NEDAwareness

 

Everybody knows somebody.

NEDAwareness Week 2012 theme: Everybody Knows Somebody.

It hurts my heart to think how many I know.

My best friend.

At least ten other friends (not exaggerating).

My mom.

Potentially my cousin (I'm praying for her.. trying to be a good role model, too)

Me.

My sister, may she rest in peace.

 

And, unfortunately, I'm sure there's so many more.

I hate eating disorders.

Corporations are people. Women, not so much. (Law, pt. 2)

continued from the Texas legislature entry. Moving on north, to the great state of OK...

"Lawmakers in Virginia and Oklahoma approved “personhood” legislation last week to recognize that human life begins at conception... Analysts say neither of the bills would immediately ban abortions, but a prohibition would kick in if and when the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Waderuling is undone" (The New American, Feb. 20, 2012). I actually didn't know that Virginia had passed one, too. I only saw about Oklahoma. I will have to do further investigation into the Virginia situation, right now I will scream about Oklahoma.
There are currently two bills in OK being called "Personhood Bill," both of which state that life begins at conception. This one that just passed the Senate and is more than likely going to pass the house without a flinch, apparently doesn't outlaw abortion...? I have yet to find a clear explanation for that. How can a bill state that life begins at conception but still have abortion legalized? Isn't the point to make it illegal? A Senator from Tulsa, Senator Brian Crain, says that this bill doesn't outlaw fertility treatment or abortion because that would go against Supreme Court rulings (News on 6, Feb. 20, 2012). So basically they're just waiting for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. I see. The other Personhood Bill in OK states that life begins at conception and it DOES seek to outlaw contraceptives (Plan B, birth control, fertility treatment) and abortions in all cases, rape and incest included. [Jackasses] Oklahomans For Life say that this bill is a "philosophical statement." WTF? If this philosophy is approved by OK Lawmakers, it will be voted on by state citizens in November.

Sick, sick, sick to my stomach. Speechless. I'm... scared for many, many women. I'll leave it at that.

LOOK. LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE DOING. (Law, pt. 1)

I find it perfectly fitting that we're reading the chapter on Reproductive Rights and healthcare right now when the stuff is hitting the fan in politics over women's reproductive rights.

Texas legislature passed a bill last year that amended the "Women's Right to Know Act" and it was signed by Rick Perry in May 2011.  I was just leaving the state when this happened, glad to get the hell away from that man. The bill also, "altered the process through which physicians obtain informed consent to perform abortions in the state. Physicians can lose their licenses for violating the provisions, which place several requirements on the doctors, such as making them conduct a sonogram and provide the patient with images and sounds of the fetus" (Courthouse News Service, Feb. 8, 2012). So basically it is mandatory that a woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy hear a heartbeat and look at a sonogram. If the patient declines to look, the doctor must give her oral description of the image. This must happen at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. A health service provider in San Antonio filed a federal class action against the bill, calling it unconstitutional. A couple of weeks ago, a federal judge ruled in favor of Texas' responsive appeal, saying that the bill is NOT unconstitutional [as pertaining to women's reproductive rights] and will be enforced. He said that it was not about reproductive rights but more about doctors' rights to practice medicine. I'll add that it's a TRANSVAGINAL sonogram. Definitely sounds like a doctor problem and not a patient problem to me...? I'm so disturbed and disgusted by this that I wanted to vomit when I read article after article, trying to find clarity in the legal jargon. I used to live there - I very easily still could. I know women who have had abortions in that state. A decent number of them, actually. I know women who were traumatized by the decision they had to make and didn't handle it well afterward. I know women who would probably have attempted/committed suicide if this bill had been in effect when they had their procedures done. If not, then they would probably have a child right now because they didn't get the procedure done at all, which I think is the point. So, way to go, Texas - don't just take away women's mental health over the abortion they're seeking, let's physically assault them, too!

This entry is getting too long to continue with the next Southern State travesty that I wanted to rant about. To be continued...

one more robot learns to feel

I found this in... I think it was Allure? December 2011? Whatever - it was recent, and it was one of those evil "women" magazines that really serve no purpose for women other than making them feel like crap.

This is supposed to be a fragrance ad...? Yes, I totally get "smells like applesauce" from this image.

