“You’ve lost weight!”
“You look good!” “You look skinny!” Stop. I didn’t ask. I know I’ve lost weight. I’m allowed to have my feelings about that, but unless I bring it up in conversation and somehow make it clear that I want your opinion on my body- please, keep it to yourself. This applies to everyone, all of the time. Whether or not someone has lost weight on purpose in a healthy way, their beauty and value have not changed. Acting as if it did is toxic, especially for people already struggling with unhealthy eating habits/anxieties (something you may not be aware of). Skinny does not equal healthy any more than fat equals unhealthy. I lost weight because I went from being in a wheelchair with almost no exercise for six months to suddenly walking and exercising this spring. I also had a life-threatening infection in my leg that had been trying to kill me for a year and a half before anyone realized it was there. I had three surgeries and spent five weeks in the hospital between late October 2019 and early February 2020. I was on intense IV antibiotics for months, medication that made me tired and nauseous constantly. I am still on some antibiotics and it is still messing up my stomach. The reason I am not eating as much isn’t because “I’m trying,” it’s because I was sick and am still getting better. None of the reasons I forget to eat are healthy. Some days, I don’t get hungry, so I have to be reminded to eat. There are days when even the thought of eating makes me feel sick to my stomach. But neither of those compare to the worst reason I wasn’t eating- it only lasted a few days, but it was terrifying and the reason I am writing this post- I didn’t want to. I liked hearing those comments I know are toxic. People had stopped calling me beautiful, had stopped calling my body anything but “strong,” a long time ago. Finally hearing those things- even though I knew they were rooted in harmful expectations of women and misogyny the speakers don’t realize they were brainwashed by- felt good. They made it easy to slip back into a dangerous narrative of “nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.” NO. NOPE. STOP IT, WHIT. Food is fuel. Wanting to lose weight is fine as long as you do it through healthy lifestyle changes in diet and exercise. Withholding food is a slippery slope. I caught myself and asked for help and worked through it. For that, I feel lucky. I have friends who have not had such ease. I tried to talk to my GP about my concern over my (at times alarming) decreased appetite. Do you know what he, a grown man with a medical degree said to me, an 18-year-old girl? “I wish I had that problem.” Then, he laughed. And that’s the story of how he lost most of the respect I had for him. I am writing this hoping to reach two groups of people (and those who might fit in both categories):
1 Comment
Remember the good. It's always there.
Alice Paul introduced the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) at the 75th Seneca Fall Convention in 1923. It became known as the “Lucretia Mott Amendment.” In 1943, Paul changed the wording “to better reflect the language in both the 15th and the 19th Amendments.” From then on, it has been known as the “Alice Paul Amendment,” and has been reintroduced to Congress every year since. It was big in the 70s, then quieted down, but has not gone away. 97 years later, the amendment has finally been ratified by 38 states. It’s true! This month, with Virginia’s (late, but appreciated help), the ¾’s majority needed to add an amendment to the Constitution has been met. This doesn’t mean the fight is over. Congress and will probably face many legal battles in the future (Virginia ratifies ERA setting up likely legal battle). It's not over, but we are so close. For more try: “With Virginia Ratification, where does the Equal Rights Amendment go from here?” The Alice Paul Institute has a magnificent website all about the ERA. If you want to know more about the history of the ERA or the legal process of any amendment, it is the perfect resource. It answered all of my questions and calmed all of my doubts. EqualRightsAmendment.org. For instance, I learned that the ERA would not automatically change laws concerning the reproductive rights of women, that will still mostly be up to the states. However, it may affect future decisions, especially ones made by the Supreme Court (to expand reproductive rights, in theory). I’ll just say it: this would not mean women will be added to the draft. First of all, the draft will likely never come into effect again. Secondly, the government has already considered drafting women in past wars, therefore, it is already possible, yet not being done. I think the most important FAQ is: “Would the ERA adversely affect existing benefits and protections that women now receive (e.g., alimony, child custody, Social Security payments, etc.)