Fat and Not Afraid

As I'm running out the door, enjoy this! Big Girl, You Are Beautiful! by Mika

GIANT trigger warning for fat hate, violent rhetoric and imagery, and racist language.

Today has been a rough day with my local Occupy. It started with a long, heated conversation about using violent and/or eliminationist language, a conversation that lasted nearly all day even though I was at work, (see below for a transcript if you dare) and now, browsing through the photos from the Eco March last weekend, I found this:

Mentally I'm exhausted. I'm saddened and disappointed to be fighting with supposed progressives about whether or not saying they want to scalp someone is actually racist, or if it's just me being offended. It doesn't matter how articulate, reasonable or accurate I am, I get shot down.

I'm tired of letting things slide that I know I shouldn't, but am letting them slide because I knew this kind of day would happen; I'm too sensitive, I'm censoring people, there's freedom of speech in this country you know! So I should just say nothing when someone says "The thing that pisses me off is that we didn't scalp Gordon Campbell as he waddled his useless ass off to Europe." or use the terms 'crazy' or 'nuts' to talk about people they don't like or don't agree with. I should say nothing in the face of this particular sign because of course she doesn't mean ME or any of the other fat folks who are a part of Occupy, she means those OTHER fat people, the bad ones who eat bad food and ruin the planet with their over-consumption.(Of course, I did leave a comment on it saying "Nice to know us fat people are to blame for the world's ills. Makes me feel really welcome!" Just waiting for the backlash on that.) Edited to add: Comments now include "Truth hurts, life goes on" and, as I knew there would be "oh, she didn't mean it/mean it that way." And now, well, the sign is only aimed at the fat 1%. So I guess it's ok to attack rich fat people, but not rich middle class or poor people.

The thing that's REALLY REALLY bugging me is that, although I have repeatedly said that I think Occupy can be better than it is, and that's why I'm bringing this stuff up, it comes back to me being unreasonable, a censor, an enemy to free speech. I let the thread where the argument originally happened die because derailing the entire page for it because of 2 people arguing with me wasn't worth it.  So we took it to the internet specific group where one of the guys wanted to talk about moderator's personal opinions having too much sway, and that we should just stick to our basic guidelines. These are my responses to various posts by various people, with thier comments paraphrased as I don't actually have permission to repost them whole. I'm plunking it here to help me get it off my chest and also to show what I'm up against in a supposedly progressive space like Occupy. 

Me: I'd just like to say that I've actually let a lot of stuff slide that, if I thought for a second anyone would back me up on it, I would've said something about it. I've been, IMO, lenient and let a lot of things go that in a more truly progressive space, would be called out. Asking people not to use racist, homophobic, abelist, or sexist language, or violent rhetoric, isn't censorship or limiting their right to freedom of expression. It's asking them to have some basic compassion and thought for what they actually post on our wall. It's challenging their privilege, thier supposed right to use language that's oppressive, and ya, people get defensive (because noone likes to get called on this stuff) but that's how we grow (hopefully). Is it REALLY that hard to think of a better word or different phrase than 'scalping'? Is it REALLY so difficult to not use language that is steeped deeply in racial oppression? I don't think so, because if it IS, Occupy Nanaimo isn't nearly as progressive and open minded as I thought it was.
P.s I'm not offended by the term 'scalping', I'm contemptuous. I dont' give a flying fuck if someone is offended by what I write, anywhere, but I AM concerned with harm. Using racially loaded terms like scalping hurts us as a movement and alienates our First Nation allies. It was a real thing done to real people. It's not an abstract concept from the distant past. Scalping took place well into the 20th century, and there are STILL places in the world where simply being First Nations will get you attacked, especially if you live somewhere that a big company wants to mine or deforest."

In return I got "But scalping was done in Europe by white people to other white people!" and that how you use a word is more important than what the word actually means. "Meaning is use specific".

Me: Sorry **** but words mean things. It's not 'just' language, or are you going to argue that someone who uses the word 'nigger' on our page can go ahead and do that? I mean, it's 'just' language, right?

After THAT I got "well how YOU see the word doesn't actually make it wrong" and "scalping was just 1 of many bad things that happened. Are we never allowed to mention those?"  And then he got pissy with me for using the N-word to make my point about language, and told to 'grow the fuck up'. Charming!

