Saturday, 30 January 2010
It removes blocks, causing enough nervous tension to fizz away, yet without bring my mind to a halt, which sometimes happens in a more static situation when I'm trying to calm my mind and let the thoughts flow.
There's sometimes a mood thing, it helps to walk off irritation and annoyance.
For some reason the other day I connected that with thing that allude to maintaining a steady stream of energy, wondering if there is a connection.
I'm thinking things like sitting in front of a screen, computer, TV. perhaps even cinema and eating. Often this kind of behaviour is implicated in fattening people up. I feel the same way as ever in the main, your body tends to match your energy to your needs. The whole bad habits of eating mentality is a lot of wishful thinking in the main, trying to shore up that which has shown itself to be a bankrupt approach.
It fascinates me though. We have this brain which is said to use up about 24% of our energy intake, which still seems amazing, if that is true, then using it should use energy.
The mystery about emotional situations or periods in our lives is the way some people can lose weight and others gain, under similar pressure. It's said to hinge on the situation stimulating their appetite or curtailing it.
What you eat though is about the operation of your metabolism, it could well be a metabolic outcome, that what happens when stress acts on your body and that may be part of the process of gain and loss rather than the cause.
But anyway, flow of energy. Is the effect of my walking the calming effect of a capacity to become over stimulated therefore having to many contrasting messages flying about, or is it the diversion of energy, because I'm using it to walk, I don't have it available to think which comes to about the same thing!
Those who sit and eat, apart from multi tasking, is it about the use of the brain causing energy to dip, if so, why aren't all students whippet like? Does this promote a compensatory mode in some, i.e. through the depletion of energy through brain use provoking the body to store in case of emergency?
When a lot of us fatties were in the fat hating weight loss diet camp, we 'knew' we were doing bad, but we didn't feel like we were bad people. We thought the fact that we so readily acknowledged our 'badness' meant that it was clear that we were good people with a sin problem ready to reform. Not the epitome of that sin.
As the noose has tightened around fat people's necks and the experience of diet fail continued, we recognised that we really looked bad, we felt bad too. But I don't think fat people felt that others actually felt that underneath it all, we weren't good people.
By the time I got involved with FA, I was fully aware of the disengagement. My motivation for getting involved could be summed up two-fold. I wanted to evict everyone from our psychic space, that is, I wanted to be part of personifying fat people in the real rather than as the caricature of obesiness.
I recognised that we had been squeezed out of commenting on our own condition. I used to say, fatness is about fat people, if it's not about us it is nothing to do with us, it is to do with the creators of the myth.
So how am I supposed to 'care' about something that has nothing to do with me? How do we engage with that? I ask you about your life and you answer and I dismiss all your answers. How can you 'converse' with someone who refuses to accept your sentience? Yet keeps asking you about yourself. If you don't wish to know, don't ask, don't keep asking then claim you don't believe a person.
That's your problem isn't it?
Are you alive and in this body or are they? Those who wish to control your reality are the ones who've disengaged with you, they do that when they want their version of your experience to replace your actual ones.
What's worse though is why when shoring up their construct it is insisted you must go along, you must parrot and speak the lines they give you?
In other words, without the complete erasure of fat people from their own selves, they cannot construct their fantasy. How do you communicate with that?
Thursday, 28 January 2010
This includes many feminists who through the aegeis of 'science' are -they think- able to fulfil the surrendered wife part of their psyche that few of us can seem to fully shake off. Whether it's some kind of a belief in the expression of power, or just an operational sado/masochistic mode I don't know.
It's clear we cannot find a way to lose a predictable amount of weight and that doesn't matter worth a damn. Sciencemenz aren't on board with recognizing it. And we who have the nerve to state plainly from our own experience are "arrogant". Science, reality, stuff like that, must pass through men to have any validity. Without their confirmation, approval recognition, acknowledgement? Fah-gettit.
Puppetsplainers notice nothing without that.
