Thursday, 5 March 2015

Toytown Eugenicists

There's a certain odd kind of privilege-I mean the general not the political kind- to this 'obesity' crusade. To see the thoughts people normally keep in check dribbling out like a previously repressed oil slick. Few rules, few courtesies ensure 'obesity' is the point where that pressure lessens so much that what tends to be unspoken elsewhere bursts forth.

 Sadly all this "free speech" isn't leading to the intellectual advance we're usually promised. .

In this case, it hasn't become stimulating. It hasn't stirred everyone up out of their entrenched complacency -its all just dumped on fat people, like so much garbage. Instead of the unmentionable coming to the fore to be aired, discussed and perhaps some useful resolution emerging. It lands in the usual fat phobic cul-de-sac to fester and produce mal-air.

You've probably twigged that one of the central triumphs of western medicine is that it stops "natural selection"-which isn't quite a simple as is conveyed- from having quite such a clear run. At the same time natural selection doesn't simply or only kill off what's deemed unhealth/ imperfection, as much because that's often the other side of what's deemed perfection/healthy.

The extent that it does fly in the face of NS was supposed to be an admirable aspect of its civility and progressiveness- some think we've maxed out that courtesy.

Dr. David Archer an academic exclaims;
When a mother is inactive and obese, their baby grows massive. The baby can’t get through the birth canal, and the doctor has to perform a C-section. ‘That allows both the mother and foetus to survive, when previously they would have died.’
I'll bet he teaches a class and a half. Prematurity is more likely in lower weight women and in the now recommended low weight gain. Plus premature/low weight babies are said to be more likely to become 'obese' in adulthood.

Archer expands [geddit?]
‘The evolutionary consequence is we are getting much bigger children than ever in the history of mankind.’
I'm not an expert on evolution, but I thought it was supposed to happen over millions of years;
Professor David Haslam, a former GP specialising in obesity, said: “We have an epidemic now where we have mums who are fat having fat babies. In this way we are devolving as a population instead of evolving and that’s very dangerous.”
Fat women are devolving man actually woman kind? Wait till the 'pro-lifers' and the mra's get a hold of that one. It's one thing to hit the sherry, but when the sherry hits you back, cork it. I have this one as my favourite though;
Tam Fry, of the National Obesity Forum, said: “It’s a vicious circle because the fat mother is going to produce a fat child who is going to grow up into a fat adult who is going to produce their own fat child. It just goes round and round and round.”
Zomg, fat, fatty, fatso, fatastical, fatasmogoric, fattality, fattalistical fatness. It's almost as if there's........ some kind of......... connection. A tie between people of the same kin.... It's as if parents are passing something on to their children..... Not genes silly bad habits.

I can laugh at people under the influence as much as the next woman, but when folk start having intellectual breakdowns, busting out the toytown eugenics. Someone needs to stage an intervention-if some of you guys do not get a hold of yourselves-this isn't going to end well.

Time for a history lesson

Wednesday, 4 March 2015


Did you know they're branding  babies 'obese'? I didn't. It's been happening for years, the numbers classed as such are even being monitored by the government. In the past larger babies were called- macrosomic-"big bodied." More recently, its been decided that above 9lbs 15oz or 4500g are to be dubbed "medically obese" as if putting a meaningless "medically" in front of that will somehow legitimize the continued indulgence of pathologization and weight tribalism to babies;
"Despite these so-called risk factors for macrosomia, much of the variation in birth weights remains unexplained. Most infants who weigh more than 4,500 grams [9 pounds, 15 ounces] have no identifiable risk factors," says Allahyar Jazayeri, M.D., medical director of Perinatal Services and High Risk Pregnancy at Bellin Health Hospital Center in Green Bay, Wisconsin. 
Those above 8lbs 13oz [3997grams] are also being dubbed "overweight."

And yeah, this is in utero too. Babies are monitored for size as ever, but now they'll be able to be pathologized before they even exit the womb. What comes next? Low calorie/high protein baby milk? A breast feeding diet/regime in order to water down the milk produced, make it low fat? What about baby aerobics? Though infants have been shown to use up an outstanding amount of energy pound for pound/gram for gram-perhaps they can develop equipment to help them go for the burn. Leave them in cold rooms to encourage their brown fat?

Or how's about putting drugs into their milk? And if they're "morbidly obese"-if that hasn't arrived, I'm sure that's coming-they can have their little stomach's removed. Babies sicking up milk will no longer be a hazard of wind. It will be desired part of the "tool" that is gastrectomy as starvation aide.

Goodness knows, babies need those who hold and surround them to be transmitting the un-ease and disgust of 'obesity' to them. That's called m-o-t-i-v-a-t-i-o-n right?

What a triumph of "public health" that promises.

Another notable tack, picked up in the comments is how this is set to add more layers of panic to the experience of pregnancy and childbirth. Not only do mothers have to worry about their weight, their weight gain during pregnancy, now they must worry about their babies weight being seen as too high. Another area of variance is now to be caricatured and descend into the ever hungry orgy of blame.When will that ever suffice?

You'd think advancing on self control that those indulging in this could control themselves in just one area. That they could leave the children out of it but no, they have lost any real control over their damn selves. They wish to pit their foul malodourous assaults against babes.That's such a fair fight for these quisling cowards.

Public health politicos as usual don't seem to be considering the cumulative impact of this endless pile up of anxiety around pregnancy. They take responsibility for nothing, feeling only the liberation of all power and little consequence. Any part this pressure plays in increasing the risk of birth trauma, will no doubt be blamed on 'obesity.' Something has to create what they've talked up. 

Thinking of any thing like the levels of anxiety many of us have experience about being fat, having to find ways to get your body to accept starvation.....thinking about that being introduced into pregnancy makes my blood run cold.

The press are quick to find out how many, but don't bother to scrutinize "obesity science." How much money has been pissed away put into that, to so little use? No go on tell me DM or Sunday Mirror how much has the UK government spent on "obesity research" in the last 4 or even 2 decades? Ever fancy putting in a request for that? Why do the press have no interest in its utter uselessness, irrelevance and rank absence of vocation?

Why don't they challenge their hysterical pronouncements with even the most primitive of reasoning?

And how about mentioning the children (and adults) with hypothalamic obesity and how they need actual answers, rather than agit-prop? And that due to the absence of a progressive objective scientific approach, they have to rely on the same punishment as those they're able to set up as "at fault"? Or do they not count either? Does science or medicine not matter to you blasted hacks?

Hopefully, the sensitivity of fat haters to what attacks even them, will increase people's resistance, defiance and decrease the respect they accord those who show such a reckless disregard for the health of those who depend on us for everything-babies.

It only seems like yesterday when people were people, children were children and babies were babies.

Now, 'obese' is inserted in front of that at every possible opportunity. This has become so divisive that people find it harder and harder to recognize the same characteristics fat and slim people share. At first this was fake, this was pretense. With time, fake it till you make it is now making it. The constancy of pathology of fatness distorts everything from ordinariness to eccentricity, health to pathology turning all into accusation.

Presumably that's why babies cannot be left out of this crap. There must be no chance for the jarring of contrast. It could wake people up to the madness of all this. 

There's no way this is about health. This has become a drive to use biology to divide people into groups, turning weight into an identity-setting people against each other rather than looking at the hand that's working the strings. It's divide and rule. And the free press seeks to collaborate with this like an adjunct.

Branding babes in the womb is a way distorting owning them mentally from the get go. Before they can even begin to defend themselves, they're smothered in inferiority and self loathing, so they know no other way and cannot change their mindset-or "depression" as it's condescendingly cast. It's not "depression" if you're aware of a messed up situation that stays messed up you dimwits.

Depression is a nervous system imbalance/dysfunction, not the realization that people are gunning for your physical and mental health from all sides, for no good reason. Well done self serving public health warriors.

Tuesday, 3 March 2015

Discrimination is Theft

Well isn't it often the way that areas you'd not particularly warmed too would be the ones to take a stand. The burlesque (revival?) isn't my thing, but I must congratulate its denizens and supporters for giving what for on the club Lucky Pierre's decision to fire a performer called Ruby Rage, for being erm, voluptuous.

Ms Rage, who could hardly be classed as fat, given so many so called "slim" people in the west are pretty solid looking themselves, had been working at said club for a couple of months. During that time the curator (?) of the show Bella Blue, was told by the management that RR was not the sort of "image" they wished to portray and that she should find a slimmer woman instead.

She told them that RR was in the show because Blue felt she captured the true spirit of the form and replacing her with someone for their size might compromise the overall flavour of the show.

Despite this, management insisted and Blue had to let Rage go. 

It was one too many times for Rage and she decided wasn't taking it this time. She fought back, made a fuss and social media picked it up and gave the club some blowback.

Excellent, no sark!

That sub-heading sneakily tries to trivializes this with some penny ante misogyny: "Never tell a lady she is not [the] right body type." Please, as if it's about female vanity. No, this is about people being able to earn a living at things they're able to do/are good at, without being impoverished by the body police using that as a pre-cusor for their open-ended fraud.

Increasingly, fat phobic hegemony carrying on its mostly unchecked momentum is seeking more ways to assault people's finances. Whether seeking to fine them, tax them through the healthcare system and perhaps more sinister still, undermining people's ability to earn an honest living.

Then bullshitting to deny unemployment/disability assistance to boot.This momentum will not stop itself, it has to be countered by people being prepared to say no to its wing-nut bratty demands.

The club management came out oblivious and a bit casual. They provided a list of star performers of history, which was supposed to justify their idea that only slim performances are worth employing, or something. 

It must have been during an afternoon dip, because one of them was Mae West. Yeah, notorious Miss Bountiful, who was bigger than Rage in her Hollywood prime-she saved her studio- at a time when the world was (supposedly) slim. That's why the Spanish have siesta folks.

Anyway, the club stuck to its bone headed overture and Bella Blue-despite it being a major source of her income-resigned. The two have apparently teamed up with a view to putting on shows! That is what I call fellow feeling and solidarity. I'm looking at you, fat phobic sisterhood.

If I may put forward a suggestion to these excellent women. Turn your experience into a play/screenplay and even a burlesque theme! Stick it to those wooden ponies and make some compensation money, at their expense.

Monday, 2 March 2015

Taking Responsibility

A few things happened the other day. I was talking to someone and they mentioned they had high blood pressure. Just on the off chance, I asked them if they couldn't manage to lower it themselves. They got what I meant, I was not saying "Oh you totally could" I was asking if they were of a mind and had attempted to-in that they responded that they'd become more philosophical about things, in general. But, they still needed medication to manage their condition.

Fair enough.

Later in the evening, I watched a programme about women making choices about how they would give birth. There was an elective Cesarean, a water birth, a lotus birth-which keeps the umbilical cord attached to the placenta, which is carried around; until it withers away on its own- a woman who wished to consume her placenta and a free birth. The last woman wished to give birth on her own, with no one else there except her partner.

Though the often vigorous disapproval there can be wasn't shown, it was clear that this was cause for concern and required the woman to be rather stubborn. The woman who had the water birth I think-was also interesting, she prepared herself to deal with pain by training herself via affirmations and a programme of hypnosis. It included disassociating from it, re-framing sensations and the like.

Again, I was reminded how far away this is from the mainstream doctor/patient relationship and how all this sort of thing would be the norm and the norm not so, if the medical machine really desired us to take "personal responsibility." A term that has been weaponized and mindlessly used to beat fat people into treating hunger-a biological signal as some kind of optional interloper.

I thought, how would one assess the risk run by the free birther? Would it be more aptly calculated according to the specifics of herself and her situation? Or would a general overview be more informative? Perhaps both?

