Les Comtesses on the Chicago Tribune's Massive Dose of WTFery

Today Les Comtesses attempt to answer the age-old question, "WTF?!"  (Specifically as it relates to a Chicago Tribune article that is just beyond description.)

via Shakesville, Broaching a weighty subject

Cynical Nymph:  This article.  What? What is this??  WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE???

Marzie:   I dunno... I'm thinking this is a great way to let people know you're an asshole without the risks of face to face interaction where you'll have to deal with their tears or anger or possible weaponry.

Personal Failure: PF MAD.  Look, I've lived with an obese to morbidly obese man for close to 13 years now.  He does not need to be told he is obese, he knows it. He knows all about the "health concerns", he's tried numerous diets and you know what? Some asshole walking up to him and saying, "a gun to your head! you have it!" is not going to help. Fuck off.  Oh, and another thing? He really doesn't eat much more than I do. My body likes being at the edge of underweight, his body likes being obese. He has lost weight -- and gained it right back. He's not fat for lack of trying, he's fat because of biology. You can't fight millions of years of evolution with a website.

Marzie:  You... You mean, you don't think this website isn't offering the New Mirror?  PF, you are so damn picky.

[redacted]:  Note: this is the newest anti-gay concern troll line of reasoning, as well. Some of them may just be cluelessly parroting the misused stats that they were given, but I don't care what their intent is. I want them to STFU and stop pretending that making it legally impossible for gay relationships to be economically intertwined and harder to get out of when the going gets tough is somehow a solution to STIs associated with promiscuity. First the person trots out the "stats" (without context, or with horrible misunderstanding of it) of STI rates for teh homoz, and then they go all "we're not being hateful, we're trying to save people from an awful death from AIDS."  Obvs, I've left out a lot of nattering, but that's the gist of it.

CN:  I still can't believe Lynn Grefe, the president of NEDA, is actually saying these things.  I want to punch her in the ovaries.  I really do.  Part of NEDA's whole thing, traditionally, is to educate people about not conflating certain weights or body states as eating disordered or healthy, per se.  HI, LYNN, GUESS WHAT YOU JUST DID.

PF:  Really, the CEO of NEDA managed to slap the entire spectrum of ED and weight issues in one interview. I'd be impressed if I weren't so disgusted with her.  Seriously, if I hear "Well, they just don't know they're fat" one more fucking time, I'm going door to door punching everyone who answers in the face in the hopes that I will punch the people saying this shit.

[redacted]:  Excellent idea. I shall invoke the wrath of The Girl Child, as well, because damned if her "friend" didn't call her "fat" the other day.  Note: yes, same friend who told my daughter that "the 'h' word...is 'whore.'"  Yes, I've already talked to school.

Marzie:  Geez!!!

PF:  What the hell are those parents doing?!

CN:  Calling each other fat whores in front of their daughter?

[redacted]:  I can speak from personal experience, though, on pretty much all fronts here. And just because I'm at a healthy weight (almost) and running a mini in two weeks doesn't mean I don't have ridiculous jacked up ideas and behaviors about food AND exercise.

Marzie:  You know, the thing that just bothers me is that idea of people making such assumptions and knowing nothing about what you may be going through to put you where you are.  Me, at 40: [too low] lbs of lean muscled rock climber, virtually counting every single calorie.  Me at 44:  [higher] lbs of bloated, prednisone-swollen celiac out of control, joints swollen and painful, having trouble keeping almost anything down or in.  People would ask me why I gained weight, that I had looked so good before, etc. I mean I looked really SICK, and people are asking about my weight? Hello?

GlamKitty:  People asked WHY you gained weight?!? WTF answer were they expecting?  Maybe... a). "Oh, I just kind of FELT like it, of course! (teehee!)"  b). "I realized that all my clothing fit me too well, but I had grown SO bored with it, and gaining weight was the perfect opportunity to buy lots of new things!"  c). "BECAUSE I REALLY, REALLY WANTED TO FIELD THAT PARTICULARLY-RUDE-&-INSENSITIVE QUESTION FROM ASSHOLES LIKE YOU!!"  Grrrrrrr...

Marzie:  They got the cold stare.

PF:  When I first started dropping weight, I looked awful. My hair was also falling out, I had bags and circles under my eyes, my skin looked waxy, I could hardly move, and people were like "Wow! It's so AWESOME that you're losing weight! Good for you!"  Basically, our entire society has ED.

