Here is some stuff in the news today...
The Guttmacher Institute, which I will say once again is truly a national treasure, has published a new report on insurance coverage of abortion through the plans available via the Affordable Care Act. This is a must-read.
[Content Note: War on agency] In Tennessee: "A bill is currently moving through the Tennessee legislature that would make pregnant [people] criminally liable for the outcome of their pregnancies. According to National Advocates for Pregnant Women, HB 1519 would 'create a gender-specific set of crimes that would make [people] criminally liable for an undefined and indefinable range of acts and omissions that may be perceived by outsiders as affecting pregnancy outcomes.'" Jesus fucking Jones. At any point will our ostensibly pro-choice President give a dedicated address to the erosion of access to abortion and the attendant erosion of agency?!
[CN: War on agency] In South Dakota: "This week, South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) approved an unnecessary abortion restriction that reinforces racial stereotypes about the Asian American community. House Bill 1162 bans abortions based on a fetus' sex, and makes it a felony for doctors to perform this type of 'sex-selective' procedure—based on the misperception that Asian women are more likely to terminate a pregnancy if they find out the fetus is a girl."
Over to Michigan for some good news: "Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday extended federal recognition to the marriages of about 300 same-sex couples that took place in Michigan before a federal appeals court put those unions on hold. Holder's action will enable the government to extend eligibility for federal benefits to the Michigan couples who married Saturday, which means they can file federal taxes jointly, get Social Security benefits for spouses and request legal immigration status for partners, among other benefits." His action will also make it even more difficult for the state to claim there's no equal protections violations in denying the same rights to other same-sex couples.
[CN: Homophobia] A Mississippi news anchor says that the LGBTQI community has "been in the news too much lately. Maybe they should take a short break. Go on gaycation." The station for which he works has condemned his homophobic outburst. What a fucking dirtbag.
The ACLU has filed "a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI, the DEA, the Secret Service, and several other agencies asking for information about a surveillance technique known as a 'cell tower dump.' If you’re wondering what that is or why we're worried about it, a story from a few years back might help to illustrate. In 2010, the FBI was looking for a pair of bank robbers known as the 'high country bandits.' Security footage from the banks wasn't very revealing, so the Bureau turned to cell phone companies for help. To find out who was consistently near the banks when these robberies took place, they asked for the number of every single phone that was connected to cell towers near the robbed banks around the time the crimes occurred. In response, they got back over 150,000 numbers. This is a cell tower dump: the practice of demanding an enormous amount of cell phone location information—anywhere from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of data points—in an effort to identify just a few suspects. ...Cell tower dumps aren't rare. A congressional inquiry found that companies received at least 9,000 tower dump requests in 2012, and in 2013 Verizon alone reported receiving 3,200 such requests."
Here is a blub-inducing video of 39-year-old Joanne Milne hearing for the first time after receiving a cochlear implant. The technician reads her the days of the week and the months of the year, and Milne is overwhelmed with emotion. She tells the tech that her voice sounds very high-pitched, and the tech explains to her that her brain will adjust the tones over time; it won't always sound that way. And there is a lovely story, in text form at the link, about Milne's friend preparing music for her, at her request.
In the News
The Legend of Uterine Gold
[CN: misogyny, war on agency, classism, reproductive coercion]
It seems there's a lot of misapprehension going around GOP circles (but not only GOP circles!) about what it means to have a uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, vagina, etc. From Supreme Court Justice Antony Scalia musing about how very cheap an IUD is, to the US Appeals Court deciding that forcing Texas women to drive 150+ miles, multiple times, to get an abortion isn't an "undue burden," many people in positions of power seem confused on an important point.
So let me clear this up for you: my uterus didn't come with a super-special UTERUS TRUST FUND, dedicated to paying for my reproductive-related health care. Nor leprechaun gold. Nor the sunken treasure of the fabled City of Ys.
This may come as a shock. And not just to prominent Republicans, either. I can't tell you how many times I've had some variation on this conversation with a glibertarian dude:
Me: So you oppose funding for Planned Parenthood/the contraceptive mandate/public employees insurance coverage for abortions/etc? Isn't that an intrusion into other people's private health?
Glibertarian Dude: (with a pained expression, because I'm obviously stupid) Of course it isn't! I'm not trying to tell other people what to do; I just don't want to pay for it.
So, to everyone, everywhere, making this argument, I repeat: my uterus did not come with a trust fund.
