chronic depression or other such disorders and say that love is all you need.

The fact of the matter is that while there do need to be some changes in the way modern psychology/psychiatry operates, and the way medicines are used - I don't think using the sex drive to justify yanking people off of medications that allow them to lead a bearable existence is it.

I also challenge her to live with the weight of chronic depression or OCD or anxiety and see if love is all she needs.

That's what I hate about people who dispense advice about psychiatric medications who aren't actually on any themselves. They have the privilege of getting to live a life where their brain hasn't gone out of control. They have the good fortune to look down on all of us druggies and psychos, because they've never had to be in a place where they literally did not know if they were going to be able to last the night (or the next few hours) without harming themselves or others.

I think Helen Fisher made the mistake of speaking outside of her expertise. She's an anthropologist, not a psychiatrist or a psychologist or even a neurologist.

And it's a little shameful that someone with her amount of neurological knowledge and know-how would say something like that. Surely, she of all people, realizes that depression is not just a feeling. It's not just a bad day. It is a state of being in which the chemistry of your brain has gone so out of whack that you stop functioning.

Telling people to "just snap out" of depression is like telling someone to pull themselves out of a black hole. The nature of depression is that it prevents you from being able to do that because it shuts down your ability to think straight.

I'd also like Tom Cruise, if he's still in there somewhere and hasn't just become ScientologyBot2000, to have to see his wife turn into a shell of herself after severe post-partum depression. Let him see what happens when someone he loves can't quit crying, can't get out of bed, can't function, can't sleep, can't eat, can't think, is always tired, just sits and stares at the walls, and doesn't want to talk or go out of the house. That is, if he actually gives a crap about her and isn't just keeping her as a slave girl in the closet. I have my doubts as to whether Tom Cruise still has feelings, or even free will.

I think Helen Fisher, in her talks, neglects that sex and love are a part of life, not the sum total.
earthbelow: (paulbettany)
I would just like to get some stuff off my chest before the new year rolls in because, I'm not taking this with me to 2007. So I'm getting all the vitriol out of my system right now. Karma cleansing, really.

There is a certain person that I am so glad I will not have to deal with in the new year. Some of you know the story behind the "drama", some of you don't. No need to rehash it. It hasn't been a constant worry or anything, but there have been moments where I've been very angry about it.

And there's no reason not to get rid of as much anger as you can.

I will say that I'm not friendslocking this because, frankly, I don't feel the need to hide it. I want it to be open. I want it to be seen. I want the person I'm talking about to at least have the chance to respond to it if they care to.

cut for drama and ranting )

Profile

earthbelow: (Default)
earthbelow

August 2009

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819 2021 22
23 242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Monday, 25 September 2017 16:59
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios