I really hate it when people say stuff like “oh yeah I’m body positive yeah! But I don’t think you should be morbidly obese… no that’s bad and unhealthy….”
- It isn’t your place to determine based on someones body whether or not they’re healthy. And by assuming a fat person is “morbidly obese” (can I just note that I think it’s interesting that we only associate the word ‘morbid’ with obesity? Funny that you never hear of morbid thinness or morbid anything else- but that we use it to stigmatize fat people so that in our minds it’s ok to shame them because we’ve decided that they’re all deathly unhealthy) or in critical health is fat shaming. Because you’re taking it upon yourself to assume that a fat person is unhealthy based on their body. You cannot assume anything about anyone based on their body– you cannot assume that a fat person is unhealthy, you cannot assume that a thin person is anorexic, you cannot assume that a muscular person is fit or that a trim person is the idyllic picture of (your version of) health— it’s just not your fucking place.
- Your standards of health, just like your standards of beauty, do not apply to everyone.
- You cannot gauge someone’s health by their body, their appearance, or their weight.
- What is this picture of health that you’re even basing your idea that fat people are all unhealthy on? Health doesn’t have an image- there is not an ideal. We need to fucking separate “health” from “body type.” Just because I’m thin does not mean I’m healthy. Actually, I myself am decidedly unhealthy. But people look at me and assume I probably eat ok and work out- why? Because I’m thin and the mental correlation with most people is that thin = healthy and that healthy = you work out, exercise, and “eat right.” But hey: there is no one way to be healthy. There is no one way to eat “right.” THERE IS NOT A UNIVERSAL ONE SIZE FITS ALL VERSION OF WHAT “HEALTHY” OR “HEALTH” IS.
- Accepting fat bodies does not mean you get to determine what kind of fat is ok to accept. There is no “right kind of fat.” You take it all- every single body type, every size, every degree of fat, every degree of skinny- or you take none of it. You cannot pick and choose.
My end point being: I don’t think you can say that you’re body positive but then pick and choose what bodies types are acceptable to be positive about and which ones you can still discriminate against based on your own perception of what “healthy” looks like.
(via chillianmurphy)
I hate when people lecture me about self-care.
*applause* It’s a fundamentally capitalist discourse, in a way, that we as activists have this responsibility to make ourselves productive, our worth is determined by our productivity, and any impedances to this productivity must be dealt with, and on our own time/with our own energy/with our own resources.What gets me is that so many of the people I know who are really into, like… I’ve started calling it “self care evangelism” because I’m a bitch - defend their positions by being like “well self care is important because it’s CAPITALISTIC to not make room for self-care, because THE STATE and CAPITALISM are what push people to work themselves to exhaustion with no time for themselves!”
like
no
I mean yes capitalism and the state do that! It is a problem, though, when peoples’ response to that is, “WELL THEN MAKE TIME FOR YOURSELF ANYWAY BECAUSE THAT’S GOOD SELF CARE!”
Just… okay, fine, I’ll do that when you do all my housework, homework, when you make sure my rent is paid, oh and my phone bills, they’re pretty high because of all the long-distance calls back home to where I’m supporting my family (sometimes financially) through crisis, you should probably also take that on, too.
THEN I will gladly buy myself some fucking bubble bath.
OR you could acknowledge that we as a “community” (and I use the term loosely because I have issues with that term too but w/e that’s another post) are responsible to some degree for one another and that we contribute to each other’s mental state and not just… fucking dismiss anyone who is having legit issues as “needing to do self-care” or “not doing enough self-care”, or protect abusers in the name of their “self-care”. Because my problems with self-care discourse go beyond the consumeristic nature of it - the “oh just go buy yourself some nice tea and take some time off work” - and have a lot to do with the collective disengagement inherent in expecting people to deal with things like being arrested, beaten, etc, etc on your own and if you don’t then you are a bad activist
It really puts the lie to the myth of the “activist community” when people thing of activist self-care in individualistic terms like that, is what I’m saying. I MEAN: NOT TO SAY THAT PEOPLE AREN’T ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN SHIT. BECAUSE WE ARE. But when someone withdraws from a group or particular campaign or whatever because of “burnout” - it’s because the group or campaign has failed them, in a way, too. We NEED to be able to keep each other going, as activists.
A term I am exploring is “community care” - I’d really like to start up some kind of community care group or collective, of folks who can help other folks in our vague “community” with stuff like running errands, doing chores, or just idk, hanging out so people don’t feel isolated or whatever.