?” In an opinion piece from The Hill, “Equal Rights Amendment will replace equality with sameness” Inez Stepman claims that the ERA will hurt women. She writes that the amendment will “add nothing to the equality under the law women already enjoy in America” (para. 5), stating that men and women have equal rights on state and federal levels. I think there is evidence that that is not the case, but that’s for another post. More interestingly, she shares her belief that the ERA will make men “interchangeable” with women and that “sameness” will ultimately hurt women. Instead, the ERA will replace this equality under the law with the enforced interchangeability between men and women. While men and women are indeed equal, both common sense and science tell us they are not precisely the same. There are still some situations in which treating men and women precisely alike could harm women or even put them in danger. I agree that it is important to recognize the necessary differences in support men and women should recieve. Unfortunately, women still need protection in this world that men do not (often protections from men). Her example of women-only prisons is a good one; however, some of her possibilities are way off base, things that would simply not be effected solely by this amendment. I believe it is fear-mongering. I mean, “daughters could be forced into a combat draft alongside sons,” really? It leads me to question her objective in the piece. Family law occurs on the state level, for the most part, and are becoming more gender-neutral and beginning to stop making judgments based on stereotypes of men and women already. The ERA will likely not stop this progress. (And that isn’t a bad thing). ERA.org and many supporters of the amendment, claim that it will not hurt women this way, at all. Whatever state and even federal protections exist for women, are vulnerable to being destroyed if not protected by the Constitution. The ERA is necessary to guarantee all women in America equal rights to men. Now, ready to hear the big, scary amendment? “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Sounds good to me. The MythIn recent years, post publicity of Weinstein and other perverted and/or crimal celebrities, as well as the beginning of the #MeToo movement (which is important), a controversy, was born around the message in the song “Baby It’s Cold Outside.” Some argue, with a strong defense, that the song is a “rape anthem” because it seems to encourage men to ignore when women say no to certain activities. If you listen to the lyrics, you’ll probably hear it. It sounds like the woman is saying, “No,” and the guy just keeps saying, “Oh, come on.” And to today’s standards, this song is horrible because, duh, no means no. Note: I actually prefer the phrase: only yes means yes because the absence of a no is not the presence of a yes. Consent is a sober, volentary, enthusiastic yes. Here's the thing: context.The song was composed by Frank Loesser, Jethro Burns, and Henry D. Haynes in 1944. It gained wide recognition in 1949 when it was performed in the film Neptune's Daughter and has since been performed by countless artists. As with any piece of art, one must look at the relevant historical background and context. Words and phrases, especially slang, change dramatically over time. By the time the woman sings, “Say what's in this drink?” (line 10) she’s already begun to list reasons she should leave. Note that none of the reasons are because she wants to, rather because of societal expectations. Feminism has come a long way in the 75 years since this song was written (no, we’re not “there” yet). The female character is the song is an unmarried, young woman. She would not have been “allowed” to be alone with a man. It’s getting late and she says, “I ought to say, no, no, no sir.” I ought to. If I were a “good girl” I would leave right now. Back to the drink, “Say what's in this drink?” (10). Nothing. Nothing is in the drink. That’s the joke. She is using alcohol as an excuse for her (socially unacceptable) behavior. ...the line “Say, what’s in this drink” needs to be explained in a broader context to refute the idea that he spiked her drink. “Say, what’s in this drink” is a well-used phrase that was common in movies of the time period and isn’t really used in the same manner any longer. The phrase generally referred to someone saying or doing something they thought they wouldn’t in normal circumstances; it’s a nod to the idea that alcohol is “making” them do something unusual. But the joke is almost always that there is nothing in the drink. The drink is the excuse. (Persephone Magazine) That joke has mostly been forgotten. Time moves on. Still, there’s more to the story: Baby, It’s Cold Outside” is particularly telling about the role of women in the era before the Pill arrived in 1960. There were huge risks for women having sex outside of marriage at a time when abortion was illegal and birth control was unreliable. “Nice girls” were not allowed to say yes to sex -- “yes” was only for designated sluts. So for the first half of the 20th century, everyone engaged in a kind of double-speak in which saying no could mean a variety of things, depending on the context. (Rupp) Didn’t see that coming, did you? So, what’s the verdict? This song was NOT written as a “rape anthem” nor do I believe it should be interpreted as one, today. It was actually pretty risque for the time. Personally, I love this song and I was really sad when I “had” to stop listening to it. I’m here with a Christmas miracle, people: you can listen to “Baby It’s Cold Outside” again! Or not, you know, if you don’t like the song. :) I love this cover of the song. Sources