That means I, and other uterus-havers, don't have a special bank account we dip into when our uterus/ovaries/fallopian tubes/etc. need health care. That health care could include lots of things, like birth control pills to try to control the crippling pain of endometriosis, or birth control pills to control the spacing of my children. Or birth control pills to do both things, at once! And as much as I might like to be able to say "YOU'RE RIGHT JUSTICE SCALIA! I will just go to the Bank of Ladybits and withdraw my Uterusbuxxxxxx!!! to pay for this healthcare!" I actually cannot do that.
Instead, I have to simply use whatever money I do have, however much or little it is, to try to care for the body I have. And since I DO have a uterus, I will be paying more than a non-uterus-haver, which means I may or may not be able to get needed healthcare at all. Or, I may be able to, but only with considerable financial hardship--hardship which will, in turn, put me at a considerable disadvantage when compared to people without uteruses. Which does not a level playing field make.
So let's be totally clear on this.
When someone says that they're not trying to interfere with the healthcare of uterus-havers, they ONLY expect them to pay extra to care for care of said uterus, then the speaker is being deeply dishonest.
That person is absolutely trying to impose their own beliefs on someone else, by force. That person is absolutely trying to tell other people what to do. That person is absolutely trying to manipulate, control, and meddle with other people's lives.
So maybe we could get a little more truth about what those persons are actually saying, and a lot less storytelling about the Legend of Uterine Gold.
Live It
You know how every once in awhile, a politician tries to live for a month on food stamps? (Ex. Cory Booker; Greg Stanton.) I want them to start trying to access abortion in their home states.
I want every legislator in the US congress and every legislator in each state house to go through the process of trying to secure an abortion as a poor person and see what they think then about undue burdens.
I want them to have to do the research to find out what the guidelines for abortion are in their home states. (Is there a waiting period? Do they have to submit to an ultrasound?) I want them to start out from a position of living paycheck-to-paycheck at an hourly job with no benefits. I want them to find out how easy it is to take the required time off work from a local employer, without losing their jobs. I want them to figure out how long it would take to save up the money for the abortion. I want them to locate the nearest clinic. I want them to walk by shouting protestors.
I want the people making decisions about abortion to know what getting an abortion is really like.
US Appeals Court Upholds Texas Abortion Laws
[Content Note: War on agency; class warfare.]
A US appeals court of three Republican-appointed female judges has upheld the extreme abortion restrictions passed in Texas, passage of which Democratic Texas gubernatorial candidate famously filibustered. The Fifth Circuit panel said the new rules don't jeopardize women's health or create an undue burden:
A panel of judges at the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court judge who said the rules violate the U.S. Constitution and serve no medical purpose. After the lower court's ruling, the appeals court had allowed the restrictions to go into effect while it considered the case, which could ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.Andrea Grimes, who tweeted the Fifth Circuit panel ruling on #HB2, highlighted this passage regarding undue burden, and the supposed lack thereof:
The new law requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and places strict limits on doctors prescribing abortion-inducing pills. More regulations that are scheduled to begin later this year weren't part of the case.
In its opinion, the appeals court said the law "on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman."
...In passing the rules, Texas lawmakers argued they were protecting the health of women. But abortion-rights supporters called the measures an attempt to effectively ban abortion through overregulation.
Many abortion doctors do not have admitting privileges, and limiting when and where they may prescribe abortion-inducing pills discourages women from choosing that option, they argued.
Other aspects of the new rules, including a requirement that all procedures take place in a surgical facility, are set to begin in September, though they may also be challenged in court.
At least 19 clinics have shut down since the new law was approved and the 5th Circuit allowed the provisions on hospital-admitting privileges and abortion-inducing pills to take effect, leaving around 24 still open to serve a population of 26 million Texans. More closures could happen after the additional restrictions are in place.
In reversing the lower court's decision, the appeals panel said Thursday that the district court opinion erred in concluding the law "imposed an undue burden in a large fraction of the cases."
"The evidence presented to the district court demonstrates that if the admitting-privileges regulation burdens abortion access by diminishing the number of doctors who will perform abortions and requiring women to travel farther, the burden does not fall on the vast majority of Texas women seeking abortions," the appeals court found.
By law, abortion restrictions must not create an undue burden, which is why we are getting this tortured explanation of how driving 150 miles (each way, possibly multiple times) to get an abortion is not an "undue burden."
Which is manifest claptrap. According to this Guttmacher study (pdf), "Can't afford a baby now" was cited by 73% of women who terminated pregnancies as a reason for seeking an abortion.
