Debbie says:

Donna Simpson has, to say the least, an odd ambition. She wants to become the fattest woman in the world, and she’s (please pardon the pun) busting her ass to get there.

A 42-year-old New Jersey mom is on track to weigh in as the world’s fattest woman. Donna Simpson is determined to double her size by eating piles of junk food, the Daily Mail reported yesterday.

Simpson is already in the Guinness Book of World Records for being the largest mom. It took 30 hospital staff to deliver her daughter in a high-risk cesarean in 2007. At the time she weighed about 530 pounds. (She has other children.)

These days, Simpson is eating 12,000 calories a day in an effort to weigh in at 1,000 pounds. “To fund the massive $750 weekly food shop, she runs a website where men pay her to watch her eat fast food,” the Daily Mail reported.

The question at issue in both the San Francisco and London papers is: should she be allowed to keep her children?

First, let’s separate a few things out: I don’t believe that what she’s doing is likely to be “healthy” (whatever that word means) for her, either physically or emotionally. I think that junk food is bad for almost everyone, except in moderation. I think it’s a bad idea to build your life around eating anything, and especially processed junk. At the same time, I don’t see any reason to demonize Donna Simpson, especially without examining the context.

As far as her kids are concerned, in effectively all nonabusive circumstances, mothers should be allowed to keep their children. The urge to take her kids away from her should not be about her weight. Neither article says anything about the children: how old are they? are they healthy? is she feeding them? does she hit them? do they go to school? is there another parent, and what does that persont think? are any of the kids old enough to express an opinion, and if so, what do they say?

Important as the safety and health of her real children is, bringing them into the story is a classic diversion tactic: let’s look away from what’s really happening, and look at the mythical children instead. (By not telling us anything about her real children, and especially by not letting them speak for themselves, the newspapers are turning them into mythical, fetishized children.)

When we consider the possibility that this story may not be about weight, other issues jump off the screen:

Getting yourself into the Guinness Book of World Records–for anything–is a classic way to bring interest and attention into a “life of quiet desperation,” or even a life of boredom and mundane troubles. In our Warhol world, where nearly everyone either has been or wants to be famous for 15 minutes, the Book of World Records is tailor-made to fill that need. You don’t have to gain weight, you can try for “loudest burp” or “furthest eye popper,” “most pierced,” etc., etc. How about “most balloon sculptures made in an hour”?

What about the men who are supporting Simpson’s eating by paying to watch her eat on the Internet? What about the social context in which she has this goal? According to one story, she was making 2,000 pounds (about $3,000) a month in 2008 and $750/week would be about the same now: roughly what I take home for 35 hours of highly specialized office work a week–and I get no notoriety. If she has an “extreme–practically unbelievable–… relationship with food,” what do these men have? Could she even have this ambition if she didn’t live in a society that has an “extreme–practically unbelievable–relationship with food”? She didn’t come up with this idea in a vacuum.

Women who try to starve themselves–and succeed–are not news and have not been news for centuries. Also, we know with complete conviction and certainty that ceasing to eat will kill you and, despite our maniacal hatred of fat, we cannot be so sure about Simpson’s path. She could continue at her same level of health for decades, which cannot be said of committed anorexics. And no one pays to watch a woman, or a teenage girl, starve on the Internet.

This opens up more questions: would Simpson be doing this if it couldn’t get her into the Book of World Records, or some similar recognition? Would she be doing it if no one was paying her to do it?

When my friend Patti (who sent me the link) was discussing it with me, she asked what I thought Simpson would do if the junk-food money well ran dry. Would she find another source for so much food? My reaction was that I don’t know her, so I can’t say. The way I imagine her, she would find some other way to get into the Guinness Book of World Records, or to get webcam attention on the Internet. I don’t think it’s about the weight.

Oh, and one more thing about her and her children: if we aren’t up in arms about taking children away from severe anorexics (those who live long enough to have children) or the person with the largest collection of airplane sick bags, let’s leave Donna Simpson alone.

Debbie says:

As an informed body-image activist, I’m a lot more skeptical about the connection between eating too much sugar and diabetes than most folks. I’m aware of the research regarding Bisphenol A (which is in everyday plastic) and DDE, which is in most human bodies.

Somehow, that skepticism doesn’t make me feel good about this story:

In New Haven, the [PepsiCo] corporation will also fund a graduate fellowship in the M.D.-Ph.D. program at the Yale School of Medicine to support research on nutrition and obesity-related diseases, such as Type 2 diabetes, PepsiCo spokeswoman Michelle Naughton said.