Either way, it would be taking a chance of some kind. How do you reconcile yourself if things go awry? Though medical practice is far more often than we'd like to pretend about mere convention, e.g. laying on your back to give birth, operating outside the medical aegis makes assessment of efficacy harder to ascertain.

It requires a mindset that differs from our expectations now to put "personal responsibility" into meaningful effect. Healthcare systems eschewed interest in 'prevention' until they could see a way to use it to get a hold of directing people and their lives. 

I never quite thought of it this way but I wonder how much that has affected the ability to keep lying about weight loss dieting. That happened mainly outside the medical remit, on the encouragement of the profession.

And despite the bad faith caused by the rejection of reality that was heartily embraced by the public. How many people haven't restricted or dieted at least once? The aim as long as I've been aware has been to keep us dieting and now that another wave of generation/s are seeing through restriction, it has been drawn into the medical aegis as they intend to try and impose it on those trained to be open to this kind of invasion and take over.

Medics could have of course made a partnership of those millions of people, during the dieting years. Encouraging them to take responsibility-if that's what they really wanted. That would have required them to accept the discipline of reality and keep informed of the feedback of millions-[as if they didn't already know.]

Instead that was used to deepen docility by opening a new front, breaking people's will under the guise of breaking a non-existent will to be fat. And the rest is non-history [according to them.]

Saturday, 28 February 2015

Forewarned is Disarmed: If you think you know Better

A new series called NHS £2 Billion a week and counting, is about what should and shouldn't be funded by the tax funded National Health System [NHS]. It asks the public to consider medical dilemmas related to the overall costs. What should be excluded from the NHS budget. Do I even need to tell you where this is inevitably going to go?

That's right, should 'obesity' be used as a blatant tool of rationing? Okay, they don't make it that explicit but we know that's what they mean. You just know "self inflicted" is going to be in the mix somewhere, don't you?

According to the first programme, the answer's yes it should. It featured a heavy drinker who needed a new liver and a fat woman who needed breast reduction-each was as big as two heads.

After much tooing and froing, the former was successful-he'd stopped drinking and was told if he began he would be off the list. The latter was not. The programme broadcast people's tweets live as the show was going out.

I'd like to say it was interesting, but it wasn't. It was pretty much predictable outpouring of judgmentalism for both candidates with islets of reason-you couldn't say one more than the other. Obviously, the main comment was the fat woman could solve her problem by losing weight-she'd already shed 70lbs/31kgs, though the actual principle was supposed to be whether cosmetic surgery should be allowed.

It is and it isn't- it varies.

In the end she paid for it herself, albeit at a reduced rate after going to the press. At a consultation before the surgeon told her, even if she managed a greater loss, she'd be unlikely to see much more loss from her breasts which were outstandingly large.

The whether a person should have weight loss surgery is a delight to come. I wonder if it will be mentioned that fat people have been telling people for decades that calorie restriction dieting was not cutting it. And that society chose to ignore this, that this was a gamble, which it lost and frankly, never tried to hard to win, on its own dictated terms and so anything that flows from that is called consequence.

Or even that no rigourous reality based pathway has been established-due to this mass elective delusion-so no real progression or learning curve has been established.

Or even that the social contract depends on you not attacking law-abiding people and casting them as villains, for your own personal gain. Or even-no taxation without representation/can't pay won't pay etc.,

We'll see..........

Friday, 27 February 2015

Skinny Bird Watching-Quelle Outrage

Hold the phone. Something terrible has happened.

What? Have people have had their humanity displaced by being defined as dis-ease? Epidemic? Is the medical machine trying to turn them into a silo for worthless toxic drugs, seeking to violate every piece of privacy a person has? Are they being denied medical treatment until they are able to overcome their bodies innate resistance to the imposition of pathology?

Non, nein and nope.

A new "plus size" fashion imprint decided to launch with a PR stunt it called #skinnybirdwatching trying even to get it trending on twitter. I can't be bothered to go into what this was supposed to be about-I didn't care then and I don't care now.

