Weight Loss Support Give and get support here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-22-2011, 01:10 AM   #46  
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,383

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

It has not been my experience that men are always "heard" over women. In fact, I've seen the opposite in predominantly female groups. Often the majority opinion is most-heard - or the person with the most assertive, persuasive, self-assured communication style.

I have that communication style, and I've never felt that I couldn't "compete" with men in making my opinion my heard. I have a loud, clear speaking voice that carries well, I tend to talk rapidly and with excitement, and I'm extremely comfortable sharing my opinions and making myself heard. My hubby has the same communication style.

My very shy sister, has complained to me, that she can "never get a word in edgewise," with either of us. I tell her that I kind of expect people to "jump in" with their opinions, and I have to be reminded that "shyer folk" tend not to interrupt or interject comments into a fast-paced conversation.

I know from psycho-linguistic studies that my communication style is more common among men, but it's the one most natural to me, and always has been. Even as a small child, I would interject and even dominate adult conversations, because I didn't ever consider that someone might not want to hear my opinion (and I don't mean that arrogantly, I wanted to hear everyone's opinion on everything and I wanted to share my opinion on everything, and I didn't understand why anyone would feel any other way).

I assume it's how my brain is wired, because no one in my family has a similar communication style (I was adopted, so I have no idea what communication styles bio-parents had, but I'm betting at least one of them was an assertive, confident communicator, but I wouldn't bet on which one, because I'm not sure gender has much to do with it, except that it tends be seen as more acceptable for men to have it).

I've certainly met introverted men, less communicative men and my opinion will always be heard over theirs, because well I have the louder voice, the biggest smile, and unshakeable confidence.

I often feel more comfortable communicating with men, because they're not taken aback or overwhelmed by my "less-feminine" communication style. I can adapt my communication to a more stereotypically feminine communication style, but it's not my comfort zone.

However, because my commmunication style is so often considered masculine, I wonder how welcome my opinions would be in a forum where a male perspective wasn't welcome.

Last edited by kaplods; 10-22-2011 at 01:46 AM.
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 03:50 AM   #47  
Senior Member
 
bronzeager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: American overseas
Posts: 497

S/C/G: 183/maintaining 135ish

Height: 5'6"

Default

Esofia, I am not terribly well educated in feminist movements -- it was something I was always vaguely interested in at college, but never had time, and was also a bit scared off by the people who took those classes, to tell the truth. To me, first wave feminism includes the suffragettes, of course, but also any part of the fight in which women still have to argue that they are not inferior to men. Which lasted quite a long time, and you could say still persists in many parts of academia and employment (math and engineering-related fields for instance, where many men sincerely feel that women are intellectually inferior in math).

Second wave to me is the era in which I mostly grew up, in which it becomes generally accepted that women have equal rights, but we have to reject traditionally "feminine" attributes and activities in order to achieve this equality; we had to be "like men" or neuter ourselves in order to fit in, and be seen for something other than merely our sexual attributes. (You can see this a lot in women's business clothes of the 80s and early 90s -- the big shoulders and cleavage-hiding blouses.)

Now we are in an era which can be very confusing for women my age, who worked fricking hard during our teens and 20s and 30s to be able to say, "No, I am not a sex object." Younger women are reclaiming femininity and sexiness, and saying women and men are not the same after all, women are special and different and indeed we should use our sexual wiles as weapons against men. Yes, I can understand that urge, and applaud the sentiment. But it often seems to assume rather a high level of traditional and conventional sexiness in appearance, which many of us have aged out of, or sexual aggression which we don't have much interest in — and then anyone who doesn't act this way is labeled a prude or sexually repressed. (Seriously, I have to stop reading comments at these websites. But that is how I am trying to educate myself about modern feminism.)

Also ironically to me, you see a lot of comments on every weight-loss post on Jez about set points and how weight is determined biologically, so you shouldn't fight it. And my experience of first and second wave feminism was about proving that biology was NOT destiny, that possessing a female body was not just about sex (and/or reproduction), and bleeding every month was not an illness which precluded you from taking on certain jobs. And PMS was never mentioned publicly, because then men would be justified in pointing out how we are crippled by our hormones and unsuited for intellectual endeavours.

