As anyone who knows me can attest, I am skinny. I have always been skinny, and it is completely possible that I will always be skinny. While I have had periods of being heavier and lighter, I have never gone on a diet to lose weight. After having each of my three children, any residual baby weight was gone by my 6 week appointment and I was actually lighter after having my second and third than I was before my first. I wear size 2 pants and, honestly, they are too big for me.
Now a lot of people would read the paragraph above and think I was boasting. After all, I am the type of woman heavier women love to hate. I am the type of woman that everyone says all fashion is designed around and that so many heavier women seem to assume can just walk into a store and buy whatever she wants.
But I was not intending to boast. No, I am trying to nicely say "lay off." You are not the only person with problems with weight and, no, fashion streets are not paved with gold for me. And you know something else? The media and other individuals can be pretty hard on me too.
I understand that I have never experienced the struggle to eat less calories. I have however put myself on a diet: to eat more. I have struggled to gain weight in pregnancy with 2 of my children and have lost it all too fast for some medical personnel's liking (one gave me a pretty hard time about it; I think she thought I was purposely restricting calories to lose weight even though I was breastfeeding). I have also had many other brushes with the underweight side of the curve that have prompted me to have to focus on gaining weight. In fact, I am currently in one of those stages. Just in case you were wondering, no, it isn't pleasant to eat more when you don't want to.
I struggle a lot to find clothes for me. Sure, I don't have all the same problems a heavier woman does, but I have plenty of my own. Did you know there are plenty of clothes that don't come in a size 2 either? Furthermore, the reason I wear pants that are too big for me: because finding a size 0 is even more difficult. I really don't like clothes shopping and a big part of that is how frustrating it is to find things I look good in, just like most women.
And bras. Larger women seem to be under the impression that smaller woman don't need bras, so it doesn't matter what we wear. This is very much not true. I understand that I don't have the same problems larger chested women have. I even can see how it might even be a lot harder for them than me and that their need for a bra is greater than mine. But I wear a 32 band size--because I have never once found a band size of 28 that was more than an A cup (and even that is rare) No, I am not an A cup. I can find 30 band sizes online but a lot of stores do not carry them in store except for those clearly meant for 12-year-olds. And the bras that come in these sizes are not the cheap ones; they are at least $40 per bra. So no, I can't just pick up a $5 bra at Walmart that solves any problems I could have. And for the people that think I should just cut off the clasp and sew it back on further up the band to shorten it I say this: have you ever tried that? It is kind of a lot of work and the straps end up being in funny places and now you have just cut up a brand new bra. The fact is, bras are often terrible to shop for and are expensive and they might just be that way for everyone.
You want to know something else? All this pro "real women" media seems to often forget something: I am real too. Because the necessary logical conclusion from the assertion that the fashion industry isn't designing for "real women" because they only design for thinner women is that thinner women are not in fact real. Songs about how men don't like size 2s being praised doesn't exactly send an accepting message to anyone who is in fact a size 2. Why is it necessary to put down someone else to make yourself feel good?
And in terms of people in my life being obnoxious about my weight I do deal with the following, especially when I was single and living with roommates or in high school: I have been told that I am flat chested with varying degrees of venom behind the statement. I have been told that I am "so anorexic-ly skinny" on numerous occasions. Granted, at least one of those situations it was intended to be a compliment (which is a problem of its own), but it isn't a nice feeling to be basically accused of having a mental disorder you don't have. I have been told by several different people that "I hate you; you're so skinny!" Yes, this is usually meant as a joke, but it isn't exactly nice, especially coming from people I don't know well in the locker room. Truth is, it can be pretty awkward and hurtful to comment on a skinny person's weight as well as a larger person.
No, none of that has really caused me to have a terrible body image; in general I like my body. But do you know what does bother me? I am not allowed by society to talk about any problems I do have with my weight or my body shape. I have had a few different people get mad at me for mentioning that I do sometimes struggle with gaining weight. I generally am accused of bragging or intentionally making them feel bad about themselves. It is not okay to mention anything about problems with weight when you are like me because so many people "would love to have that problem."