In the qualitative sample, of women who stated that they could not afford to have a child now, the majority had children already. Financial difficulties included the absence of support from the father of either the current pregnancy or the woman's other children, anticipating not being able to continue working or to find work while pregnant or caring for a newborn, not having the resources to support a child whose conception was not planned and lacking health insurance.And that study was done in 2004, several years before the beginning of the Great Recession.
If the most common reason that people seek abortions is for financial reasons, then by any reasonable definition it is an undue burden to expect them to: 1. Have a reliable car; 2. Be able to afford a costly trip (or trips) in that car; 3. Have the ability to take off at least one full day of work, and possibly more, without losing that job; 4. Be able to afford childcare for children they already have, unless they want to bring their children with them and drag them through a gauntlet of screaming protestors; 5. Raise the funds to be able to do all of this, in addition to paying out-of-pocket for the abortion, in time to meet the deadline for a legal abortion at the nearest clinic.
The entire goal of these restrictions is to create an undue burden.
And I don't believe for a moment that this panel of judges could not see through the thin veneer of "women's health" plastered over these deliberately designed burdensome restrictions. They are not stupid; they are complicit.
Next stop: Supreme Court.
Question of the Day
What is the best gift you've never gotten? By that I don't mean the most expensive, indulgent luxury item you can imagine, but some little thing that any old friend or lover could buy you without much trouble or unreasonable expense, which would be perfect for you, but no one's ever thought to buy it.
[Originally run February 06, 2008 .]
Wow
[Content Note: Descriptions and imagery (at link) of surgery.]
Shaker Erin M sent me this remarkable story about a woman with a bone disorder whose life has been immediately and immeasurably improved by a 3-D printed skull. Before I even post the link, I'm going to share Erin's perfect content note from her email, which I'm posting with her permission: "The top of that page has a very large close-up image of her head taken immediately post-op. There are surgical drapes that have what is possibly blood but may be spinal fluid or both, not a lot, but it's clearly visible. Her brain is somewhat visible through the clear implant. There is operating room equipment visible in the background."
It's not a particularly graphic image, in my estimation, but it's SO HUGE and right at the top of the page that I wanted to offer a clear heads-up. So, that being said, here's the link to the story: "Neurosurgeons successfully implant 3D printed skull."
And if you don't want to click through at all, here's the amazing gist of it:
A 22-year-old woman from the Netherlands who suffers from a chronic bone disorder -- which has increased the thickness of her skull from 1.5cm to 5cm, causing reduced eyesight and severe headaches -- has had the top section of her skull removed and replaced with a 3D printed implant.Wow.
The operation was performed by a team of neurosurgeons at the University Medical Centre Utrecht and the university claims this is this first instance of a successful 3D printed cranium that has not been rejected by the patient.
The operation, which took 23 hours, was led by Dr Bon Verweij. The patient's skull was so thick, that had the operation not been performed, serious brain damage or death may have occurred in the near future.
...The skull was made specifically for the patient using an unspecified durable plastic. Since the operation, the patient has gained her sight back entirely, is symptom-free and back to work.
Fat Fashion
This is your semi-regular thread in which fat women can share pix, make recommendations for clothes they love, ask questions of other fat women about where to locate certain plus-size items, share info about sales, talk about what jeans cut at what retailer best fits their body shapes, discuss how to accessorize neutral colored suits, share stories of going bare-armed for the first time, brag about a cool fashion moment, whatever.
Beauty of Botany skirt by ModCloth; patent red heeled shoes by Franco Sarto.
I know. I will get a full-length mirror as soon as I can afford one, lol.
These Franco Sarto shoes are some of my absolute favorites. You can't really see the detail too well in this image, but the lacing is a play on a corset. I've had them for years, and I've taken really good care of them because I love them so much! (Although Matilda, who is a chronic lace-chewer, did manage to chew the aglet off one of the laces. Grumble.)
I own a couple pairs of red shoes, and they always make me feel extra good. You can't beat a good pair of red shoes.
I just got the skirt not long ago, during a week of feeling I CANNOT TAKE THIS FUCKWINTER FOR A MOMENT LONGER AND I AM BUYING SOMETHING TO WEAR IN THE SPRINGTIME! And if spring ever arrives, I will wear it outside the house!
Anyway.