Meanwhile I work and teach in a country in the Middle East where no feminist movements have reached at all, marriage and childbearing is the only worthwhile goal, and the feminine decoration and pink frills evident in any female space are clearly NOT about any sort of feminism at all. LOL. Sometimes I just pretend the butterflies and lacy tissue-box covers are postmodern and ironic. (Occasionally I try to explain post-modernism to my students and they just stare at me, and pity me because I am old and not married, and so clearly there is something very wrong with me.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stellarosa27 View Post
I have a few things to say after reading (most) posts:

I whole-heartedly agree that there has to be a "new" movement. I never got into this weight loss thing to be "sexy." I was 26, obese and I had 5 pages of abnormal blood work that could have lead to diabetes, liver and heart disease if I carried on the way I was going. This journey has always been about being healthy and fit, and it saddens and frustrates me when I read posts about women who are losing weight to 1) look good (health has nothing to do about it)
I feel a bit ambivalent about this, because as I noted above, for many younger feminists, wanting to do something to "feel sexy" is a perfectly valid justification for other stuff they are interested in doing -- wearing stiletto heels and revealing clothes, for instance. Which I can understand, though because of my own history as explained above, it results in some cognitive dissonance. Why is losing weight to feel sexy not OK then, but caving in to the man? Why are you only allowed to lose weight if it's necessary for health reasons? (If you did look at the Jezebel article, note the few comments that support weight loss cite exactly this reason.)

Also, I don't remember who said this -- Esofia? But I was laughing-crying at your comment that your friend's overweight was the subject of rude comments by her students. I was told by one of my grad students that my weight loss and diet (which I never brought up myself! She asked about it when she noticed it!) was setting a bad example to the university students, because it might promote eating disorders. Overweight or weight loss, EVERYONE has an opinion about it.

Yes, it was that very Jezebel article that set me off being ranty after your post, because it seems to have been the same situation in the congresswoman's case. She wasn't telling anyone else to lose weight, as far as I can tell from the information given (I admit I gave up after reading a few comments on that Jezebel post), she was just setting a goal for herself publicly, and asking for support. Which is a well-accepted tactic for losing weight or setting some other diffficult goal, which has worked for many people, and is much practiced on this very site. If she had announced publicly that she had decided to become a vegan and wanted support on her "journey", the Jezzie commenters, judging from much past evidence, would have praised her to the skies.

And probably my colleague would have praised me too if I had told her I had become a vegan instead of admitting I was calorie-counting. I am wiser now.

I would be happy to write for you, but as noted above, I am probably more ranty than articulate and educated about modern feminist matters, and don't know the jargon. I am willing to learn, though I am afraid I will not fall in line passively.
bronzeager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 06:04 AM   #48  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Esofia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,425

S/C/G: 128/127/110

Height: 4'11"

Default

Nah, that really isn't what I'd call ranty, at least not by the standards of the internet! There's nothing wrong with the odd bit of well-expressed indignation, and frankly quite a bit of indignation is due by now.

To everyone: I have been falling into that pattern women are trained into of agreeing with everyone in order to make nice, and I should probably spend less time doing this (because this post is going swimmingly and showing no signs of becoming a flame war) and more time thinking about what I want to happen. Right now, I am trying to finish reading Thin for Life before my support worker gets here so that I can lend it to her (we've ended up being unofficial weight loss buddies), plus I went mad typing yesterday and this is not bright when you are trying to get over RSI. So I will try to summarise this bit as briefly as I can and then come back tomorrow.

I'd like to start a feminist weight loss movement. I think it's necessary and I think a lot of women will find it very useful.

I'd like to start a group blog, because I think that can accomplish more than a single-person blog in some respects, and also it means that it's not a full-time job for any one person involved.

If other people want to start blogs or local groups or anything else at all on the subject, FANTASTIC. Starting a movement is more than one blog.

I think that doing something within the context of feminism is a good idea - we can argue over definitions of feminism later, folks. Something that is for women who choose to lose weight; something that has a positive, non-sexist attitude; something that is a space for women to be among other women, without excluding non-cisgendered people or barricading out the men in a separatist fashion.

Men get overweight just as much as women do, and while there is a definite need for a female space, there is also a need for support for men which recognises their specific issues, many of which spring from sexism just as much as women's do with regard to weight. (Thank you for your fantastic illustration of this, Kaplods.) And then there are issues which affect everyone regardless of gender, and there are also going to be issues which specifically affect people who are not cisgendered.

