Feminism Thread

Yeah, people died there but it wasn't actually a death camp, in other words, it wasn't designed with extermination as it's primary function, as was the case with other camps, but you already know that, right, so stop being a dickhead, and stay on topic.

 

On topic? Wasn't this thread about feminism before you made it about fatty-bashing?

 

Don't get short with me, dude. I asked if I hadn't followed it correctly. So, you don't hate fat people with the rage of a thousand suns? That's kind of a massive moral lesson to learn in a couple of posts.

 

'consume "less", hire a personal trainer, eat goji berries and spelt instead of coco pops for breakfast'

 

Maybe I'll make my goji, chia and acai berry smoothies with the food processor I bought on my executive salary. Until a new superfood comes along. I hope the next one's more expensive than the last three. I don't think some people appreciate just how cheap and easy it is to be fat while still technically consuming a comparable amount of food resources to thin people.

 

I don't think that anyone is saying that obesity should be encouraged, indeed obesity is associated with a number of health problems and a shortened lifespan. But the unhealthy and obese should not be ostracized, and there should be a more accurate depiction of various body types in the media. It doesn't make any fucking sense to discriminate against people because they are unhealthy, and the continual discrimination against the overweight in our culture has lead to an unhealthy attitude at the other side of spectrum: the notion that everyone must be nearly anorexic to be of any worth. Corporate media loves to simplify the world as much as possible, hence an insanely simplistic view of beauty being pushed on girls from a very young age (THIS is beautiful, you must look exactly like THIS to be pretty). The bottom line is that beauty is subjective, and besides that, aesthetics are not all that women have to offer; people should make an attempt to be healthy, not merely skinny.

 

Not encouraged, does that mean it should be discouraged? Indeed, the media is a bastard in a million different ways, though as I understand it, eating disorders are largely to blame on parental issues, rather than the media. To recognise obesity as an illness, or an addiction, this is a start. I don't mind being treated like shit because of my addiction, I don't want others to end up the same way. It isn't a single sex issue. It shouldn't be on a thread under 'feminism'.

 

I never said I hated fat people. In fact I hate people that eat meat more, though I don't actually hate anyone, really.

 

This is all kinda aimed at Ivanovich:

Indeed but you brought it up in here (and i derailed too, but lets deal with things as they come up...)

After nigh on a decade, i'm back on the meat train, its currently feeling good, but hopefully a phase I'll pass.

Moreover, a year long diet of tropical superfruits likely requires more resources to produce and bring to market than living on pizza and fish n chips or whatever. And of course that's reflected in the price. Like most things, the fact that we can only afford to buy shit for food ain't incidental.

Finally, should we 'reduce our consumption' or whatever, sure, production of food would reduce but what would happen to the land freed up by this reduced demand? More than likely what we see now, firms like Chiquita would switch from growing bananas to producing palm oil for 'clean energy technologies'. They'd still be paying off right wing militias to murder uppity indig and afro-colombian peeps who happen to get in the way. Or a greater expansion of 'REDD' programs, whereby the locals are displaced or murdered, and those surviving facing lengthy jail terms for such crimes as hunting or making a camp fire within these clean, green (saviors of the human race!!!!!!!!!!111) supermarkets of carbon offsets.

Its the use of land for profits, rather than satisfying human needs that has left us in this shit. This ain't all about 'over-consuming' fat ppl, sure, there is an argument to be made for firms looking to increase their market share, but it ain't causal in terms of: some ppl eat too many big macs causin' sub-saharan africa, etc. (I mean this doesn't even deal with the fact that many who work 60+ hr weeks can't afford to eat proper)

 

I remember reading somewhere (and not just on a hippie-baiting website so everybody keep their shirts on) that if you take into account the number of animals displaced, the number of "pests" destroyed, the number of vermin exterminated, the amount of animal waste/byproducts used in fertiliser and the projected generational growth reduced (by traditionally native creatures no longer being able to breed on farm lands) by the exclusive use of land for farming, a similar number of animals (here animal means any creature capable of locomotion in possession of a brain, just because a mouse is smaller than a cow that doesn't mean it deserves to die any more) are killed annually by the massive international vegetable industry as are by the meat-production industry.

Food for thought I guess...

 

Don't blame us for making this a bad thread on feminism. It was doomed to failure since post one. The OP started a thread with no question to be answered or statement for discussion, ergo the discussions that have started out of the stimulus material provided (which was also not much to discuss, since it was all stuff that everybody agreed was either objectionable or wonderful) have been tangential and varied. If anybody wants to start a feminism thread that gets a feminist argument going, please do so- but I'd suggest starting with a contested topic, not an area of interest that everybody already likes.