Have at it in comments! Please remember to make fat women of all sizes, especially women who find themselves regularly sizing out of standard plus-size lines, welcome in this conversation, and pass no judgment on fat women who want to and/or feel obliged, for any reason, to conform to beauty standards. And please make sure if you're soliciting advice, you make it clear you're seeking suggestions—and please be considerate not to offer unsolicited advice. Sometimes people just need to complain and want solidarity, not solutions.
Recommended Reading
[Content Note: Sexual violence; physical assault; homophobia; police malfeasance.]
Angus Johnston revisits the Kitty Genovese case and the legend that emerged therefrom about bystander intervention: "Don't Look Now." It's a tremendous piece, reexamining what was written, and not written, about the case, and addressing the tales that are told in order to maintain public trust in the criminal justice system.
[H/Ts to Jessica Luther and Aaron Bady.]
Throwback Thursdays
One of my favorite pictures ever: The Pink Petulance!
I'm pretty sure I was born making that face.
[Please share your own throwback pix in comments. Just make sure the pix are just of you and/or you have consent to post from other living people in the pic. And please note that they don't have to be pictures from childhood, especially since childhood pix might be difficult for people who come from abusive backgrounds or have transitioned or lots of other reasons. It can be a picture from last week, if that's what works for you. And of course no one should feel obliged to share a picture at all! Only if it's fun!]
Daily Dose of Cute
Matilda and Olivia do their pushmi-pullyu impression.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Rep. Speier on the Sinclair Sentence
[Content Note: Rape culture; sexual violence.]
Last week, I wrote about Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, who struck a plea deal after a captain who served under him in Afghanistan alleged he forced her to perform oral sex and threatened to kill her. Sinclair was sentenced to pay $24,100 in fines and restitution, but was not sentenced to any jail time nor demoted.
Yesterday, Democratic US Representative from California Jackie Speier, who has long been working on the issue of reforming the way sexual assault is handled by the US military, took to the House floor to address the garbage sentencing in Sinclair's case, and note that the military is making reformers' point for them. Let 'em have it, Rep. Speier.
Transcript as prepared for delivery. There are minor deviations from the actual delivery in the above video.
Last week, as the world watched in disbelief, the trial of Brigadier General concluded much how it began, flawed and unjust.
Even with the world watching, along with countless survivors watching and reliving their similar experience, the military once again demonstrated its OUTRIGHT incompetence at administering justice.
Brig. Gen. Sinclair walked out of the court a free man even though he had pleaded guilty to these charges:
• Inappropriate relationship with his accuser
• Inappropriate relationship with another female Army captain
• Inappropriate relationship with a female Army major
• Possessing and displaying pornographic images and videos on his computer in Afghanistan
• Using a government-issued travel card for personal purposes for a trip to Tucson, Arizona and trip to Fort Hood, Texas, to see his accuser
• Attempting to start an inappropriate relationship with an Army lieutenant
• Sexually explicit communications with a female major Requesting and receiving nude photos and a sexually explicit video of her
• Vulgar language to describe female staff officers
• Impeding an investigation; and
• Adultery with his accuser
These aren't the charges that the judge found Sinclair innocent of, but all the charges he pled guilty to.
His punishment? No demotion in rank. No forced retirement. No jail time.
Instead, a small fine that he will pay with his generous taxpayer funded pension and a potent message of those that are thinking of coming forward: you will be dragged through the mud and punished, not the perpetrator.
I would like to say that I was shocked by this ridiculous decision, but after working on this issue for years I have learned that this pattern is the rule, not the exception.
Whether the Army intended it or not, this was a high profile test case for whether the military can hold its highest officers accountable for committing serious offenses. And it failed.
A civilian would have been fired. The misuse of government funds and gross misconduct Sinclair pleaded guilty to should have been more than enough to fire General Sinclair.
The military seems to be determined to make our point for us – the current military justice system is incapable of meting out justice in an impartial and effective way.
When Sinclair was challenged by his staff for his conduct and remarks towards women, the General replied: "I'm a General, I'll say whatever the (expletive) I want."
You know what, he was right.
Until these cases are taken out of the chain of command, the reality and perception will continue to be that the military justice system is tainted by undue command influence and is inherently unjust. The American people look at how this case was handled and see that a commanding officer without legal expertise and a built-in conflict of interest and are not competent to prosecute serious crimes.
It should now be clear to everyone in congress that the military is incapable of holding perpetrators accountable. It is our duty to reform this system which we created in the first place and let legal experts make legal decisions, not commanders with a built-in conflict.