I'd like to offer up the uni LGBT society I was talking about in comment #34 as a model to consider. It started off as one big general society, using the term LGB at that time, and when I went along as a shy, closeted nineteen year old, there was a room full of men and precisely three women. So I fled for a while. Then they decided that this state of affairs was not precisely ideal, and they instituted a women's officer and a women's group. The women's group met on Mondays, the main meeting was on Tuesdays, and you got some women who went to one and not the other, but that was a good thing too, and the important thing is that we managed to get the male/female ratio up to 50:50 and the women felt like they had a good choice of places to be, suitable support, an atmosphere they enjoyed. Then after a while they realised that men have men-only issues too, and added a men's officer. They didn't bother setting up meetings for the men alone, because so much of the gay scene tends to be men-only that there was plenty on offer already. And after that, LGB became LGBT, and a transgendered officer appeared on the society committee. There weren't any groups for the trans students alone when I left, probably because the number of them was so small that they could all fit at someone's kitchen table, but their needs were carefully considered in the other groups, and non-student transgendered groups were growing in the city so there were other avenues of support. The women's officer ran the women's meetings, or rather we took turns taking the meetings and she was the one making sure we all did this. All three of the officers were responsible for befriending potential new members who were shy about coming alone and wanted the support of meeting up with someone in a cafe beforehand. There was a slight tendency for the men's officers and one or two of the women's officers to sleep with their befriendees, but hey, it wasn't exploitative and no system is perfect. If you see the uni LGBT society as the equivalent of the overall movement I want to create, and then the subgroups (formal or informal) as the equivalent of group blogs and the like, do you see where I'm going with this now?

By the way, the definitions I learnt at uni, and which I still like, are:

female - biological
feminine - social
feminist - political

While I agree that obesity in general very much needs its own support, we are sitting here talking about this in a huge forum that provides exactly that. I want to approach this from the angle of gender. Weight is already hugely defined by gender and sexism, affecting men as well as women, and other gender identities too.
So right now we have a highly sexist weight loss industry/mainstream approach, which is bad for everyone. We have the anti-weight loss Fat Acceptance movement, which is a subset of the feminist movement and very much not representative of how all feminists think, let alone all women, although it's fantastic when it comes to the rights-for-fat-people side of things. That's the history and situation that we're working with, it's already gendered up to the hilt.

I was originally thinking of Feminist Weight Loss for the movement, but a) that tends to exclude people who aren't women, and b) some people love feminism, some people are turned off by it. So we should see if we can come up with a good alternative title that indicates that gender is an issue without excluding anyone. Egalitarian Weight Loss? No, that sounds like "anyone can lose weight - ring us now for a free sample of diet pills!" Weight Loss for Gender Equality? "Lose fifty pounds and we'll change a piece of sexist legislation!" Non-Sexist Weight Loss? That's about as uninspiring as it gets. Blast, this may be tricky, and I'm getting drawn back to Feminist Weight Loss myself. Well, that's one to debate further.

That's the overall movement, at least the name and general purpose. Then we set up individual parts of that movement, and right now we're talking about blogs but it could be anything (and the movement will have a nice little logo we can all put on our websites). I'm trying to recruit people to join me in a group blog which will be a women-centred part of this movement. Other people can set up something for men only, or for transfolk, or for people with disabilities or people of colour or pagans or any other group, or for everyone together, but the point will be that this is about weight loss as it relates to gender. And if you want to set up something supportive for people who are losing weight, then that's also great, and you can always have a note somewhere saying, "We are friends of the people who want to lose weight in a positive fashion while examining gender constructs who can't think of a snappy name for themselves".

And maybe I'm trying to do this the wrong way around, and should just set up a group blog and call it Feminist Weight Loss because I really like that title, and let the movement grow out of that.
Esofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 06:23 AM   #49  
June
 
runningfromfat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brasil
Posts: 2,620

S/C/G: 240/184/155

Height: 5'6"

Default

I have to admit I'm a little lost when it comes to the women-only club. When Esofia wrote the original post I got the idea that she really wanted to find a middle ground between the beauty industry's ideal of perfection and the fat acceptance movement:

Quote:
One of the central paradoxes of weight loss is that dissatisfaction with being overweight is necessary to start the journey, but hating your body will sabotage it. And right now, the choices for women seem to be either the highly anti-feminist camp that pushes unrealistic ideals of thinness on women along with a host of body image issues that make a healthy weight very difficult to achieve, or the Fat Acceptance movement which is fabulously feministy in all sorts of ways, including promoting loving your body, but which holds that diets don't work and that we should just learn to be happy about being fat.
I assumed that the feminist slant would be because the Fat acceptance movement associates itself with feminism and the beauty industry, well, many parts of it could be seen as pretty anti-feminist (you can just see my latest blog post for a great example!). However, this place in the middle ground, well, it's needed really for society as a whole.