"Poverty is not simply having no money — it is isolation, vulnerability, humiliation and mistrust. It is not being able to differentiate between employers and exploiters and abusers. It is contempt for the simplistic illusion of meritocracy — the idea that what we get is what we work for. It is knowing that your mother, with her arthritic joints and her maddening insomnia and her post-traumatic stress disordered heart, goes to work until two in the morning waiting tables for less than minimum wage, or pushes a janitor’s cart and cleans the shit-filled toilets of polished professionals. It is entering a room full of people and seeing not only individual people, but violent systems and stark divisions. It is the violence of untreated mental illness exacerbated by the fact that reality, from some vantage points, really does resemble a psychotic nightmare. It is the violence of abuse and assault which is ignored or minimized by police officers, social services, and courts of law. Poverty is conflict. And for poor kids lucky enough to have the chance to “move up,” it is the conflict between remaining oppressed or collaborating with the oppressor." — Megan Lee (via sociolab)
(Source: docs.google.com, via youarenotyou)
"
One group, the Hindu American Foundation, has launched a “Take Back Yoga” campaign to address what they see as a fundamental disconnect between yoga and Hinduism.
Sheetal Shah, senior director at the foundation, says the group started the campaign when it noticed that while “Vedic,” “tantric” and many other words appeared regularly in yoga magazines, the word “Hindu” was never mentioned.
So, the foundation called up one of the country’s most popular magazines to ask why.
“They said the word ‘Hinduism’ has a lot of baggage,” Shah says. “And we were like, ‘Excuse me?’ “
Shah says she understands why some people have a problem with linking yoga and Hinduism. Many American practitioners associate the practice with something pure and serene, she says. But when they think of Hinduism, she says, they think of “multiple gods, with multiple heads and multiple arms. Colorful [and] ritualistic.”
It may be difficult for people to see how these things fit together, Shah says.
With the Take Back Yoga campaign, the Hindu American Foundation is hoping for broader acknowledgment that yoga has Hindu philosophical roots — while also emphasizing that it is universal and appropriate for everyone.
“What we’re trying to say is that the holistic practice of yoga goes beyond just a couple of asanas [postures] on a mat. It is a lifestyle, and it’s a philosophy,” Shah says.
“How do you lead your life in terms of truthfulness? And nonviolence? And purity? The lifestyle aspect of yoga,” Shah says, “has been lost.”
" —To Some Hindus, Modern Yoga Has Lost Its Way (via love-resist)
I’m so happy to see this and I fully support them. I stopped doing yoga — as much as it was benefitting me physically — because it started feeling really disrespectful to just be using it for exercise when I knew it was part of a serious, longstanding spiritual tradition.
(via queerbrownxx)
I’ve been wanting to explore Tantric massage and Tantric sex for a while, but I want to do that in a way that doesn’t line the pockets of suburban White women appropriating these practices for their own material gain. Unfortunately, there are way more such women than there are, y’know, INDIAN women who are doing it. If there were a lesbian/women-loving-women Tantric massage group run by Indian women here in NYC, I’d go in a heartbeat.
(via eshusplayground)
TBH from what ive seen, so-called “tantric” practices presented outside of india are nothing but appropriation for white women. i mean i know its been great for a lot of ppl and helpful for survivors but they need to start calling it something else besides “tantra.” or rethink it entirely. i dont even.
is this where i get ranty about how poc cultures get to be appropriated for white folks to feel more physically grounded?
(via dolgematki)(via ayiman)
On Quebec, and idiots with their uninformed opinions
So there are a lot of people from other provinces and countries dismissing Quebec student protesters as “upper middle class brats.” The thing is, actually, quite a lot of students in Quebec actually come from working class, lower middle class and even straight up harsh poverty backgrounds BECAUSE tuition has been affordable, and there has been good financial support in the form of grants for students in that province. In fact, the reason this is even the case in the first place, is that it was purposely designed that way decades ago to ensure Quebec would have an educated population and that people would actually have a realistic opportunity to raise themselves out of poverty. What’s happening now is an ideological battle between people who believe in and wish to defend that vision, and neoliberals who want to gut social spending and cut taxes for the wealthy.
Students in Quebec, from diverse class backgrounds, are fighting to ensure that schools WON’T become exclusive to the upper middle classes, that they will remain accessible to anyone from any class background who has the aspiration to study.
Why is this so hard to understand?
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand an affordable, quality education, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to require the State to assume a a large part of that burden, particularly when an educated population creates a net-benefit.
I mean, why is the idea of a publicly funded education so obviously distasteful? Educating people is expensive, but so are industry subsidies and tax breaks for the rich. Apparently the latter is more palatable? That’s infuriating.
Privilege is being able to afford tuition costs worth more than what I paid for my first house. There’s a lot of bootstrap bullshit rhetoric going around, butworking full-time and attending school full-time for a minimum of 4 years is well outside the realm of possibility for many people. Doing this, while still anticipating a boatload of student debt, is flat-out untenable.
“Congratulations, you worked your ass off for your degree and after some 36 months of 80+ hour weeks, take comfort in the knowledge that you only owe 30 grand instead of 50.”
It’s ridiculous to require students to jump through these flaming hoops, particularly since this is the first generation that’s really had to. The policy makers, the smug old rich men, the middle-aged voter turning his nose up in disgust, none of these people had to jump through these hoops. The education they take for granted cost a fraction of what it costs now, and if they weren’t so comfortably self-satisfied and pacified, then people wouldn’t have to be protesting or striking to protect their self-interests.