I am not saying that many things in the world are not a problem for larger women. Yes, there is a push to be skinny and I undoubtedly benefit in some ways from being closer to the "ideal" body type (though I am not supermodel tall or anything). But I am also a real person. I have real feelings and problems and struggles, even when it comes to my weight. I am not trying to assert my problems are bigger than other people's, just that I, like everyone else, have them.
So to all women: can we please stop putting each other down to make ourselves feel better? Can we all encourage each other in our goals to live healthy lives regardless of if they are currently overweight, underweight, or of a healthy weight? Can people stop looking at others and deciding they must have a charmed life because they have x desirable quality? It is getting kind of old.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Monday, June 5, 2017
The Catfish Thing is Not a Good Look, Nashville
So, I have been paying a bit of attention to the Stanley Cup proceedings as I live in Pittsburgh. As is somewhat typical for me, I have found something besides the actual sport to think about. In this case, it is the Predators' fans' tendency to throw catfish on the ice. And my opinion is that it is a pretty pathetic and disgusting tradition. I honestly have no idea why the players haven't told them, "you know, this is stupid and it messes up the ice. Please don't."
So, for those that don't know this history of the catfish thing, it actually starts with another team, the Detroit Redwings, and The Legend of the Octopus. While I do find this tradition pretty stupid as well, at least it has some kind of story and history. The catfish, on the other hand, is--completely admittedly--simply something Predators' fans do because they are wannabe Redwings fans. How do they not realize that that is kind of pathetic?
Furthermore, this stuff leaves residue on the ice. And you can see it from wide angle shots. If covering your ice rink with fish guts is really how you want the world to see your city, well, I guess you are doing it right.
Finally, I just have to say to anyone who has snuck a catfish into an arena: You know the moment when you are saran wrapping a fish into your compression shorts? That is probably a good time to rethink your life a little bit.
So, for those that don't know this history of the catfish thing, it actually starts with another team, the Detroit Redwings, and The Legend of the Octopus. While I do find this tradition pretty stupid as well, at least it has some kind of story and history. The catfish, on the other hand, is--completely admittedly--simply something Predators' fans do because they are wannabe Redwings fans. How do they not realize that that is kind of pathetic?
Furthermore, this stuff leaves residue on the ice. And you can see it from wide angle shots. If covering your ice rink with fish guts is really how you want the world to see your city, well, I guess you are doing it right.
Finally, I just have to say to anyone who has snuck a catfish into an arena: You know the moment when you are saran wrapping a fish into your compression shorts? That is probably a good time to rethink your life a little bit.
Friday, April 28, 2017
Hogwarts Houses Make No Sense
So, last night my husband and I got into taking personality tests. In that we came across an article talking about how the house you identify with is actually a predictor of personality. As it was a little later than it should be, I waxed a bit philosophical. That the house you identify with says something about you does make sense to me as the way you see yourself is a big part of your personality. What doesn't make sense is the entire Hogwarts house system.
First, we have the fact that the whole sorting thing must be extremely scarring for a lot of kids. These are 11 year old children that are being called in front of a huge group of peers, many of whom they don't know, but all of whom they are going to be living with. Then, all their peers are told exactly how they are supposed to classify you. And even if there are supposed to be good qualities associated with each house, they have obviously also been equated with less desirable qualities. So basically, at the beginning of your adolescence, you are being given a label that you won't be able to get away from for the next 7 years. I can't see how that would possibly be problematic.
Then we have the fact that we are separating people into personality types and making people with the same personality spend all their time together. However, it turns out that people tend to work more successfully and get along better with people with different personalities from their own. Thus, from a productivity and peaceful living standpoint, Hogwarts isn't doing so well. Admittedly, I learned this specifically in relation to Myers-briggs personalities, which are divided into 16 instead of 4, so there will undoubtedly be variations in a house, but I still think it is a bit of a flaw.