We have to continually prove, what is evident to all. Yet we don't say this. We toddle off to find 'proof', from those who are mainly building a case for their imagined biological philosophy. We have to take delusion seriously, because it's ballasted by manly fibre. And that's worth more than anything reflected through the biology of women.
Feminists 'think' fat phobia is objectionable because of our hurt fee-fee's. That's not the same old sexist trope though........ because.....erm, well d'uh, it is.
If women have a problem it's our e-meaushuns! Not say an intellectual disagreement or difference. They don't realise it's not about the veneration of the anorexic gamine as the feminist body ideal, versus chubtastic. It's that men are blatantly telling us all that we are somehow not quite sentient in the way they are or capable of knowing what goes with our own bodies.
Too many feminists don't recognise that they are supposed to have an instinct, alerting them to this. Their rejection of this effortless. On principle that women are human beings. Remember that one?
Instead all we want is a pat on the head, because a little tlc and attention is the answer to women's fractiousness as always.
Saturday, 23 January 2010
You have a goalkeeper in each box at either end. You go make your way to the centre circle and stop dead on the centre spot.
Here you are at the absolute centre of the field of play. You are where they put the ball to start the game. A fair start for both sides. You are between the two 'extremes' of each goal. You can turn around and see both sides.
But, if both goalkeepers are in one goal -a fat one in front of the goal mouth. The other in the netting at the back. If you get behind the one ahead and in front of the one in the netting; you are in the middle of the two goalies. But you are not at the centre of the field of play.
Imagine, half the field is obesity, weight loss dieting and the other is fat people's self awareness.
And that if you really look, the fat goalie is actually walking forward, towards the centre. They're not at their centre yet. They haven't even got to the halfway line. We haven't got there. We've always been in this obesity, weight loss goal, on their side. Against ourselves.
I can't see the other side as well as I could if I was on a football pitch. All I know is fat people have to get away from where we've been. Like someone leaving a religion, or more likely a cult. This whole FA v others is not a meeting of two 'sides', it is those who no longer be in the only side their is. And those who wish to keep the faith. Who somehow feel they own everyone must be in their space.
To be honest, I don't really feel in opposition to these people, they've a right to believe what they wish. I feel like I know and believe different things. It's as simple as that. I don't require their degradation and humiliation in order to get to where I want to go because my beliefs don't depend on that and I will not allow them to depend on my abject surrender.
I just require them to get out of the way and stop meddling interfering and imposing on me. I wish their to be civility for all. But I feel either there will be mutual respect or there will be no respect at all. Patience is in the end, finite.
So before anyone blithely assumes they know the centre has just got to be between where the two 'sides' stand, wait until you can see the whole field.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
I really enjoyed reading this article featuring Gabourey Sidibe she's a much needed breath of fresh air.
Her charm and grace, the fact that she comes from New York and yet sounds, to my ears like she a native of California. I've hesitated about saying it, probably I shouldn't have, but I don't want to put this mantle of totally cool (fat) person on her, when what's great about her comes out of her self acceptance. I feel that she'd be like this whatever she looked like.
It comes from the essence of her and it should do. That is what I like, her self willed poise. It makes me feel good that she's around, although I don't feel she has any duty to represent me. I think she should just represent the sorted people of the earth really.
It's the chance we all have, to love ourselves and allow the charm of that to raise the question of us all.
If Sidibe, why not you?
I'm not saying glibly, if she can you can, I'm saying we can ask ourselves once in a while, why rather than getting bogged down in the reasons we just can't like ourselves an ickle bit.
Apparently lots of people, including those in the film industry-actually that doesn't surprise me at all- think she is Precious, that it was some kind of documentary as Sidibe says, featuring Lenny Kravitz as her nurse and Mariah Carey as her social worker.
I love this bit of the interview;
But what about the hunched and truculent way Precious carries herself – so very different from the way beaming Gabourey Sidibe swept into the room an hour ago? "I channelled her anger and her daunting disposition. She walks into the room and her shoulders are hunched. She disappears into her own world. It's called acting, sweetie," she says.