Anyway, I prefer threads that degenerate into bickering over unrelated issues of philosophy and society. Those are the things that make writing worthwhile!

 

Well, I heard that too, but a bit of common sense and basic arithmatic will tell you its bullshit. The animals that get eaten require energy to live and grow, which you don't get when you eat them, so a lot of the energy in the food they eat is just wasted. If you cut out the middle man, or animal, or whatever, you got a far more efficient sytem going on. I dunno how many KG of grain it take's to produce a KG of beef, but I be willing to bet it's 10 times what it takes to produce a KG or bread. Further, if good old planet Earth can feed all these caged beasties now, why can't she feed them when they is running about in fields and shit. Are they suddenly gonna eat loads more and become fat? best make sure they don't watch too much TV, eh? Maybe some will starve, but that's called nature, init. Happens all the time to antelope, frogs, lions, mice, ... (feel free to add to this list). Anyway, I not had to kill any pests (though the cats have killed a few, but that's their nature, I guess) even though my potato plants got attacked ba a vast swarm of 20.3 million beetles, and one locust. Bastards. Yeah, a real live locust, what the fuck it was doing here I dunno, must have got lost, probably been watching to many disney movies or somthing. Anyway, wasn't so bad really, cos like, potatoes grow underground init.

 

Wait, what was your rebuttal? Or are you joking? I got pretty lost reading that. And how do you figure that basic arithmetic tells you it's bullshit? It's far more complicated than doing a couple sums. It's a complex issue involving hundreds of variables, and if you think about it properly the concept holds up rather well. It also has nothing to do with wasted energy or the morality of whether or not killing a creature is justifiable due to energy gained from it etc. It is a strictly abstract exploration of the issue. I think you've overcomplicated it by adding a context that doesn't exist in the original argument, the question at the heart of which is, "how many animals need to be killed to farm vegetables, and is that more than is needed to farm livestock?"

Also, how you grew your own potatoes has no bearing on it, just like if somebody told me how they slaughter their own beef. This is about factory farming of both, so personal experience has no relavence (unless you run a corporation that farms either). Kudos to you if you didn't involve yourself in killing a single thing to farm potatoes, the point is that other people do, en masse.

 

Ok, listen. If I have X acres of land, I can grow Y KG of grain which hold Z amount of energy. The plants get this directly from the sun, which is the source of all energy on the planet, right. Now, I can then make bread out of it and eat it, getting Z energy out of it, or I can feed it to cows. Since the cows also require 'some' energy to live (I run out of letters), if I then eat the cows, I gain Z minus 'some' energy from the grain I grew. Thus, to gain Z energy from eating cows, I would require more grain, and a bigger field. I figure quite a lot more, since cows are big animals, they eat more than me, for sure. In other words, if it takes 10kg (ie 10KG of bread) of grain to produce 1KG of beef, it would also take a field 10 times as big. Even if the cows required zero energy to live, it still only be equal. You can never get more energy from your grain by running it though a cow, that's just impossible. Its the laws of thermodynamics, init. Thus, farming just grain and veggie stuff can never use more land than farming animals. It sure is about wasted energy, cos each bit of energy wasted means bigger field. It aint about morality, I never said it was, I dunno where you got that from. Anyway, since bigger field means more 'pests' and shit killed, farming animals also means more animals killed, which is why all that crap is bullshit. Hmm, so it's more complicated then that, yet you also say I have overcomplicated it. You can't have it both ways.

 

libcom.org/organise/dealing-with-street-harassment-guide

 

Well put. My mother was a model in the 1960's and during that time the 'ideal' body image was a little closer to reality for most women and men. For women wide hips and some weight, for men a not so obscene muscular form.

My oldest daughter (19) is currently pursuing a career in catwalk modelling that has taken her to Japan, Bermuda and Germany, I am quite proud that she enjoys what she does but I am appalled at times by the spreads she has been in and found an internet advert where she played the 'sex kitten role' for a Montreal arts festival to be thoroughly obscene. I am constantly worrying about her diet and personal her body image, we talk about it often. It can be very stressful and sometimes very difficult to remain supportive.

My youngest daughter (8) is currently in a horrible 'princess' phase that is almost unbearable. (Thank you trashwitch666 for the Disney pic, it is all to real.) For awhile everything was Barbie this and Disney that, I did buy her a 'doll' last christmas; it came with skater/ snow board outfits, camping gear and a booklet about how the doll character chooses to do it herself, work and play hard. The clothes quickly disappeared and her old Barbie gowns were on the 'rad girl' doll, sigh. We put her in horse back riding this spring and when she realized that princesses don't ride horses her 'phase' changed a bit. Overhearing her play now, it's not so much the prince does this and the prince does that but more I can do this or I can do that. The rad girl clothes are back but with sequined overcoat, of course, cause you might go to a ball after tearing up the hill.