Like Kaplods, my DH and I started at very similar BMI's (albeit very different heights) and I've seen the way others have treated him. Strangers off the street have made comments about his weight (something that has NEVER happened to me) and coworkers have told him he needs to lose weight (again something that never happened to me). Now that he's started losing (although it was almost a year after I started) he's actually been told that he "looks smarter". His weight amongst friends/family has always been a topic of conversation and for some reason mine was always off-limits or never interesting enough to discuss?

Another thing too... I work in a very male-dominated industry. I have to agree that is really does depend on your assertiveness/voice/speaking style when it comes to being heard. When I just started I was pretty shy and unsure of myself. Not so much a problem anymore and I've never had problems asking questions/talking to others. However, I have seen guys who definitely get drowned out/talked over.

I wonder if part of the reason that women get talked over more is that to some extent this is a learned trait. I had the almost exact opposite experience to kaplods in that I had two very influential people in my life (who were not related to me biologically) who were very well-spoken/assertive people (one male, one female) whereas my biological parents are definitely not assertive.

I've just never had the experience of males being heard more than women so I really can't speak to that.
runningfromfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 07:10 AM   #50  
Senior Member
 
JessLess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 854

S/C/G: 250/168/150

Height: 5'7"

Default

I'm extremely interested in this. I have blogged quite a bit about it on my own and would be interested in joining in.

Just to clarify what JohnP posted, Health at Every Size does not mean everyone is healthy at any size. It means that you can work to be as healthy at any size. Your size does not have to be an impediment to trying to be healthy. It means you can exercise because you enjoy the way it makes you feel, not to punish yourself for not being thinner.
JessLess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 07:26 AM   #51  
Leveling Up
 
sontaikle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 3,651

S/C/G: 200+/115/115

Height: 5'3"

Default

While we can certainly argue about the idea of men contributing till the cows come home, we should acknowledge that men do have their own issues with weight as well. There IS a body image issue there for them, but to put it at the same level as what women face is problematic. Its' very, very different. Much of the hate against obese people is in fact rooted in sexism and the desire for many to "not see" fat women because they aren't considered "attractive."

I think I have a bit of a unique perspective here as I've worked in two very different industries—Tech and Education—one male dominated and one female dominated. It's been very eye-opening to see the gender divide and how both genders' ideas are treated when virtually equal otherwise. It's also been quite interesting to see how weight plays a role in both industries.

In the Tech industry, I've seen my ideas overshadowed for a man's—or most interestingly a thin woman's—and I really don't believe I was a shy, timid thing. I was loud and made sure my voice was heard. However I noticed that I and the other not conventionally attractive women were often pushed aside and the men's ideas were listened to first and the attractive woman second. It was frustrating, but the Tech industry is quite known for its sexism. I can't say that it was the reason for me leaving as I haven't left the industry entirely (I still love it), but subconsciously it may have played a part. Then again, I also hated sitting at a desk for eight hours, so there's that.

In education (especially elementary education, where I am) where it is overwhelmingly female dominated, I find that it often depends on personality type when it comes to the lone man's opinion. I've noticed some women falling over themselves to accomodate the one man, while the others simply treat him as an equal. More often than not, in education (where I have worked anyway) the man is simply another educator with another opinion or idea. His ideas don't get heard overs others. It's got more to do with age and experience in education (at least where I am). Weight also appears to play a small role too as I've have seen some obese teachers rise to the top and some thin ones cast aside. In Education it often seems to be more about how well you teach rather than your appearance. This is certainly not true everywhere, but in the schools I have been in, this is what I've seen.

There is a big stigma against Special Education Teachers, but that's a discussion for another time and place.


Quote:
Originally Posted by runningfromfat View Post
I have to admit I'm a little lost when it comes to the women-only club. When Esofia wrote the original post I got the idea that she really wanted to find a middle ground between the beauty industry's ideal of perfection and the fat acceptance movement:
This is what I got from it too. It seems that right now women often have two choices—starve yourself down to thinness or accept that you'll be fat forever. If you try to choose a healthy middle ground, you're a traitor to the fat acceptance movement, yet not thin enough for society's ideal.