In addition, when we get to the specific house values and how they really are portrayed in the books, we get to more nonsense. I am just waxing philosophical and I admit I am not putting too much into research in the books here (okay, so I haven't read one since the 7th came out and am working off memory from then), but there are serious problems with the supposed values of Slytherin and the apparent stupidity of most of the Slytherins. Ambitious, cunning, sneaky people are not stupid. Draco Malfoy is held up as a pretty textbook example of a Slytherin, but he exists constantly on the defense. He is acted upon and never really acts. He is really more the anti-Griffindor (a coward), than much of a Slytherin.
Voldemort I will accept as a pretty cunning and ambitious person, but it doesn't really make sense that his main source of followers were Slytherins. If anything, they should have been Griffindors; the brash, doer personality that should be really easy to manipulate and would move your cause forward rather rapidly. Slytherins on the other hand would move with you as long as you could convince them that it was in their best interest, but that is a tricky thing to keep someone thinking when that person is by nature always reassessing their own best interests. If you ask me, a Slytherin should have been Voldemort's main opposition as soon as one of them realized they could get the majority of 3/4ths of the population on their side by doing so. Dumbledore would be a good example of what a Slytherin should be, actually. Does it ever say what house he was in?
And yes, there was this longstanding rivalry going on between Slytherin and Griffindor that would make a Slytherin using the Griffindors more difficult, but if the majority of Slytherin were in fact as Slytherin as they were supposed to be, they should have fixed that rivalry to further their own ambitions, especially since the fall of Voldemort appears to have left the Griffindors in a good, powerful position.
And then we come to a thought I have expressed before and all pro Slytherin people are quick to point out that not all Slytherins are bad. Yes, I understand they are not all supposed to be on the bad side. But a disproportionate number apparently are supposed to be. Which to me means Hogwarts should have long ago questioned what exactly is happening in Slytherin that is causing this to happen. I mean, it is not like the admittedly crazy parents are actually raising these kids; the school has them the majority of the year from the age of 11 on. There must be something wrong with the system in that house if it is turning out a disproportionate number of evil people.
Well, this is enough time spent on Harry Potter for the day. And yes, I realize that the sorting problems are just the tip of the iceberg of nonsense in these books (I mean, you have a school of magic children with tons of magical adults and your solution to keeping the kids where they are supposed to be at night is having the one person without magic wander around a with a creepy cat to try and catch people out of bed? There has got to be a way to make some kind of magical alarm system).
First, we have the fact that the whole sorting thing must be extremely scarring for a lot of kids. These are 11 year old children that are being called in front of a huge group of peers, many of whom they don't know, but all of whom they are going to be living with. Then, all their peers are told exactly how they are supposed to classify you. And even if there are supposed to be good qualities associated with each house, they have obviously also been equated with less desirable qualities. So basically, at the beginning of your adolescence, you are being given a label that you won't be able to get away from for the next 7 years. I can't see how that would possibly be problematic.
Then we have the fact that we are separating people into personality types and making people with the same personality spend all their time together. However, it turns out that people tend to work more successfully and get along better with people with different personalities from their own. Thus, from a productivity and peaceful living standpoint, Hogwarts isn't doing so well. Admittedly, I learned this specifically in relation to Myers-briggs personalities, which are divided into 16 instead of 4, so there will undoubtedly be variations in a house, but I still think it is a bit of a flaw.
In addition, when we get to the specific house values and how they really are portrayed in the books, we get to more nonsense. I am just waxing philosophical and I admit I am not putting too much into research in the books here (okay, so I haven't read one since the 7th came out and am working off memory from then), but there are serious problems with the supposed values of Slytherin and the apparent stupidity of most of the Slytherins. Ambitious, cunning, sneaky people are not stupid. Draco Malfoy is held up as a pretty textbook example of a Slytherin, but he exists constantly on the defense. He is acted upon and never really acts. He is really more the anti-Griffindor (a coward), than much of a Slytherin.