Me: Whether it's scalping or lynching, another historically racist act, my broader point that people are missing is that this violent eliminationist language is not acceptable for a progressive space. That's the kind of language the violent and ignorant use. Are we stupid or ignorant? No, because I've clearly explained things. At this point the only arguement that can be made for continuing to use/allow that kind of language is privilege. "Well I can say this stuff because it doesn't affect ME. I'M not racist! I'm not REALLY advocating violence!" It's just so much easier to keep using this language than to THINK, isnt' it?

More about freedom of speech, as long as it's not hate speech, and how wrong I am, how ignorant, defensive and close minded I am, and how dare I use the n-word just to 'win' at a debate! 

Me: Ok, let's pretend for a moment that I'm coming from an advanced, progressive and feminist space and actually know what I'm talking about. Let's pretend I've spent years studying and debating and talking about this, living it and writing about it. Now that we're all on the same page, please try to understand; this isn't about winning a debate, it's about working with our group to get rid of its defensiveness, ignorance and close-mindedness surrounding certain language. The wonderful thing about freedom of speech is it allows you to really see where a person's coming from. What we say and how we say it matters. Words mean things, and it's not just my opinion that scalping, or lynching, is an oppressive, racially loaded word, it's fact. The really troubling thing for ME, as a progressive, as a First Nations ally, as a feminist and as a moderator of this space, is that anyone is actually DEFENDING their ability to use this language. To me, it's reprehensible and tells me a lot more about you (general you/them) than it does about me. I cannot condone the use of violent, eliminationist language on our page, for any reason. Aren't we better than that?

Apparently not, because immediately following that I'm told that I'm 'parading around like one of our trolls' and that the page is a free and open space where people can say whatever they please. Again I'm being told I'm 'offended' by the original scalping comment, and that words only have value/meaning if you give it to them. This guy's not going to go all 1984 on our pages by censoring people, oh no he's not! It's just me who's got the problem.

Me: Parading around? Really? Making a strong argument that none of you have actually been able to refute is 'parading'? Should I get myself a trombone and a shiny hat? Maybe some nice boots to go with it? It's a free and open space that can be better than it is. Thats' all I'm asking for really, is that people THINK before they post. I expect more, I expect better, from a supposedly progessive and open-minded space like Occupy. My standards, they are high, but like I've said, I've also let other language slide in the past because I didn't want to rock the boat. Why? I KNEW that this discussion we're having, this dog-piling on me about language, would happen. But I can't swallow that shit anymore, so here we are.

A while later Parading came back with "We're doing what?" and basically that policing language in this way is outside admin/mod duties, and that hey, I shouldn't allow words to have negative meanings. Seriously? *sigh*

Me: Again, you're missing my entire point. It's not my personal opinion that saying "I wish I'd scapled so and so" is racist and oppressive and violent. That's reality. Its' a fact. I'm saying that there's no place for that kind of language in Occupy. It is incredibly close minded to continue to want to use that kind of language in the face of the arguements I've presented. It's not just my personal preference here, it's years of experience in actual progressive spaces, with actual progressives. It's distrubing to me that you and everyone else who's responded to this thread has sidestepped my point of "But don't you think Occupy should be BETTER THAN THAT?" with "But free speech!" Or "Just don't take it so personally, Jen" or "words don't really have meanings!", with that last one taking the absolute verbal cake. Words have meanings. Just because those meanings don't make YOU personally uncomfortable doesnt' indicate that the words themselves are empty syllables. If we're actually serious about making Occupy a safe and open space for everyone, we need to be serious about what kind of language we present.

And now more 'but scalping isn't a racist term!' and 'it's just an expressive comment, not a threat!'

Me: Words aren't racist? Really? What about cracker? Kike? Chink? Gook? Wagon-burner? Sand-nigger? Towel head? Those are all racist terms. They're racist no matter who says them, though context is important. As with swearing, there's a difference between calling someone an obvious racial epithet and using it as an example, as I have done. According to M I should be allowed to use this language on the page because hey, words don't really mean things! If someone gets mad, I'll just tell them not to let my words affect them negatively, right? I should also be allowed to say "God, I wish someone could just go shoot Harper in the face." or "Man, I wish someone would bomb Parliament and wipe out all those politicians who are messing things up for this country." Or how about "Geeze, I wish someone would beat the crap out of Bill Gates. That guy's such a jerk for having all that money." I'm not *directly* saying that *I* want to go do these things, so it's OK! I'm only wishing harm on people, it's not a big deal, and it's not like noone's ever heard violent rhetoric before and then decided to follow through! That's NEVER HAPPENED. (That was sarcasm, btw).