OK, rearrange this; him in put she place his.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Thing about them is, they are the ones most likely to mainfest the condition anyone is studying, usually things are observed in them and traced back to those with lesser symptoms of the matter at hand.
Obviously all stages are observed, but usually outliers take up an inordinate amount of time, often at the expense of those lesser affected. Which has sometimes been a cause for complaint.
They are bound though to attract disproportionate interest to those really fascinated and wanting to achieve mastery.
So why is the field of obesity science so disinterested in the fattest people?
Often the compassion which drives genuine vocation is increased when one sees people with the greatest challenge, if you ignore them, what message does that send about your desire to relieve suffering or even to challenge your intellect?
Obesity science has always felt a mickey mouse area with no relevance to actual people. I can barely think of anything I've learned from it that I've incorporated into my life. Although I'm sure there must be some people who want to achieve something, they don't seem that bothered about the impression given by most of those involved.
It doesn't seem to be getting in their way which is a surprise.
They have the chance to be household names and to find out something peole really want, so why isn't it attracting the ruthlessly brilliant to take a hold of it and really turn it into a compelling subject?
The whole thing is more concerned with those who are not fat than those who are at the top of the scale and that's what is so odd, getting into science for social control, to use its' influence to order people about rather than to cure what we are told by many is a disease.
Why no sense of urgency about reversing it? All the hype to what purpose? To just perpetuate your field so you can carry on regardless?
Science for people not interested in science, so they can play at it perhaps affect what seems a liberal bias into scientific thinking? I think we should be told.
Friday, 15 January 2010
In the fatosphere somehow, we expect and are expected to be above this. We aren't, we are no better than anyone else. Thinking we should be is really getting old. We are expected to be better than other's because we are seen as lesser than others and we have to make up for it. Whilst still knowing our place.
This is by no means unique to fatties, it's business as usual for any group deemed inferior. It is a little disappointing that we seem to put this feeling to the fore, way too much. Well, we're carrying a lot of other baggage from the past, chalk it down to that.
But we mustn't forget we are no better than we should be nor do we need to pretend we are. Even if we don't wish to let go of our supergood behaviour, it should be remembered that lead precisely here. Other grassroots movement fall out and descend into factionalism, this is undoubtedly tiresome and wasteful and is also part of our wariness and rightly so, however, this doesn't mean the opposite will be free from this.
Thursday, 14 January 2010
OK, we're well into the new year now. What is my mission this year for this blog, apart from the obvious- do what you set out to do and don't allow yourself to get waylaid?
Well, I'm totally bored with the anti fat crusaders agenda, for the 40 thousandth time. This time I feel that I might finally accept the lesson and run with it. It's not always the learning of the lesson that's the problem, it's being able to put the conclusions into effect. That's often what keeps you repeating your mistakes.
I do not form my views in opposition to the crusaders, I differ. It's only because that is not supposed to be possible-hence crusader- that the problems come. Well so be it. I'm tired of the endless show trial-'admit you are greedy and lazy and we'll spare you, on and on until you give in, then it's a ha ah 'you are guilty? We must destroy you! Or the kangaroo court with endless cries of prove it, prove it, prove what I'm basing my argument on! I'm even sick and tired of being upset, irked or exercised about it.
E-nuff, is enough.
So back to what I really want to talk about, the experience of being fat. Like any other somewhat arbitrary groups we fit ourselves into, I want to know what I think, what I've learned from my experience. All this has things to say about what it is to be human. Just like any one else.
I also need to do a clear out of some of the posts that have been hanging around, some for quite a while, it's my writing issues. So don't be surprised if some old time stuff gets posted.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Oh dear, I've neglected to write my first post of 2010, how remiss of me. I've not been struggling with things to say, on the contrary, what I'm struggling with is how to say things clearly and succinctly.