[redacted]:  If one more person (and let's be clear here: none of these persons has a Y chromosome) whom I haven't seen in a long time but knows I'm running the mini emails me and says "That is so great that you're running a half-marathon! It's so inspiring! I'M JEALOUS; YOU MUST BE SO SKINNY." I am going to beat the crap out of them.  I'm SO MUCH more proud of the fact that I can RUN (well, "run") 11 miles than any of the weight loss or working out or just...anything else right now. I suck at this, and I still do it.  That is unheard of for me.  Also, it's damned hard.  And I still do it.  Also unheard of.  It's the not quitting that I am proud of, not the nonexistent six-pack or quads of steel or whatever.  I just....it's SO frustrating.  SO SO frustrating.  Why is it that my body or my activities are somehow sending this completely false message?  What about the world makes THAT the message they're getting, and how do we shake up the frame that everyone uses to see it?

GK:  I'm torn between two possible courses of action after reading that, and all because of one little word (no pun intended here, believe me): "I'm jealous; you must be so skinny!". (Beating my head against my lovely green wall is my first instinct, but given today's headache level after only a couple hours of sleep, I'm going with Door #2, pinching the bridge of my nose very hard.)  There is something seriously wrong with any society in which people equate being "skinny" with something good and desirable. "Healthy" and "fit" are admirable goals (no matter what size or shape that takes); "skinny" should only be the result of some sort of illness (unless, of course, the goal is weakness and malnourishment, in which case... ~sigh~ there is just no hope).

CN:  This plays back into my obsession with Your Body As Public Property.  It also dovetails nicely with PF's post yesterday about purity obsession in evangelical Christianity.   If I am allowed to feel like I have some say in your body, then the only way I can reason my way to that is to believe your body is in some way mine.  If your body is in some way mine, then I get to control it, or at least feel as though I'm entitled to control it.  And if I'm entitled to control it, then the first step toward control is being Totally Justified In Sharing My Opinions About Your Body With You.

Marzie:  Female body as public property?   I don't see too many men getting questioned...

CN:  Well, if you're a man and you're FAT you get questioned.

Marzie:  Not so much and not as overtly and not as much "Right to know".

[redacted]:  Well the default for "public" property (or really anything in the public sphere, right?) is "belongs to teh menz. Teh white menz speshully."  Right? I mean, you don't get much more uppity than expecting to participate in THEIR world at the same level, hunh?   Also nicely dovetails (how many damn doves are we up to at this point?) with how pregnant women get treated.  I love how they've already got "protecting the rights of the helpless" into the national vocabulary so that any pregnant woman can't possibly be autonomous, because there's a helpless baby in there and IT'S YOUR CHRISTIAN DUTY TO GET ALL UP IN HER UTERUS.  (Note: don't take your wallet with you though.  Or something.  Maybe it's okay to get your wallet up in there if there's a zygote already? No, wait. I don't know.)

CN:  Oh, Quantum Field.  There is too much Body Control All Your Body Are Belong To Us going on for 11:30 a.m.  I think I might have to go break into the booze.

Les Comtesses on Eating Disorder Articles and Commenters

The Comtesses are having a round-table (as we do) about my post yesterday, and the article and comments it covers.  Here are some of the highlights.

Marzie:  It's just astonishing that someone can on the one hand be preaching self-acceptance of physique and aging in a fashion so wholly derisive, dismissive and *offensive* of/to those who struggle with a genuine MH issue, isn't it? Could this person have missed the entire point of the article by a wider margin, I wonder? Simply astonishing!!!

[redacted]:  WTF was with all the motivesplaining?! Is everything on the well like that, or is it common to ED discussions, or what? That is presumptuous, and solipsistic, and unfuckingcalledfor.

CN:  Last time I read any of them, they were pretty heavy on that, yeah.

There's one duo in there where someone tells ED'd b!tches to go volunteer and do something that isn't obsessed with themselves for a change.  The next commenter follows up nicely pointing out that, yeah, there are, like, ED'd doctors and nurses and volunteers and teachers and....  So sometimes you do get the redemptive value thrown in there for good measure.

There's also a fair amount of "THERE ARE STARVING CHILDREN IN AFRICA HOW DARE YOU CARE ABOUT MAGAZINES," which, I cannot even begin.