In the Fat Acceptance movement, you're often considered a traitor if you lose weight for any variety of reasons, even if you claim health. I have seen a few FA bloggers move away from that point of view though, and perhaps it is signaling a shift in that movement and a greater understanding that women can and should be able to freely choose to lose weight if they wish. However, for the majority of the FA movement, it truly seems as if it is a "thin vs. fat" mentality. If you get to the "thin" side, you're a traitor.

We really need a middle ground. I was part of the FA movement but wound up leaving simply because I knew I would get ripped apart when my weight loss became known. I was already on the outside as it is; the FA movement often doesn't look too kindly on "inbetweenies" or those sizes 14-18 as they can generally shop in regular stores, don't face as much discrimination, etc. Yet they have a host of their own issues, but they're frequently pushed aside! I understand that a size 14 woman generally has different issues than a size 26 woman, but their desire for acceptance regardless of what their body type is certainly leaves both wanting the same thing. When you're in that size group though, you generally feel as if you're cast aside. Not fat enough to be considered fat, yet not thin enough to be considered "normal"—for lack of a better term.

Last edited by sontaikle; 10-22-2011 at 07:27 AM.
sontaikle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 02:00 PM   #52  
Senior Member
 
MariaMaria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,350

Default

Saying that women who are overtalked are essentially talking wrong is blaming the victim. Just because you have not experienced this particular form of sexism does not mean that it does not exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontaikle View Post
In education (especially elementary education, where I am) where it is overwhelmingly female dominated, I find that it often depends on personality type when it comes to the lone man's opinion.
But most of those women in elementary education (70% of classroom teachers are female, according to google) work for men. (The most recent data I'm finding in a quick google is 88% men as of 1998, quoted in Susan Katz on hiceducation.org). That's a big disconnect that I find hard to believe is entirely based on qualifications and gender-neutral measureable achievement, you know?
MariaMaria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 03:52 PM   #53  
Super Squish
 
Princess Squish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 105

S/C/G: 290/254/170

Height: 5'

Default

I'm VERY interested in this. I have my own blog. It's a blogspot blog called ThisFatMom, if you wanna check it out.
If I'm not a featured writer I sure will be a behind the scenes stalker.. I mean reader!
Princess Squish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 04:19 PM   #54  
Senior Member
 
Rana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,206

S/C/G: 189/186.8/160 (restart)

Height: 5'5"

Default

I'm interested in this too. As I get older, I do get more experiences that make me want to reach out to other women and support them because there is a bias, cultural, societal, etc.

So, sign me up for anything else that's needed.
Rana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 05:24 PM   #55  
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,383

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MariaMaria View Post
Saying that women who are overtalked are essentially talking wrong is blaming the victim. Just because you have not experienced this particular form of sexism does not mean that it does not exist.
I was not saying that women who are overtalked are communicating wrong, any more than I'm saying that men who are overtalked are wrong. But neither do I believe a more assertive communication style is wrong, especially since there's quite a good deal of evidence in the psycholinguistic research that suggests that a large component of communication style and other personality traits are probably hardwired. And cultural training accounts for much of the difference as well.

It's not just women who can be at the disadvantage in a communication situation. Cultural differences, even in second, third and even later generations can put a person at a disadvantage.

It's important that people with different communication styles, learn to communicate well together - which for some may require learning to be more assertive, and for others may require learning to step back - or to use their assertiveness strengths to actively seek out the opinions of the quieter and more reluctant speakers. Blaming ineffective communication on anyone - the quieter people or the louder ones, the males or the females, people in the majority culture or the minority subcultures are all counterproductive.


I'm just saying that some of our beliefs about blame for gender (or other) inequalities are skewed by our own experiences, but that also our experiences are skewed by our own beliefs.


If you assume that men have more power than women, you will see ample proof of that, but if you assume that women have more power than men, you will see proof of that as well.

I was raised in an extremely matriarchal family. While gender roles were fairly traditional in terms of the division of labor (men went to work, women stayed home) it was the women who were in charge of everything. The women had all the power over the financial, domestic, and child-rearing decisions. The male role was to provide the family income, occasionally provide child care, but to otherwise stay out of the women's way. The men were treated essentially as idiots, incapable of dressing in the morning without the women's input.