I'm trying to get to the nub of what I want to say and I'm having great difficulty with it.
It seems mainly to be the subject. For me, the real problem stems from the way I'm feeling about things.
That is root of it for me. It's the way I feel, combined with the way I feel about the direction of fat acceptance.
I feel rather disjointed and disconnected from the ways we are approaching it. Which is fine, if I could just say why in a way that makes sense to people other than myself.
I cannot believe how hard I've found that.
Anyway, enough people have decried resolutions, but I'm definitely going to go all out to achieve greater clarity.
But I have to change the way I feel, no doubt, and that's the hardest thing of all.
I'd lost my appetite for voraciously reading up studies about fatness as the recent ones were of such poor quality, so unconvincing and circular in their reasoning, if you can call it that. It was hard to see a discipline I'd had so much respect for being dragged down to such a low level.
So imagine my surprise when on getting involved with FA that all I heard about is how if we could just gather all the science, we would prove our case. We would prove that we cannot predictably alter our weight with the tools available, thus far.
My personal view is that health associations of being fat can neither be fully ruled in or out, due to the extreme bias of the obesity construct and it's field which produces a lot of results to order for its pre destined conclusion.
It's not my idea of what science is supposed to be. It seeks to parody of when science has cornered a theory and is seeking to tease out the details. It is more like when he police are convinced that a certain person done it and 'find' convenient 'evidence' to fit that frame.
When we say, diets don't work and so forth. The first thing we are asked for is evidence, or told to prove it. Overlooking the extent of weight loss dieting and the continued existence of fat people. The question should be why don't diets work?
It's not on account of fat people, dieting fails all, but of biology. If someone refuses to accept reality in favour of their theory, what 'proof' are they going to respond to? How can you make an argument that there is an obesity crisis, and say dieting and it's euphemisms have worked?
Unless you can show that when a person loses 40lbs another person gains it. someone else gains it. Now I see exactly why certain people don't bother much to argue with those who believe in creationism. They don't share the same terms of reference and to some degree, arguing with the fantastical strengthens them and weakens you.
I don't feel like I'm in a 'debate'. They believe. I know.
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
In this atmosphere of everyone being an expert in fatness and its supposed inherent pathology, violation of fat people's sense of privacy is par for the course, this is a bit much though. One can imagine having to either deny or even to avoid comment when confronted with the usual inquisition regarding why one is fat.
Not pleasant to have to deal with the shamateur psychologists, who feel it's imperative to confront fat people with their latest notion and watch them squirm with from a vantage point of smug superiority and denial. Any reaction is felt to show the innate wrongness of fat people and confirms the rightness of the action. The report does the usual thing of fusing fatness with mythical decisions to "overeat", rather than considering the possibility that the overall stressors on the nervous system change the way the body functions in a wide ranging way, including affecting appetite and hunger signals, it then says this;
High ACE scorers who do not overeat, smoke or take drugs still have high rates of obesity, heart disease, depression and diabetes.(ACE stands for Adverse Childhood Experiences)
That refers to metabolic change. It feels to me to undermine the idea that that 'overeating' directs weight, more than being a feature of metabolic activity (change). It also suggests that the presence of fatness in the body, changes mood, supports, keeps it elevated against the downward pressure of traumatic events. Or even feelings of shame.
Which would explain why people felt disturbed by the loss of that anti-depressant effect. It gets on my nerves when this is creepily explained as the person being scared of weight loss. How would it be, when it wouldn't occur to many people that their weight itself is the defence not any eating that may be occuring.
Of course that generates feelings of panic, fear and a sense of loss, that weight is playing a role. The fixation on food has always obscured that the emotive 'causes' of fat or anything would be more logically dealt with via dealing with the trauma rather than attacking what's likely to be a defence mechanism in action.
It doesn't surprise me that our nervous system especially can be permanently changed by titanic emotions, positive and negative. You have one body, everything that goes on in your head, all your feelings and experiences are processed in that body. How can that not affect its function?