Voldemort I will accept as a pretty cunning and ambitious person, but it doesn't really make sense that his main source of followers were Slytherins. If anything, they should have been Griffindors; the brash, doer personality that should be really easy to manipulate and would move your cause forward rather rapidly. Slytherins on the other hand would move with you as long as you could convince them that it was in their best interest, but that is a tricky thing to keep someone thinking when that person is by nature always reassessing their own best interests. If you ask me, a Slytherin should have been Voldemort's main opposition as soon as one of them realized they could get the majority of 3/4ths of the population on their side by doing so. Dumbledore would be a good example of what a Slytherin should be, actually. Does it ever say what house he was in?
And yes, there was this longstanding rivalry going on between Slytherin and Griffindor that would make a Slytherin using the Griffindors more difficult, but if the majority of Slytherin were in fact as Slytherin as they were supposed to be, they should have fixed that rivalry to further their own ambitions, especially since the fall of Voldemort appears to have left the Griffindors in a good, powerful position.
And then we come to a thought I have expressed before and all pro Slytherin people are quick to point out that not all Slytherins are bad. Yes, I understand they are not all supposed to be on the bad side. But a disproportionate number apparently are supposed to be. Which to me means Hogwarts should have long ago questioned what exactly is happening in Slytherin that is causing this to happen. I mean, it is not like the admittedly crazy parents are actually raising these kids; the school has them the majority of the year from the age of 11 on. There must be something wrong with the system in that house if it is turning out a disproportionate number of evil people.
Well, this is enough time spent on Harry Potter for the day. And yes, I realize that the sorting problems are just the tip of the iceberg of nonsense in these books (I mean, you have a school of magic children with tons of magical adults and your solution to keeping the kids where they are supposed to be at night is having the one person without magic wander around a with a creepy cat to try and catch people out of bed? There has got to be a way to make some kind of magical alarm system).
Friday, January 20, 2017
Comforting Thoughts
Okay, I think we all need to take a deep breath. Yes, crazy, unexpected things have happened. And yes, there are several times in the past election season and since that I have been genuinely scared for the future. But it is going to be okay in the end, especially if we take this election as a lesson.
For the record, I did not vote for Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump. Yes, I live in Pennsylvania, and yes, I know that makes me terrible to some people. But my vote is my vote and I would like to politely ask you to mind your own business. I include this in this article only to point out how I disagree strongly enough on certain things with both of the candidates and have enough issues with both candidates' character that I could not vote for either of them in good conscience.
Immediately after Trump won, I was shocked. Then I got a little depressed. I mean, a large percentage of our population voted for someone I kind of find despicable. And another large portion voted for someone else I find despicable. Then people started protesting and I got more depressed. What are you protesting? That unlike in so many nations in this world, we had an election with relatively little criminal activity (even if it was nastier than usual and the criminal activity of the actual candidates higher than usual) and that the loser of said election is conceding defeat and transfer of power is going from one political party to the other relatively peacefully? Are you trying to make sure it isn't peaceful? And then some of the disgusting variety of people in the county started acting more publicly and confidently disgusting to minorities. And then the Hitler card started to get thrown around in complete seriousness. And by this point, I was feeling more down about my fellow Americans than just the numbers from a vote could ever make me feel.
I didn't agree with either of the candidates to a point that I couldn't vote for them. But I have friends that voted for both sides. And they are good people. None of them are these crazy people threatening minorities or plotting to kill Trump. And this is what has made me feel a lot better about the whole thing: While the vast majority of the population of this country voted for individuals I found I could not vote for due to moral and ideological objections, it is still quite possible (and dare I hope likely), that the vast majority of people are still good people.
We need to all calm down enough to understand a few things. These points make me feel a lot better; hopefully they will help someone else too. Since Trump is the one elected, I am going to stop discussing Clinton at this point, but much of the same ideas would apply if the tables were turned.