To this day, my mother believes that my husband must be abusive because he dares to ever voice opinions that contradicts mine, and I must be weak, because I allow him to (forgetting that I don't back down to her, so why would I back down to my husband when she's ten times as agressive as my marshmallow hubby). So he's an abusive jerk, and I'm a weakwilled pawn because I don't constantly scream at him, berate him, or complain about what an imbecile he is. That I let him out of the house without my constant supervision is a subject of scandal in both our families and even in our circle of friends, because I don't assume that all men will cheat on their wives at the first opportunity.

The "battle of the sexes" has become so cliche, that whenever a man and a woman get along, it seems to be assumed that it's because the woman is subjegating her will to the man.

I do know that it can happen. I've seen and worked with abuse victims of both genders and in both hetero and same-gender relationships. When it's male on male, female on female, or female on male, the abuse often isn't taken seriously. Even law enforcement laughs at non-traditional domestic violence victims, because they don't see the power-differential as being as serious as when it's perpetrated by a man against a woman.

I know this doesn't relate directly to the issue of gender-role and weight loss, but gender-roles and personal-power issues are so complex that the waters are always going to get muddied, especially in a world where even gender itself is not always easily or clearly defined.

The distinctions between gender and gender roles has become analogous to the art/pornography debate - we can't define it, but we're confident we'll know it when we see it. And while most people feel that way, no one seems to draw the line in exactly the same place.

And that's where excluding "males" and the male perspective can get tricky when "male" isn't always as simple as "someone with a penis..." and when the ideals of feminism can range from equal oppotunity only in business arenas, egalitarian gender-equality in all things to engineering a militant female-dominant matriarchal society.
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2011, 05:10 AM   #56  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Esofia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,425

S/C/G: 128/127/110

Height: 4'11"

Default

We're not planning to exclude males or other-gendered people, we're just planning to make this women-centred, OK? Could we please put the discussions about "feminists are man-haters who want women to rule the world" to bed now? Because that's a small fringe group, and to dismiss a large movement because of a few radicals who don't officially speak for it is like saying that Quakers must be mad homophobes who routinely beat children and do appalling things to women because that's what a few Christian cults are doing, or like saying that black people all hate white people because you came across a few extremely hacked-off individuals being snippy on the internet. The objective here is to examine how gender roles/constructs/etc. interact with weight, to be supportive in general, and to provide a space for women in particular. That's all. (The world domination plans are on the back burner, so shhh, we don't want the word getting out.) I am not throwing out over a century of incredibly hard work for women's rights because some people don't like the word "feminist"!

And I know that's not what you're saying, Kaplods, but you seem to be worried that we're not looking at the stuff you're raising, when actually that's exactly what I want to look at and why I am trying to woo you into joining us in this project. Lack of complexity and a tendency to oversimplify are two of the main things which are wrong with the other discourses currently existing on the subject of weight and gender. You're also dead right to point out that some things have become weirdly turned around in a manner that isn't liberating anybody, and that clichés are starting to take over (and bore everyone rigid, amongst other problems).

Anyway, I actually came online to say that I really have been a noodle and overdone the typing so that the RSI is flaring up a bit, so while there are lots of things I am dying to respond to in this thread, I need to take today off typing. People who are interested in joining this project: that's wonderful, send me a PM telling me a bit about yourself, link me to blogs or other writing you have online, your ideas for the project, that sort of thing, and I'll get back into all this in a day or two so that we can get to know each other and work out how we want to set this all up.
Esofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2011, 06:11 AM   #57  
June
 
runningfromfat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brasil
Posts: 2,620

S/C/G: 240/184/155

Height: 5'6"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esofia View Post
Anyway, I actually came online to say that I really have been a noodle and overdone the typing so that the RSI is flaring up a bit, so while there are lots of things I am dying to respond to in this thread, I need to take today off typing. People who are interested in joining this project: that's wonderful, send me a PM telling me a bit about yourself, link me to blogs or other writing you have online, your ideas for the project, that sort of thing, and I'll get back into all this in a day or two so that we can get to know each other and work out how we want to set this all up.
Take it easy. While I think we all find this discussion interesting, you have to make your health a priority. Isn't this one of the biggest reason we're all here anyways?
runningfromfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2011, 06:17 PM   #58  
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,383

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

I definitely didn't mean to even suggest that "man-hating" was part of anyone's agenda. Rather, I was trying initially just to respond to the "overtalking" issue particularly the accusation of "blaming the victim," and my natural tendency to delve into "complexities" ran away with me.

And in giving examples of the breadth of definitions for feminism, I wasn't trying to endorse or criticize any particular definition (especially a "militant" or extreme one).