While PepsiCo’s laboratory will not officially be affiliated with Yale, School of Medicine Dean Robert Alpern said PepsiCo chose to have a laboratory in New Haven to collaborate with the school’s faculty, which Alpern said is known for its research in obesity and metabolism..

While this Yale article is a bit coy about “collaborating with the school’s faculty,” other sources say that PepsiCo is establishing a fellowship at Yale’s School of Medicine. And Yale is thrilled:

“PepsiCo’s commitment to improving health through proper nutrition is of great importance to the well-being of people in this country and throughout the world. We are delighted that they are expanding their research in this area and that they have chosen Yale as a partner for this endeavor,” said [Alpern].

How do you think he managed to say that with a straight face?

Give them two years to get established, and you’re going to start seeing studies out of Yale that “demonstrate” that neither sugary beverages nor artificial sweeteners create serious health risks, that while obesity (and that boogeyperson in the closet, “childhood obesity”) are still terrible for your health, junk food is not the major contributor to them.

Since Pepsi owns Frito-Lay, many low-nutrition snack foods will be exonerated as well. And since Pepsi owns Tropicana, headlines will proclaim that orange juice is not only a health food (which it is) but also a magical cure-all for something, probably but not certainly diabetes.

The disappearance of government research funds is one of the quieter issues of the economy, and (at least in the short term) not one of the most crucial ones: people are starving, dying from lack of access to health care, dying in war, dying of exposure on the street. Nonetheless, we cannot get good nutritional science from research done on PepsiCo;s dime, any more than we can get good agricultural science from Monsanto-supported Ph.D’s.

The networks don’t report the funding sources; the news doesn’t say how corporate research shapes results. So don’t believe it when the headlines tell you that both sugared and diet sodas are good for your health, especially when eaten with corn chips.

Laurie and Debbie say:

The Olympics (summer and winter) are, of course, gender-essentialist events, with virtually every sport and competition being men-only or women-only. And yes, there are some good reasons for sports events to be gendered, though the truths of different abilities are a lot more subtle and complex than they are generally presented … and of course, not everyone is straightforwardly male or female.

At the same time, the Olympics are special to young people who either are or want to be athletes: a chance to project yourself into that gold medal winner who might be from your country, or look like you, or be winning in a sport you’re good at, or just be someone you can imagine being.

In the Vancouver Olympics, two things happened outside of the actual competitions, both of which underscore the insidious effects of judging people’s behavior by their gender … and both of which brought out really strong responses from athletes.

Johnny Weir, a U.S. figure skater, is known for his fabulous routines and gender transgressive presentation. After he skated in Vancouver, a couple of Francophone sportscasters made fun of his routines and questioned his gender. Weir responded brilliantly:

He’s not asking for an apology. He says he believes in free speech and wouldn’t want these men fired for expressing their opinion. (“I’ve heard worse in bathrooms and whatnot about me,” he quipped.) He just wants them to think before they speak — and to imagine the damage they could do to people like him and to generations of children whose parents may not give them the same freedom and support his did if they think their child will only be ridiculed for being who he or she is. “I would challenge anyone to question my upbringing and question my parents’ ideals and feelings about bringing up me and my brother, who’s completely different from me but taught very much the same way that I was,” Weir said.

He also said that only his closest intimates know what makes him tick … and it’s no one else’s business.

Special kudos to Weir for saying he doesn’t want an apology: the apology is due to the dreaming kids who were hurt by the sportscaster remarks.

Elsewhere in the Olympics, the Canadian women’s hockey team came in for some criticism after their exciting gold-medal win against the U.S. team. In the grand tradition of sports success everywhere, they had a celebration: beer, champagne, and cigars. They chose to celebrate on the ice they won on.

Apparently, one slightly underage team member had some champagne. (The horror!) The International Olympic Committee originally said it would “investigate their behaviour,” but eventually decided to leave the issue alone.

Captain Hayley Wickenheiser said … there was a double standard at work.

Wickenheiser said if it were a men’s team, there wouldn’t be a hint of controversy.

“I don’t brush it off, the underage [part] and being on the ice,” said Wickenheiser. “Those things maybe could have been done different. But at the same time, it’s celebrating, it’s hockey, it’s a tradition we do. When we see a Stanley Cup winner, we see them spraying champagne all over the dressing room, you see 18-year-old kids there and nobody says a thing.”

Wickenheiser didn’t specifically reference the girls watching at home and imagining their own victories, but those girls are still part of the story.