LyricsThe world responds to art, in the shapes of critic, analysis, and sparked ideas. In turn, as viewers, we respond to art. In a class, our study of late 19th century humanities, a screenplay by Henrik Ibsen came up. My teacher played a clip that I cannot stop thinking about. The play was radical for its time, and it still is, if you consider the historical context and controversy that came of it. The final scene depicts Nora Helmer telling her husband that she is leaving to find herself. Not asking, she has it all planned out, but wants his blessing if she can get it. It is not forever, but she explains that she needs space to find who she is without him or anyone else. She even says that she needs to figure out her own religious beliefs because she only knows what she has been told to think. These are not things women were socially acceptable, as well as often financially possible, at the time. And here is a play with a woman talking about it. She says that she needs to figure out her own opinions of the world, all her life all she has ever had was her fathers and now her husbands, but never her own. They do have children, and the husband says that she is forgetting her “sacred duties” of caring for them. He says, “Before all else, you are a wife and a mother.” I love her response, “I believe that before all else I am a reasonable human being, just as you are--or, at all events, that I must try and become one.” It is a powerful message.
In you have a moment, here is a clip from that last scene and the script for it. Video of “A Doll’s House” (1992), film directed by David Thacker. Actors shown: Juliet Stevenson (as Nora helmer) and Trevor Eve (as Torvald Helmer).
And that’s how it ends. She closes the door and the rest of her life is only known in whatever world stories live in. Watched this in my "Survey of the Humanities" class during our discussion about abolitionist literature in early America. Sojourner Truth wrote a book called "Ain't I a Woman," (ca. 1797-1883). It was her story that she dictated to Olive Gilbert, who edited it. Astounding recitation of section by Nkechi (nnn-KAY-chee). I've always been a feminist. It's not a dirty word; I'm not afraid to shout the truth that all genders are equal because, well, all people are. That's where it gets tricky for me. You may have heard the term "intersectionality" within the conversation about feminism, a word that was coined to remind the movement to remember WOCs and disabled women, to include fat women and sex workers, and to not let anyone fall through the cracks. So, if you find yourself being a "white feminist," i.e. Susan B. Anthony, make sure to check yourself. And I do that. But, just like in many sensitive issues, I don't want to overstep, especially when I do not know where I fit. The feminist movement is to empower women and give them their rightful place in society, equal to men, that should never have been taken away. Women lifting up other women. And men, they have a spot too. They have a chance to be allies, to step aside for a moment. My question is: what if you are in the middle? I may be an AFAB (assigned female at birth), and I am not a transman, but it gets more complicated than that. An explanation about all the schismatics and my continued search at my gender is to be saved for another day. That said, a wonderful term has been brought up into more circles: nonbinary. Simply said, I don't fit. I am neither female or male, but sometimes I both. See, complicated. The problem I am posing is how I can fit in the conversation. I face issues women do, but there are days I don't want to get stuck in that image because I feel so far away, but I am not always at the liberty to out myself in every discussion. I feel strongly on the issue and the most leading reason is that PEOPLE ARE ALL EQUAL. It's literally in my religion. I've been reading more about gender theory and even philosophy expanding to biological sex not being as meaningful as we think, and it really throws you. The way it breaks down, for me, is this:
Every human is born a clean slate. And then the universe throws shit upon shit upon years of shit. And we take it. Everyone has to grow up and learn to take the hurt, the good, the messy and turn it into... something, at least. And we don't need to throw extra challenges on top of how hard life is with hate and bias. So, the least anyone can do is help out the people who didn't get that message and the people who were hit with that. Because we are all here. Whether we like it or not. |
Who Am I?Hi there! I'm Whit, my pronouns are they/them, and I write a lot.
Learn more about me here :) Click the button to read my poetry. Categories
All
All posts since April 2018 tagged at least once.
Archives
April 2021
Header
Painting by Whit Acrylics on masonite April 20th, 2019 Words are a Quaker saying. George Fox? |