More as it develops, or not. Tomorrow is Friday, so thank Goddess for that.

When you google the words 'childhood obesity canada' the first site that comes up is the Childhood Obesity Foundation, a registered British Columbia charity that's "dedicated to educating Canadian children, their families and care givers, educators, business and government about the problem of childhood obesity." As a website it's bright and colourful, well laid out and easy to navigate. The other day I went straight to the Facts/Complications of Childhood Obesity section to see what was in there and it didn't disappoint: did you know obesity can lead to dementia? Me neither! However, under the "Who's At Risk" section, buried under the usual calories in, calories out arguement, were these reasons a child might be overweight or obese: 

• comes from a family of overweight people where genetics may be a factor, especially if healthy eating and physical activity are not a priority in the family
• comes from a low-income family who do not have the resources or time to make healthy eating and active living a priority
• has a genetic disease or hormone disorder such as Prader-Willi syndrome or Cushing's syndrome

Well huzzah! Something based in reality and studies, not stereotypes! The site also acknowledges here that kids who are overweight or obese face a lot of social stigma, bullying and are at risk of depression and suicide. Just ask the kids in Georgia what that's like.

Under "What Familes Can Do" there is a 5-2-1-0 plan, where 5 is for servings of fruits and veg, 2 is the maximum amount of screen time a day, 1 is the desired amount of hours of physical activity per day, and 0 is the number of sugary drinks kids should have.  There is also a list of other things, like be authoritative when it comes to meal times, snacks, etc, don't set your kids up to 'fail' by keeping junk food in the house, and have a healthy pregnancy, as both underweight and overweight infants can become obese. (The only study I've seen shows that infants who are hungry in the womb go on to put on 'extra' weight because their body is deep in survival mode and never really leaves it.) Finally, at the very bottom, is a note on diets. Again, this is a positive thing and if it were my site it'd be at the top of the page.

"Placing a normal or overweight child on a diet is known to harm a child’s health. It can affect their normal growth and development, and damage their delicate self-esteem. Focusing on a child’s weight can stigmatize a child and may cause further over-eating. Focus on the child, not their weight. Regardless of your child’s weight or shape, help them to love and respect themselves by praising their skills and strengths."

The entire Schools section is a repeat of the 5-2-1-0 thing, but under Government is something a bit scary. The Childhood Obesity Foundation thinks that the government of Canada needs to fund more obesity treatment centres, lamenting that there are only a 'handful' across the country. What is an obesity treatment centre? That sounds like a specialized fat camp to me! Nothing says "love your kids just the way they are" than sending them away to a treatment centre to 'fix' them, especially when noone knows how to permanently make a fat person thin.

On the Board of Directors are doctors, lots and lots of doctors, and a lawyer, all here in my very own province of British Columbia. Their Mission Statement is as follows:

The mission of the Childhood Obesity Foundation is to identify, evaluate and promote best practices in healthy nutrition and physical activity to reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity.

The vision of the Childhood Obesity Foundation is children and youth of Canada free of chronic diseases that ensue from obesity.

Good luck, folks (and I mean that sarcastically) as there have always been, and always will be, fat people. Somehow I think these doctors have forgotten that correlation does not equal causation. Even if every kid in the country followed the 5-2-1-0 rules, had a neighbourhood where they could go play and be safe outside, had parents who could afford healthy nutritious food at every meal, had time then to eat those meals with their kids, do every single good thing to promote health and not thinness, there would still be fat kids! Then what are they going to do? Throw them in an obesity treatment centre?

Overall the site is definitely not something I would send a friend too if they wanted info on childhood obesity. It's a lot of scare-mongering wrapped up in assumptions and I think might do more harm than good, despite the little gems of 'no diets' and 'fat can be genetic or economic/class related' hidden away in there. Is there a childhood obesity website out there written by a FA person? If there isn't, I know what my next project will be, and I know just who to get to help me out.

In the meantime, here's a pic of Gabe telling the COF to chill out.

There is so much fail going on at this website I barely even know where to start. There is so much fail I'm not done writing my post yet, and must finish it on my lunch break! (Remember, I'm on Pacific time) For now, I leave you with this little teaser: did you know that obesity leads to dementia? Me neither!