Both of these events have received a lot of coverage, but we haven’t seen anybody putting them together. Despite the huge forces out there who want men to behave “like men” and women “like women,” and will work hard to enforce gender policing, the Johnny Weirs and Hayley Wickenheisers are getting more power and more voice. And that is the best thing that can happen for children with dreams.

Laurie says:

It is 100 years today since the German feminist Clara Zetkin’s idea of International Women’s Day was born.

So do something good for a woman today or tomorrow….

Here are some images for celebration.

..

..

..

..

Laurie says:

I was thinking about memory today. Mine is pretty non-linear. Rather like the medieval christian god’s view of time, i.e. it’s all happening in one total timeless view.   My memories tend to be small vivid flashes unless I”m consciously trying to remember. Then they can be far more complex, detailed and linear (if needed).

The In-Camera Project images are somewhat reflective of my memory in their vividness and their size. This doesn’t necessarily mean there is a connection, but it’s interesting to think about. In the early stages of a project there are always different threads to follow, and often it turns out that they weave together.

These are the new photos.

..

..

This is a stained glass window that looks out on my garden.

..

This is view of a quince bush in the garden.

Debbie says:

I just got back from watching the Oscars with a gaggle of teenage girls (and another adult). I could do a complex critique of gender and ethnicity politics (those critiques always run in my head). But I just wanted to say that the camera went frequently to Gabourey Sidibe (nominated for Best Actress), .

and also to Mo’Nique (who won the Best Supporting Actress award). Both women were in Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire. It was such a joy to see stunningly beautiful and genuinely fat women, dressed to the nines, among the stars at the Academy Awards

The girls I was watching with were critiquing everyone’s dresses, but not anyone’s size. And aside from one relatively harmless crack about Sarah Jessica Parker weighing “a single pound,” no one on the stage was being rude either.

And then Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman ever to win a Best Director Oscar (for The Hurt Locker).

Sometimes, it doesn’t seem quite so bad out there.

Laurie and Debbie say:

Some of our friends are up in arms about “vajazzling.” If you haven’t heard the word, it refers to having tiny Swarovski crystals heat-sealed onto your waxed (or super-shaved) vagina (which here at Body Impolitic we do not call the “vajayjay”). Jennifer Love Hewitt does it and (sadly) she says she does it “to feel good about her privates.”

Okay, this is a little complicated. Some of the background things to think about:

1) Waxing and shaving both have a flavor of infantilization, of looking like prepubescent girls instead of women.
2) Anything that modifies your vagina (or any part of your body) at a price is going to be sold as “better than natural,” because “natural” is free. So there’s always a disturbing hint of “you don’t look good the way you are.”
3) Vagina modifications in particular are almost always spun as of “it’s icky down there unless you make it better/cleaner/neater.”

All that being said, we think that if it’s your style vajazzling is a pretty harmless variation on sprucing up your private parts. It isn’t invasive, it lasts about five days (which means it’s a real moneymaker for vajazzlers who can attract repeat clients, but it’s also something you can do for a fling), and it’s sparkly!

Doree Shafrir at Gawker interviewed a few men to see what they thought about it, and got basically negative responses, including Gabe Delahaye at Videogum, who said,

“”Gross. People who vajazzle should have their vaginas taken away,” he said. “They can have them back when they are ready.”

We’re a lot more grossed out by men who think it’s okay to judge women that way then we are by women witih sparkly genitalia. And sad to see feminist friends repeating it with admiration.

One last point about vajazzling: men clearly are not who it’s for. Hewitt did it to recover from a breakup. Bryce at the Luxury Spot, pictured above, was hardly worried about the injunction “not to engage in any ‘vigorous activity for at least the first day,’” saying, “I should be so lucky.”

If you’re going to wax anyway, you can afford it, and it’s your style, why not add some crystals into the mix?

Debbie says:

For the last day of Black History month, we bring you “The Promise,” an interactive presentation of contemporary and historical photos, interviews, and audio commentary. Contemporary photos by Platon, commentary by David Remnick.

Watch them all.

The above image is from Like a Whisper’s daily posts for Black Herstory Month. This picture is of the first African-American girl scout troop, started in 1924 and cancelled two years later when its founder, Josephine Groves Holloway, was forced out of her job by her supervisor. Read about it here.

Like A Whisper’s Black Herstory Month coverage, including today’s extensive “link love” post, is essential reading.