I'm not worried about not being heard, it's just that I get so focused on exploring complexities, that I get lost in the "devil's advocate" position, or in trying to precisely define vague concepts, or in trying to clarify or defend my position in response to critique. I can lose the "main topic" very easily.

Getting and staying on point, without getting sidetracked by a minor point, has always been difficult for me. I tend to delve into the complexities of a subject or a minor point (or even the precise definition of a word) to the point that it can be counterproductive (and actually that's a bit of an understatement. It can be so random that in a spoken conversation, I'll often be asked "what the ****, are you talking about?!).

I also bring my own emotional baggage to the topic, which I also tried to acknowledge, and describe (without falling into the well of getting carried away with the topic).

To clarify, (not that anyone has accused me of this), I don't have a problem with the word feminism, I have a problem with it's indefineable nature. That's not really true either (see here's an example of my anal need to clarify, rather than just move on). Rather, I have a problem with the fact that the widely differing coceptualizations and definitions of feminism, so often leads to conflict and dissension over the definitions and makes "common ground" difficult. I guess I'm stressing over what has not yet occurred (but which I've experienced so many times, that I fear it's inevitable).

Feminism, or even "the female viewpoint," often becomes a minefield topic, because we're not all talking about the same thing (and often the definitions themselves ends up being debated - or whose feminism is the "right" feminism).

I have the same issue with all concepts that have many interpretations (even far less emotionally complex ones like "low-carb.")

On the low-carb threads here, I've gotten very frustrated with the inevitable battles over whose definition of low-carb is the correct one - who is and who is not following a low-cdarb diet, and whether or not low-carb is "healthy" (which often is a pointless debate because no one agrees on the definitions of low-carb, or for that matter healthy), and other semantics debates (and yet semantics ARE important, because if we're not agreeing on the definition, how can we be sure we're talking about the same thing? Especially when it's often clear that we're not).

My experience with discussions on the topic of "feminism" or even "feminine" is that the discussions very often don't get very far, because of the debate over definitions, and personal attacks by way of accusations and need to assign "blame," rather than finding solutions or common ground.

I find it annoying when someone tells me that I'm "not low-carbing" because my diet doesn't fit their definition of "low-carb," but my ego and identity aren't wrapped up in it, so I can be more objective.

However, I do get extremely upset and offended when I or anyone else is directly or by implication accused of "not being a feminist" (or not being the right kind of feminist). I'm not saying anyone here has made that accusation, I am just a bit gun-shy of the topic because it happens so frequently (heck even on the low-carb topic, it's frustrating).

And maybe that's something we can address directly in the blog - perhaps a ground rule that we're not going to predetermine that we all must agree on the definition of the terminology, and that when we disagree, it will not be done in a blaming, accusatory or excluding manner (no - you're not a feminist if you don't agree that ...).

Last edited by kaplods; 10-24-2011 at 08:09 PM.
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2011, 01:50 PM   #59  
Senior Member
 
Rana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,206

S/C/G: 189/186.8/160 (restart)

Height: 5'5"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaplods View Post
And maybe that's something we can address directly in the blog - perhaps a ground rule that we're not going to predetermine that we all must agree on the definition of the terminology, and that when we disagree, it will not be done in a blaming, accusatory or excluding manner (no - you're not a feminist if you don't agree that ...).
I think is an important point.

To resolve Kaplods' desire to find a true definition, I'll argue that it's impossible. Language is imprecise and we are imprecise beings, even when we attempt to be precise.

I think the value is in the variety of voices are focused on one subject manner, such as what is means to be in a "feminist weight loss movement" and what that means to each person, without having to define it ahead of time.

We have to accept that each of our definitions might be slightly different and can even change over time, and as long as the fit within the general, broader perspective, then it should be fine.

There is value to saying that you're part of a feminist weight loss movement or even low-carb dieting, even if you definition of it is slightly different than another one's definition of what means. Ultimately, both (all) are identifying with those words and that higher meaning identification is the crux of the matter, I think, rather than how precise the definition is or isn't.
Rana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2011, 01:54 PM   #60  
Brighter than the moon!
 
stellarosa27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 3,653

S/C/G: 220/ticker/145

Height: 5'4

Default

How about a "humanist" movement, instead of "feminist"
stellarosa27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intuitive Eating #13 carolr3639 General Diet Plans and Questions 502 07-06-2011 04:24 PM


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:50 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.