Fundraiser and Support for Shanesha Taylor
[Content Note: Misogynoir; class warfare; criminalization of need.]
Yesterday, I wrote about Shanesha Taylor, a homeless, single mother of two children, who was arrested for child abuse after leaving her children in the car while interviewing for a job, because she had nowhere else to leave them.
In comments, Shaker Kimand48 linked to a fundraiser for Taylor, which I confirmed care of Prison Culture would be directing all collected funds to Taylor.
Last night, Prison Culture tweeted, which I am quoting with her permission: "Only $50 away from $5,000 4 #ShaneshaTaylor. Called Maricopa County this afternoon & learned that bond is $9,000."
Which means, as Shaker LeahC observed, that only funds raised beyond $9,000 will start paying for anything beyond getting Taylor out of jail.
Currently, the fundraiser stands at $9,994.
So, if you can afford to donate, please keep the donations coming.
And, if you cannot afford to donate, there are other ways to help. Prison Culture offers these additional suggestions "for how we might proceed in support of Shanesha."
1. Sign the following petition to Bill Montgomery who is the County Attorney for Maricopa County. Share the petition with everyone you know. Can we gather 10,000 signatures by Saturday? Let's try.If you have additional suggestions for how to help, please feel welcome and encouraged to drop them in comments.
2. After you have signed the petition, directly EMAIL Bill Montgomery to ask that he DROP THE CHARGES against Ms. Taylor.
3. It's always great when Prosecutors also receive phone calls. Please call the Maricopa County Attorney's office to ask them to drop the charges against Shanesha Taylor. Be polite about it but suggest that resources would be better spent providing Ms. Taylor and her children with help over punishment. They have already suffered enough.
Maricopa County Attorney's Office4. Are you on Facebook? Post a message on Bill Montgomery's Facebook Page explaining why he should DROP THE CHARGES against Ms. Taylor.
Phone: (602) 506-3411
Hours: 8am – 5pm Mon-Fri
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
Earlier this week, Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin announced they're separating, and lots of people have thoughts about that, and a bunch of folks have asked me what my thoughts are about that. My response to the end of any marriage that 1. isn't mine; 2. was not abusive, as far as I know, is always the same.
[Note: Video may begin to play automatically at link] In a major decision by the National Labor Relations Board, Northwestern University football players on scholarship have been ruled "employees of the school and therefore entitled to hold an election to decide whether to unionize." Nice! This could have far-reaching ramifications for college athletics, including (and most importantly, in my opinion) drastically reducing universities' ability to exploit athletes.
Democratic Charlotte Mayor Patrick Cannon has been arrested by the FBI and "and accused of accepting tens of thousands of dollars in bribes. ...Cannon was charged with theft and bribery, accused of taking cash payoffs at least five times. He was brought before U.S. Magistrate Judge David Keesler, required to surrender his passport and released on $25,000 unsecured bond pending an indictment that could come as early as next week." A lot of disappointed Cannon supporters in Charlotte today.
Republican Louisiana Senate candidate Bill Cassidy "told an annual meeting of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association that uninsured Americans are 'less sophisticated' and 'less educated' people who might find the Affordable Care Act too complicated and cumbersome to take advantage of." It continues to be a real mystery why Republicans are losing ground with nearly every demographic that isn't old straight white men!
Astronomers have discovered "a probable dwarf planet that orbits the Sun far beyond Pluto, in the most distant trajectory known. ...The newfound object's official name is 2012 VP113, but the discovery team calls it VP for short, or just 'Biden'." LOL perfect.
Like, for real, no one on the planet is more tired of hearing about Frozen than I am, and this story warmed even the cockles of my cold, dark, miserable heart: "Firefighters Sing 'Let It Go' to Comfort Little Girl Stuck in Elevator."
Your Progressive President Meets Your Progressive Pope
[Content Note: Anti-choice garbage; transphobia; homophobia; misogyny; clergy abuse.]
Today, President Obama is meeting with Pope Francis, and it already sounds terrific:
The goal of the meeting: Focus on areas where two of the world's most influential men agree and gently tread ground where they differ.So, basically, two of the world's most influential men will be ignoring major social issues that don't affect either one of them. And will talk about poverty and income inequality as if systemic oppression and the inability to control one's reproduction have no effect on one's financial stability. Sounds great!