Personal Failure:  As to motivesplaining: in all honesty, motivesplaining of any kind says volumes about the 'splainer. ED is caused by wanting the perfect, faithful man?  Then this person cannot imagine a man being loving and faithful to anyone who is not physically perfect according to our culture, which is really, really sad for them when you think about it.

Enraging, but saddening.

GlamKitty:  Most people seem to be more the "in one ear/out the other" variety when it comes to anything not directly related to them... That's why so many articles and even posts are written from the simplest perspective... That's who's gonna (if you're lucky) be reading (or at the least, skimming) your article: the huddled masses.

It's easier for people to get an idea about the problems if they focus on the physical issues (such as low weight extremes and all the purgative behaviors resulting in myriad, visually-quantifiable health problems) rather than the psychological ones (like the real "why" behind the behaviors). This also goes to CN's frustration with the triggers so commonly put front and center; but once again, that's kind of my point here: the article isn't written for someone who has struggled with these issues and has given so much thought, time, and effort to learning about the history, significance, reasons, manifestations, treatments, etc., ... it was written for neighbors, co-workers, the checkout girl who sees you three times a week, so that they have a chance of identifying what they see, and possibly even being concerned for the right reasons if someone close to them exhibits any of the more-obvious symptoms.

Marzie:  Which is why the commentary is all the more disturbing, as few people will likely have the sense or skill set to parse the issues raised in some of them. Some people may read the sociobabble of RC or psychobabble of LL and actually take away the idea that they're insightful. In fact some of the other commenters did.

Sometimes the internet can be a crucible of ignorance to a truly disheartening extent. (Was it only a week ago I read Ann Coulter's column on how radiation was really good for us? My eyes!!! My eyes!!! Burned by her idiocy!!!!)  The article: just fine for its particular purpose. The commentary: cost me brain cells, because of exploding white matter.

CN:  These are all true points, I believe.  But I think this is also some of the problem.

Since most people are indeed "in one ear/out the other" when it comes to things not directly relevant to their own lives, then it follows that most people are never going to gain a more thorough understanding of eating disorders and their interplay with everyday life, unless and until an eating disorder directly affects them or their family...  The problem with eating disorders is that yes, sometimes a diet or a new exercise regimen is the trigger that sets them off, but frankly, that's not usually the case.  Talking about eating disorders in terms of "and then she decided to lose weight" is like talking about addictions in terms of "and then he decided to start drinking more."

I can appreciate what the article wants to do, and I'd rather have it written and published than not.  But it doesn't actually do much to address the fact that people in mid-life or later life with eating disorders have always been around, like that older article didn't address the fact that eating disorders and substance abuse have long been bosom buddies.  Maybe that's part of my issue with these two articles: they read to me like just more NY Times "trend pieces."  And in some way they are.

But while their aim is to teach, whereas most of the NY Times trend pieces you see aim to divert or socially titillate (Women are deciding en masse to stop wearing perfume because they don't want to impinge upon others' space!  Women are raising chickens in Brooklyn because they are feminists and also environmentalists!), what this piece sometimes does (and what that older piece did to a much larger extent) is to continue to address what are basically ED tropes, and employ rather ham-handed tactics.

For instance, it's hard to see how the writer or editor let the comment "... so [physicians] can recognize and distinguish between menopause-related changes, real health problems and eating disorders..." stand without in-print clarification that when the doctor said "real health problems" she meant, for example, anemia borne of ulcerative colitis, as opposed to the psychiatric problem of an eating disorder that leads to health problems.  Tara Parker-Pope clears that up in the comments, but the fact that it made it to print unadorned suggests an unawareness that is discouraging.  It unwittingly underscores the suggestion that eating disorders are not "real health problems," which you can clearly tell from the comments is a dearly cherished belief by many.  That combined with the weight/height/pounds triggers suggests that while this piece aims to help people "get it," the piece itself doesn't entirely "get it."

So the point and merit of the piece is definitely summed up in the one doctor's quote, "We need to let everybody know that it’s possible to develop these illnesses across the life span."  But in the course of letting everybody know that, the writer and editors missed some pretty easy fixes.

Is there ever going to be a perfect eating disorder education piece that accomplishes consciousness-raising and balanced sensitivity to the special interest group of patients and loved ones?  No.  But that definitely doesn't mean that I have to accept some of the shortcomings in the existing pieces.