Not everyone who votes one way is in complete agreement with others who voted the same way or even the candidate they voted for. There is a big difference between people who voted for Trump and the angry, hateful, racist, misogynistic, stereotypical Trump supporter. While that person does exist (stereotypes do come from somewhere), he or she is not 46.5% of the population. For example, I know people who voted for Trump who also work on a volunteer basis to help refugees, which is bizarre if we believe that the caricature of Trump voters is the rule for all of them.
Not everyone who has a different opinion than I do is wrong. It is fun to be right. And by definition, if I have an opinion, I think I am right. But it is also important to allow for the possibility that I am wrong or even in some cases if I am right that others are right too. Our government (and many other governments) were built based on the assumption that people are wrong sometimes. Everyone will at some point be wrong. So yes, I think deporting all illegal immigrants and building a wall is a ridiculous solution to our illegal immigrant situation, but it is possible I am wrong. We need to listen to the people we disagree with and be open to the possibility that they might actually be right--if not entirely--about some aspect of the issue. Otherwise, we are just being rather full of ourselves and will still eventually have to admit that we were wrong about something when the results of our inevitable mistakes play out.
Not everyone I disagree with is evil. I am none too happy with a lot of what Trump says. His behavior toward women would be one example. But even if this specific behavior is in fact wrong or even evil, it does not make Trump necessarily evil (though believe me, I don't think he is any pillar of the community). But more importantly it certainly doesn't make everyone who voted for Trump evil. We often make the other side out to be pure evil: This Republican is the literal reincarnation of Hitler or that Democrat sold his or her soul to the devil and now carries around this tube of demons like Rasputin in Anastasia. And yes, people can do evil things and there are always evil things happening in the world. But people can also do good things and often some of the bad things people do are just misguided attempts to do good. Furthermore, what is in fact good or bad can be a matter of opinion (giving money to beggars on the street for instance) and, as we already discussed, our opinions can in fact be wrong.
Our government was specifically designed to allow for the people in the government to be flawed. Of course it would be great if our leaders were perfect. If they were, we would hardly need the convoluted checks and balances we have. But as the government is organized no one person has that much power and the most productive people are those that are willing to work with others by listening to those they disagree with and admitting to being wrong sometimes. While the Republican Party had a seeming considerable victory, the Republican party has been far from united recently. Trump may have won, but if he is going to get anything done he is going to have to get people to agree with him, and not the crazy stereotypical Trump supporter, but members of congress of both parties, some of whom who have publicly denounced him. And the greater the refusal to cooperate between these public servants, the slower the progress (or digression) of the government will be. There is only so much Trump can do in 4 years, and that amount will be greatly reduced unless he learns to play nice. Furthermore, if he steps entirely out of line and ticks off enough people, congress can actually remove him from office.
In the end, we are the ones with the power. You can claim #notmypresident all you like, but we as a country elected that president. And we as a country get to decide what happens next. Yes, this is a new era, and I didn't get the hand I would choose if I got to stack the deck, but that doesn't mean it has to be a bad era. Our government was initially set up to be run more on a local than federal level and it can still function that way. So if you don't like what is happening in Washington D.C. and can't move there to change it, change what is happening where you live; ultimately, that will have the greatest impact on your everyday life.
For the record, I did not vote for Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump. Yes, I live in Pennsylvania, and yes, I know that makes me terrible to some people. But my vote is my vote and I would like to politely ask you to mind your own business. I include this in this article only to point out how I disagree strongly enough on certain things with both of the candidates and have enough issues with both candidates' character that I could not vote for either of them in good conscience.
Immediately after Trump won, I was shocked. Then I got a little depressed. I mean, a large percentage of our population voted for someone I kind of find despicable. And another large portion voted for someone else I find despicable. Then people started protesting and I got more depressed. What are you protesting? That unlike in so many nations in this world, we had an election with relatively little criminal activity (even if it was nastier than usual and the criminal activity of the actual candidates higher than usual) and that the loser of said election is conceding defeat and transfer of power is going from one political party to the other relatively peacefully? Are you trying to make sure it isn't peaceful? And then some of the disgusting variety of people in the county started acting more publicly and confidently disgusting to minorities. And then the Hitler card started to get thrown around in complete seriousness. And by this point, I was feeling more down about my fellow Americans than just the numbers from a vote could ever make me feel.