The President and the Pontiff will, as the White House said in a statement, focus on "shared commitment to fighting poverty and growing (income) inequality" and gingerly navigate such thornier topics as same-sex marriage, contraception and abortion.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Obama pointed to the Pope's concern for income inequality, saying, "Given his great moral authority, when the Pope speaks it carries enormous weight."Decisions like denying people the right to control their reproduction, you mean?
Continuing to focus on income inequality, Obama said, "And it isn't just an economic issue, it's a moral issue. I think the Pope was speaking to the danger that over time we grow accustomed to this kind of inequality and accept it as normal. But we can't."
The President said he admires the Pope's courage to speak out on economic and social issues.
"It doesn't mean we agree on every issue, but his voice is one that I think the world needs to hear. He challenges us," Obama told the newspaper. "He implores us to remember the people, especially the poor, who are affected by the economic decisions we make."
It's just mendacious shit to argue that the Pope is saying bold and challenging things on poverty, when he manifestly refuses to advance a complex deconstruction of the reasons for poverty. The Pope still argues that women should not have employment equality; that women should not have access to contraception and abortion; that gay/bi people should not be allowed to marry (which, in the US, denies lots of same-sex partnered people crucial access to partners' employee-sponsored healthcare, which is a major financial issue); etc.
Meanwhile, I know the President is a big proponent of "both sides have a valid point" dialogue, but I have to call big-time bullshit on his contention that, despite disagreements, the Pope's "voice is one that I think the world needs to hear." I really don't think that the world needs to hear this dusty relic saying that trans* people are "demonic" or haughtily asserting that "no one else has done more" for victims of clergy abuse than the Catholic Church.
And I get that it's not like the President could say this kind of thing, even if he agreed. That he's obliged to say nice things and praise the Pope as a "moral authority." Which is maybe why don't meet with the Pope.
This F#@king Guy
[Content Note: Misogyny; leering; dress policing.]
A semi-retired federal judge in Omaha, Nebraska, US District Court Richard Kopf, wrote in a blog post found by Talking Points Memo that he "appreciates" a female lawyer in his court who "wears very short skirts and shows lots of her ample chest." He then offers his "three rules that young women lawyers should follow when considering how to dress for court."
1. You can't win. Men are both pigs and prudes. Get over it.As if to prove that "men are both pigs and prudes," Kopf opens the piece with a story about making his daughter cover up with a "demure white sweater" from a church lost-and-found at a wedding, which is immediately followed by the admission: "In candor, I have been a dirty old man ever since I was a very young man. Except, that is, when it comes to my daughters (and other young women that I care deeply about)."
2. It is not about you. That goes double when you are appearing in front of a jury.
3. Think about the female law clerks. If they are likely to label you, like Jane Curtin, an ignorant slut behind your back, tone it down.
Welp. That about sums it up. Women you care about have bodies that are yours to police. And women you don't care about have bodies that are yours to ogle.
And this jackass is a federal judge.
He's right about one thing: Women can't win.
Question of the Day
Bearing in mind the many things that constitute "help," what was a crucial time when you got help in your life when you really needed it?
I Get Letters
[Content Note: Fat hatred.]
One of the most frequently leveled charges against people who do fat advocacy is that we don't care about fat people's health, that encouraging people to love themselves and live their lives and not hate their bodies is tacitly encouraging people to be unhealthy.
(Never mind that fat does not axiomatically equal unhealthy.)
Yesterday, I received this email from a Shaker, who wishes to remain anonymous but who gave me hir consent to share its contents:
Hi Melissa,I do fat advocacy because I care about fat people's health.
I'm a long time lurker/reader on Shakesville and wanted to thank you for all that you and the Shakesville community have done to educate me on my internalized fat-phobia/fat shaming.
Reading Shakesville is what convinced me that my doctors were wrong, that the excruciating pain I felt when I walked was NOT because I was fat. You made me look at myself and say, "Wait, why do I believe that I'm lazy about this when I work 80+ hours a week?" Your writing gave me permission to believe that I deserved to be able to walk without pain, that the stabbing pains I had in my lower leg were not punishment for being fat, but an indication that something was seriously wrong and my body needed help.
I found a solution because of you. Not because of doctors. Not because of medicine. Because you and Shakesville told me I deserved it.
Thank you so much.
[Name Redacted]
And anyone who purports to be concerned about fat people's health will stop trying to demonize our bodies and shame us for having them, and instead get on board with the idea that there is little incentive to take care of a body you hate, that fat hatred is a barrier to seeking care, that fat hatred kills.
My inbox is always open, if you need emotional support in seeking healthcare while navigating fat hatred.