I live in the province with some of the highest tuition fees, and every time they get jacked up, the increase is met with a phlegmatic shrug. Kids can always go spend every summer on the rigs to pay for it, right?
Bullshit.
Three Strikes Harper’s Out
There is a deeply disturbing amount of sneakiness, abuse of power and disregard for ordinary Canadian citizens by the Harper Government. What is even more disturbing is that ordinary Canadians don’t seem to realize all the things this Prime Minister has done. There is a wealth of evidence showing Mr. Harper’s irresponsible handling of the economy, disregard for Canada’s environmental responsibilities, abuse of power, and foreign relations. This article will dive into most of Stephen Harper’s policies and actions that are not doing any good.
"We don’t eliminate racism by pretending it doesn’t exist. Evil flourishes in the dark. You kill evil by dragging it out into the light, putting it under a lamp, and interrogating it." — Dionthesocialist (via ishkwaakiiwan)
(Source: eloquentvibes, via ayiman)
"Not only does abstinence-only education completely erase and forget about people who become pregnant as a result of rape, but they don’t even shed any light on sexual assault as a thing that exists in the real world, or something that can possibly be assuaged by clear, concise, and assertive sexual communication. Essentially, they are helping to create a culture of sexual ignorance – something that is a huge contributor to rape culture. If a person is never taught about sex, consent, and communication beyond “no” or “yes”, they are more likely to commit sexual assault." — Megan Milanese
(via lavender-labia)
(Source: grrl-meat, via beckysanspants)
#yes #sex education #abstinence #sexual assault #rape culture #consent
"
When [your friends] say “You’re not fat,” what they really mean is “You’re not a dozen nasty things I associate with the word fat.” The size of your body is not what’s in question; a tape measure or a mirror could solve that dispute. What’s in question is your goodness, your lovability, your intelligence, your kindness, your attractiveness. And your friends, not surprisingly, are inclined to believe you get high marks in all those categories. Ergo, you couldn’t possibly be fat.
But I am. I am cute and healthy and pleasant-smelling (usually) and ambitious and smart and lovable and fun and stylish and friendly and outgoing and categorically not icky. And I am fat — just like I’m also short, also American, also blonde (with a little chemical assistance). It is just one fucking word that describes me, out of hundreds that could. Those three little letters do not actually cancel out all of my good qualities.
[…]
Because fat should mean only having more adipose tissue than the average person, but it doesn’t. And every time you ignore what’s in front of your face to tell me I’m not fat because you can’t bring yourself to put me in that nasty, ugly category, you’re buying in to the idea that real fat people are all sorts of nasty, ugly things I’m not. Horseshit. I am a real fat person, and very few real fat people live up to the worst stereotypes wielded against us.
[…]
Too many women look at me and think, She can’t be fat —she looks fine, then look at themselves and think, I’m so fat — I can’t possibly look (or be) fine. Even ones who are built exactly like me. As long as the horseshit stereotypes persist — that fat women can never be healthy, smart, driven, disciplined, fashionable, attractive and eminently lovable — women who are all those things and fat will keep seeing themselves as fundamentally disgusting and unworthy. So every time someone tries to tell me I’m not fat simply because I don’t fit those stereotypes, I’m gonna keep telling them I am, too, fat, dammit! Le fat, c’est moi. This is what fat looks like.
I am a kindhearted, intelligent, attractive, person, and I am fat. There is no paradox there.
" — Does my butt look fat? (Kate Harding) (via fatgirlsguide, rawwomen)Ignorance (is a poor excuse)
So that thread going on about cis people being ignorant of what ‘cis’ means and generally not knowing all the ‘politically correct’ things. And that we should be polite and forgiving, I guess if someone is using the wrong language or whatever.
There is a reason why focusing on impacts, rather than intent, is important. To use an analogy that I think Riley has before…
If you are standing on my neck, but don’t know, it doesn’t actually change the fact that you are standing on my neck.
If I ask (or tell) you to get off my neck, responding with, “I didn’t know I was standing on your neck!” as you continue to stand on my neck doesn’t actually change shit.
If I ask, perhaps with some amount of anger, you to get the fuck off my neck, responding with, “Well, if you said please, I’d get off but you are being rude,” WHILE STILL STANDING ON MY FUCKING NECK.
If, while standing on my neck, you finally hear my chocking and gasping breath, you say, “It appears I’m standing on your neck, maybe you could share your experience with me,” but not actually getting off my neck.
Tell me. At what point is it okay for me to blame you for standing on my neck? Why do you even think I care about why you are doing it? I don’t.
All I want is to breath and live, BUT YOU ARE STANDING ON MY FUCKING NECK!
I don’t care that you didn’t know. I don’t care that there may have been some magic word that would elicit your cooperation. I don’t care if you just want to learn.
I don’t care why someone is oppressing me. Don’t care and I don’t want to hear it.
Because you never fucking get it: all I want to do is live and breath but all I can see is your fucking foot on my throat. Maybe get the fuck off and maybe I’ll start caring about why you were doing it.
(via youarenotyou)
lip-synching about freedom
and I'm walking through new streets