I didn't agree with either of the candidates to a point that I couldn't vote for them. But I have friends that voted for both sides. And they are good people. None of them are these crazy people threatening minorities or plotting to kill Trump. And this is what has made me feel a lot better about the whole thing: While the vast majority of the population of this country voted for individuals I found I could not vote for due to moral and ideological objections, it is still quite possible (and dare I hope likely), that the vast majority of people are still good people.
We need to all calm down enough to understand a few things. These points make me feel a lot better; hopefully they will help someone else too. Since Trump is the one elected, I am going to stop discussing Clinton at this point, but much of the same ideas would apply if the tables were turned.
Not everyone who votes one way is in complete agreement with others who voted the same way or even the candidate they voted for. There is a big difference between people who voted for Trump and the angry, hateful, racist, misogynistic, stereotypical Trump supporter. While that person does exist (stereotypes do come from somewhere), he or she is not 46.5% of the population. For example, I know people who voted for Trump who also work on a volunteer basis to help refugees, which is bizarre if we believe that the caricature of Trump voters is the rule for all of them.
Not everyone who has a different opinion than I do is wrong. It is fun to be right. And by definition, if I have an opinion, I think I am right. But it is also important to allow for the possibility that I am wrong or even in some cases if I am right that others are right too. Our government (and many other governments) were built based on the assumption that people are wrong sometimes. Everyone will at some point be wrong. So yes, I think deporting all illegal immigrants and building a wall is a ridiculous solution to our illegal immigrant situation, but it is possible I am wrong. We need to listen to the people we disagree with and be open to the possibility that they might actually be right--if not entirely--about some aspect of the issue. Otherwise, we are just being rather full of ourselves and will still eventually have to admit that we were wrong about something when the results of our inevitable mistakes play out.
Not everyone I disagree with is evil. I am none too happy with a lot of what Trump says. His behavior toward women would be one example. But even if this specific behavior is in fact wrong or even evil, it does not make Trump necessarily evil (though believe me, I don't think he is any pillar of the community). But more importantly it certainly doesn't make everyone who voted for Trump evil. We often make the other side out to be pure evil: This Republican is the literal reincarnation of Hitler or that Democrat sold his or her soul to the devil and now carries around this tube of demons like Rasputin in Anastasia. And yes, people can do evil things and there are always evil things happening in the world. But people can also do good things and often some of the bad things people do are just misguided attempts to do good. Furthermore, what is in fact good or bad can be a matter of opinion (giving money to beggars on the street for instance) and, as we already discussed, our opinions can in fact be wrong.
Our government was specifically designed to allow for the people in the government to be flawed. Of course it would be great if our leaders were perfect. If they were, we would hardly need the convoluted checks and balances we have. But as the government is organized no one person has that much power and the most productive people are those that are willing to work with others by listening to those they disagree with and admitting to being wrong sometimes. While the Republican Party had a seeming considerable victory, the Republican party has been far from united recently. Trump may have won, but if he is going to get anything done he is going to have to get people to agree with him, and not the crazy stereotypical Trump supporter, but members of congress of both parties, some of whom who have publicly denounced him. And the greater the refusal to cooperate between these public servants, the slower the progress (or digression) of the government will be. There is only so much Trump can do in 4 years, and that amount will be greatly reduced unless he learns to play nice. Furthermore, if he steps entirely out of line and ticks off enough people, congress can actually remove him from office.
In the end, we are the ones with the power. You can claim #notmypresident all you like, but we as a country elected that president. And we as a country get to decide what happens next. Yes, this is a new era, and I didn't get the hand I would choose if I got to stack the deck, but that doesn't mean it has to be a bad era. Our government was initially set up to be run more on a local than federal level and it can still function that way. So if you don't like what is happening in Washington D.C. and can't move there to change it, change what is happening where you live; ultimately, that will have the greatest impact on your everyday life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)