Luckily, even the type of fat women who would respond to this kind of crap-i.e. mainstream- are wising up. Unlike their slimmer counterparts who continue to ride 'obesity' bullshit as if its not dehumanizing assault on personal autonomy. They can whine though and act all hoity-toity as if they give a damn about anyone but themselves. They can really throw down some fake high dudgeon.

I hereby inform you that is supposedly a "body shaming" outrage. And this is what it looks like when slimmer women feel moved to get upset. Take a good look and imagine what it might look like if they gave half a damn about something truly outrageous.

Oh and by the way, fat women should be ashamed of this and should avoid it 'cos its a "bad move." And one fat person=all fat people;
The questionable move has inspired a collective disapproving reaction from people of all sizes, who recognize that skinny shaming is a bad move for anyone claiming to promote body confidence.
Oh really? Well the 'obesity' cult's still being worked by thin and slim women and they're seem happy with that. So each and every one who can only give a rats arse about themselves can shove their so called equally misplaced "outrage" where they think the sun shines out of. Some of us aren't remotely interested in their game of body size oneupmanship, that is not strategic that's ethics.

It's called, do unto others and I know how this system works, and I don't like it and want no part of it. How dare people take that for granted. People who don't feel they owe it to fat women and I certainly don't feel we owe it to slim women either, for that very reason. We abjure what is currently being embraced, because we don't believe in it. Not to be on our best behaviour as if we're on trial to be judged by those who happily partake of far worse than this fluff. When is that demanded of slim women by us? That they be perfect? That they always do the right thing?

We're still, how about you try connecting with some real feeling? I'd love to see that.

How Many Times: Bodies Do not Cause Eating Disorders

Here we go with another tedious installment of let's stay in denial and pathologize bodies as the source of anorexia, yahwn.

Repeat, anorexia is ultimately about susceptibility, meaning that you have to have some tendency towards it to succumb to it. But, the trigger of that susceptibility, i.e. how most find it out is through the hunger/appetite blocking practice of calorie restriction. Calorie restriction is the disordered and dysfunctional basis of all available weight regulation, hence people merely trying to stay the same weight find themselves inexplicably mimicking and triggering various disorders, including those of eating.

That includes more than anorexia or starvation disorders, it includes provoking the hunger/appetite (signalling) to go hyperactive too-the latter is a defense mechanism against potential starvation the former is a succumbing to the pressure of it.

What isn't the cause of anorexia is thin bodies who you'll find are thin people. Their appearance in the fashion meejah merely reflects the value accorded them by middle and upper classes, especially. The haute fashion biz is invariably chock-a-block with that strata. They naturally disseminate the currency and values of their class experience and milieu.

Until they are prepared for a genuine re-think, they need to stop this ridiculous pantomime of attacking the adolescent girls favoured to illustrate their fashion fantasies.

This combination plus the wretched 'obesity' crusade in overdrive is a ticking timebomb waiting to implode on those unfortunate enough to become "collateral damage."

Singling out a 16 year old weight outlier for abuse is not only bullying it's dishonest and no account. It seeks to criticize in a roundabout way, attitudes approved of by those doing the criticizing-which is why they enjoy being so virulent and nasty about it. Their own sense of guilt and shame.

I'm sorry that some with varying stages of anorexia etc., feel "triggered" by people, but, they'll just have to get over that. It's outrageous to demand the banning of bodies because of your personal problems. No one with "low-self esteem" would dream of such an imposition. You can't dump that amount of responsibility on someone who has no control over you, apart from anything, it doesn't address the problem.

Part of recovering from ED desensitizing overactive reactions - you might as well get on with that. In fact, this might be a cue for those who provide treatment to make this more important. Sending people out there who can barely tolerate the sight of another strikes me as somewhat of an oversight.

And if especially privileged middle and upper class people are too silly or brutish to tell their children-models get paid for their size, for the way they look, you do not-your job is to look like yourself, then they'd better do what they usually do, employ someone to do it for them