Obesity is a complex issue that can not be pigeon holed into one cause. There are social-economic factors, cultural issues as well as toxic food. For those that may not be aware the processed food industry is very conscious about the individual pieces they put into food, even mainstream Organic food. Wheat for instance has been bred for high protien content with little carbs, constant consumption of the high protient, low carb food results in 'shutting off' of the chemical process that allows people to 'feel satiated' the high sugar index of food also promotes heavy eating, as does a high fat content. I suggest David vs Monsanto and Food Inc for good documentaries into the North American food supply. For those Vegans out there textured veg protien was just put on the likely to contain GMO list.

I hope that the women were not put off this thread by the 'fat' conversation, I did appreciate the initial links.

 

Textured veg protien is shit anyway. Get all protien you need from lentils, beans, nuts, rice, bread, etc...

 

I hate the idea that there is an ideal body, no matter what shape it is.
The only reason Marilyn Monroe is popular is because she was pretty. The women that actually did something for womens rights are nowhere near as popular. And no I`m not fucking jealous of marilyn monroe either, I`m stating a fact.

And on the topic of obesity, saying that there are "socio-economic factors and cultural issues" is just a pretty way of saying they`re too stupid to know whats good for them hm?
Oh and secondly; Obesity is not an epidemic. Yes there are more obese people today than there used to be, but it sure as hell aint an epidemic. Actually, I`ve only seen about 2-3 obese people all my life, and I`m 21 years old now. And apparently obesity is gonna come kill us all, even in norway. ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun children
Those statistics are based on the use of BMI, which is a terribly outdated way of showing someones body composition. The formula was made by a fucking mathematician 200 years ago. Also all those ideal weight charts are very old and outdated.
There are lots of healthy bodies, you don`t have to be average to be healthy.

And you having an issue with obese people sounds like pure projection to me.

 

Marilyn Monroe is a pop icon. Pop icon's represent an idea. For MM it is innocence lost, if she did not die she would not be as popular as an icon. Gretta Garbo was equal to MM in popularity, 'cuteness' and body culture image at the same time but MM is remembered because of her affiliation with the Kennedy's; JFK also being a pop icon, and that she died at the same time as the figuative death of innocence in the American psyche, death of the pop image of the good old days. Pop images do not represent reality.

I can't say too much about Norway and obesity but in North America, particularily the US, it is NOT a BMI calculation issue. Whether you use the BMI scale or not a 5'8" person should not weight 500lbs. It is a social-economic issue and that has NOTHING to do with intelligence, it has to do with levels of education (not intelligence), socialisation, access to real food and the financial resources to afford it. Smoking is also social-economic, as are a miriad of other addictions. And again this is not intelligence, it is predominately the result of a cultural system that is based on and dictated by the advertising budgets of a few multinational food corporations. It is the death driven addiction to Sugar, Fat and Salt and a sedentary lifestyle that is at the heart of the obesity issue. As far as seeing 'obese' people, I saw 2-3 just sitting at the coffee shop for 1/2 hour. Obesity is not just being slightly over-weight based on the BMI and no one, that I am aware of, has ever claimed that. Obesity is being 100+lbs heavier, not a epidemic in Norway but it is in the US and becoming more so in Canada.

 

The general idea of marilyn today seems to be that she was a "real woman", whatever that means, because she wasn`t "too skinny". I don`t think the masses see her as an icon because of her lost innocence. But anyway, that wasn`t so much related to the topic(and probably a bad example to use). I know what you mean.

Oh yes, they have stated that it has become an epidemic here as well. But I really doubt that one in five americans weighs 500 lbs. If the statistics aren`t based on bmi, they are based on some sort of other chart that states a persons ideal weight based on their gender and height. All people are different, my aunt is technically overweight but she looks very thin, probably because she has a lot of muscle. All the people that are considered overweight will pull the statistics for obesity up, no matter if they are obese or not.
But isn`t that kind of an elitist thing to say? If you don`t have money, your first concern is getting food, no matter what quality it is. Someone living on minimum wage can`t be expected to start eating expensive high quality foods if that means that they won`t have enough food. Levels of education is basically intelligence put nicely, I`m not implying that you think they`re stupid(I know you don`t) but it basically translates to not being "educated" enough to know what is good for you and not. The whole obesity scare is completely blown out of proportions. You can be average and still be in danger of getting diabetes, your weight doesn`t say much about your health(unless you actually weigh 500 lbs).