The seductive bedroom eyes; the apple symbolizing Eve and the forbidden fruit; her shirt's falling off, I guess so you can smell her better; but the wind is blowing her scent away with her hair; and I think it just rained on those apples. Sidebar: there was no sample smelly thing to accompany this ad. I checked the rest of the magazine - every other fragrance ad had a sample smelly thing (some of the ads towards the beginning did not, but the same fragrance was advertised again throughout the magazine with a sample). Ironic. There were much more demeaning and "how-the-hell-do-you-get-fragrance-from-that?" ones, like Natalie Portman topless with a big bow in her hair like a little girl for Dior, but this one is not only offensive through imagery, it has the ever-so-helpful instructions to guide young women: Be Delicious. 

The last time I checked, "delicious" was an adjective that referred to taste. Does this perfume taste good? That would be messed up on an entirely different level, but assuming that it does not have a flavor meant to be tasted, the objectification of the woman is sickening.

Be the forbidden fruit. Be seductive. Be beautiful the way we think you should. Be Delicious.

Beating Anorexia and Gaining Feminism. Me being angry with ED assumptions

I will give you a fair warning now, I will use some harsh cursing in this post.

I appreciate the message of Marni Grossman's 2010 piece "Beating Anorexia and Gaining Feminism" but it made me want to scream a little, too. First off, the title pisses me off. I don't know why, but the particular word "beat" implies that there is a fight, which eating disorders are, but I don't think anyone wins.. ever. Kind of like 'once and addict always an addict'? My sister once told me in reference to eating disorders, "Pick a number. Stick to it. After long enough, you will be completely crazy. And you never come back from that." I think each day of recovery can be a small victory, but I don't think anyone ever fully "beats" their eating disorder. Okay, so anyway. There are lines and chunks and passages in this essay that I adore and think she hit right on the spot, like, "Brains are irrelevant. Beauty reigns supreme. The patriarchy depends on our acceptance of this myth." Beautifully stated, short and powerful. And then there are things like, "Because when you are anorexic, you're always failing." Wow, really? Eff you, too. Doesn't that support the EXACT statement I quoted before? If you have a MENTAL DISORDER that is manifested through the body, then you're a failure, period. You can't achieve shit if you're actively battling an eating disorder? Rereading it, I think I get that she didn't mean it that way; she meant, "when you're anorexic, YOU THINK you're always failing." But that's not what she wrote, and it's confusing, and it really pissed me off.

In reference to the chapter's section on Eating Disorders in general, I think a lot of things need to be made more clear, but oh well, that's just.. my opinion. One thing I think is particularly important is the point that just as overeating and purposely becoming fat can and has been used to avoid sexuality, as a kind of, "stop looking at me" thing, starving yourself into amenorrhea is sometimes done to achieve the exact same effect. Take oneself back to prepubescence, back to a childlike state, where control is not something you have. I hate this bullshit that eating disorders are all about culture and the media and teenagers' only way of having control. All of that can be true while simultaneously NONE of that can be true. Culture and media do not genetically predispose anyone (of any gender) to eating disorders - biology does that. Yes, society encourages it. Yes, the media is society's tool in encouraging it. But no, they are not culprits, they are not causes. They are enablers and justifiers and horrible, horrible reinforcers, but they are not solely responsible for eating disorders. And fuck the notion of "beating" an eating disorder as being the most political statement someone can make. Maybe it is for some people. Good for them, I'm really, honestly happy for them. Maybe some people want to recover because they just simply don't want to die. Maybe the thought, "screw you, society - I'm going to recover!" never crosses their minds. AND (last thing, I promise) the oh-so-profound theory that focusing on controlling our bodies to distract ourselves from real economic and political concerns... I will return to my response about anorexia meaning always failing. Yeah, okay. So someone who is ill, DISABLED, with an eating disorder cannot achieve anything meaningful, nor can they care or partake in real social issues? So, if you're anorexic, can you not be a feminist? That's pretty much what I'm gathering, and that's a bunch of b.s. Binaries, binaries. Everything's gotta be a black-and-white, right? Eating disorders are white privileged women's problems, and politics are white privileged men's area, right? Screw that. I do not agree, I will never agree.