Laurie says:

I have two new photos for my In-Camera Project.   These are the digital color images I’ve been working on.  After I shoot them, they are not modified or manipulated except for cropping, so all the work is “in camera”.  (Apologies to those who’ve heard the explanation already.)  The work is feeling very pure and direct, and I’m very happy with it.  I have a strong feeling that it’s leading somewhere really interesting.   All I know at this point is that on some levels its about light.

.

.

The photo is of a lemon tree branch with a Japanese bell.

.

.

This is a quince blossom branch.  If you look closely (at least on my monitor and in the print) you’ll see that the background isn’t truly black but designed. This photo was shot with flash.  It’s the first time I’ve ever used it.

There are earlier images from the project here and here and more to come.

Lynne says:

I ran into an article not long ago in The New York Times, The Americanization of Mental Illness by Ethan Watters, based on his forthcoming book, Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche, discussing how the American way of mental illness being exported along with other American products such as rock n’ roll, Coca Cola, and anorexia.

The classic case of Western media-induced anorexia happened on the Polynesian island of Fiji, where eating disorders were unknown for 3,000 years until television became available in 1995. A 1999 New York Times article describes what Dr. Ann E. Becker, director of research at the Harvard Eating Disorders Center of Harvard Medical School, found when she investigated shifts in body image and eating practices in Fiji over a three-year period.

Before 1995, Dr. Becker said, there was little talk of dieting in Fiji. ”The idea of calories was very foreign to them.” But in the 1998 survey, 69 percent said that at some time they had been on a diet. In fact, preliminary data suggest more teen-age girls in Fiji diet than their American counterparts.
Study Finds TV Alters Fiji Girls’ View of Body By Erica Goode, May 20, 1999

Oddly enough the idea of viral mental illness set me to thinking about some unusual toys I played with as a child. My father was a psychologist who administered psychological tests for schools, government agencies and mental institutions before he gave that up to go into military and aerospace research.

He had a cupboard full of old psychological tests that he never used, and when I got old enough not to mess them up, he would let me take them out and play with them. I think by then his worldview was that these tests were indeed games, so why shouldn’t I play with them.

It’s been nearly 50 years since I last picked these up but I still remember how beautiful the Rorschach ink blots were. They were large, thick cardboard about six by nine inches and not just black and white, but with almost three-dimensional gray shadings, and colorful red, blue, green orange and pink swirls.

Another test was the TAT or Thematic Apperception Test, again pictures on even larger cards. Each drawing showed a little scene that you were supposed to tell a story about–good training for a novelist, although that was hardly anyone’s plan for me at the time.

The creepiest test was the Szondi test–no, not Zombie test, it was named after Hungarian psychiatrist Lipot Szondi (1893-1986). This test consisted of four sheets of mug shots, 48 pictures of mental patients taken in the late 1800s to early 1900s. As my father explained it, if you got on a bus and there was an empty seat next to each of these people, who would you sit next to?

Szondi lived into the 1980s and I don’t know if he ever changed his diagnostic definitions, but the eight diagnoses the Szondi test used were: homosexual, sadistic, epileptic, hysteric, catatonic, paranoiac, schizophrenic, depressive and manic.

Just that list gives you an idea of how ideas about what constitutes mental illness have changed just in America.

The Watters New York Times article that started my whole trip down memory lane talks about mental illnesses that once were common and now are rarely if ever seen, such as hysterical paralysis. He reports a contagious anorexia phenomenon in Hong Kong, and goes into a fascinating digression on how one culture’s treatment of schizophrenia as spirit possession actually leads to fewer relapses than the Western diagnosis and drug treatment

An internet search away from the Watters article was an equally absorbing commentary by Greg Downey at Neuronthropology.net. Downey suggests that export of mental health can also be motivated by:

[P]ure mercenary impulses, as drug companies try to persuade new markets that the individuals need their products, suffering as they do from disorders of which they were previously unaware. Here, the idea that it’s just the beliefs about illness held by therapists and authorities obscures the naked greed that goes into public relations campaigns designed to produce disorder.

He cites the case of GlaxoSmithKline’s fostering of depression in Japan, where the concept of depression (and thus treatment with their product) was unknown until 1999. The manufacturer of Paxil was forbidden by Japanese law to advertise directly to customers, so they embarked on a series of “educational” ads telling consumers: “Depression is a disease that anyone can get. It can be cured by medicine. Early detection is important.”

So, as Dr. Phil would say, “How’s that working for GlaxoSmithKline?”

Pretty well, alas! A 2007 Boston Globe article reports that depression and the drugs to treat it have taken solid root in Japan.