A little extra padding never hurt anyone. Especially you, ladies.

Reading the first chapter of Fat Shame brought forth a couple of emotions in me: namely disappointment in American beauty culture and a feeling of vindication. The latter traces back to a conversation I had with a friend of mine over the summer, who we’ll call Ben. The chat started with a healthy debate over his outrage that an extremely fat person, who used a motorized scooter to get around, would be so audacious as to demand that certain business in her area be more accommodating to the handicapped such as herself. Although Ben and I were good friends, I knew he wasn’t perfect and that he was quite the ableist, but I had no idea of the extent of his discrimination. He told me sickening things, like that ALL fat people were utterly disgusting, and that if he had a child with a woman that he found relatively attractive and she kept the weight that she gained after the birth, he’d leave her. The whole time I was reeling and outraged at both his ignorant words and the fact that there was so little it seemed I could do, given that he was so stubborn and absolutist.

After getting started with this reading I can now say that I’m equipped with enlightening facts that have helped me understand health issues regarding fat people (and also might have shed some light for Ben too, stubborn as he may be),  but have also made me start to think about why it is that we’ve come from loving the natural fleshiness of our bodies to despising the very matter that makes us up.

For starters, Farrell mentions that many of the medical reports trying to establish obesity as a disease “were written -- or ghostwritten -- by those with a large financial stake in research: pharmaceutical and medical firms that focus on eradicating obesity” (11). Ben knows as well as I do that usually pharmaceutical companies are up to no good, and are focused on making profits rather than making people healthier. Pharmaceutical companies are linked with government agencies like the FDA, whose actions and policies can very easily be swayed by the motives of individual people or in this case, a pervasive societal ideology; that fat is repulsive and malignant. I must also note that some of these articles were ghostwritten, meaning that whoever actually conducted the research created an outline which would then become the basis of the actual report that someone else would write. (It’s how John Grisham publishes so many novels.) Obviously there is a lot of room here for error and embellishment, which would then be passed off as hard fact. But this is just speculation. After all, I’m no scientist.

Image taken from http://www.adipositivity.com/ (NSFW)

But even so, I can’t help thinking that we must have been doing something right before this epidemic of fat-phobia. Farrell discusses 19th century Americans being able to gain weight and keep it on due to lower prices of food and better healthcare on page 18, and the fact that a heavier body was a class status marker. I know for a fact that the female sex hormone estrogen is stored in fat cells*, which is why very underweight women eventually stop getting their period and why many plump women face usually no great health risks due to their size. Farrell touches on this as well on page 12, with the account of the women studied at UC Davis who were able to increase health factors without becoming thin. Correlating meatiness with health just kind of makes sense to me, as opposed to stick-thinness. While I still personally don’t see being very obese as healthy or desirable, I still firmly believe in letting others live their lives the ways they feel they should, because it’s not my place to force my ideals onto their bodies.

Yet others do. I feel that no matter what generation you are a part of in America, you’ve got some experience when it comes to either normalizing or being normalized, in terms of weight. Thinness is a social marker that now represents popularity and beauty, completely alienating those who fall outside of its narrow bounds and pushing them to the other side of this dichotomy, the place reserved for the ugly and socially outcast. I found it striking that according to Farrell, “if [the fat body] had a color, it would be black, and if it had a national origin, it would be illegal immigrant, non-U.S., and non-Western” (8). Although we’ve striven to become more and more politically correct and equality-happy over the decades, fatness is still shunned, being seen as a choice and not a disadvantaged category a person is born into, like being Black or foreign-born. While you can’t change your citizen status or your race, you can lose weight to gain social acceptance, with increasingly drastic measures becoming more mainstream. It’s no mistake that there are about 80.5 million Google search results for “lose weight” and only 37.2 million for “gain weight.” Hopefully in the coming years something will come along, some wave of empowering inspiration that breaks this tragic cycle.

*Forgive me for using Wikipedia, but this was the only somewhat reliable article I could find quickly that was NOT related specifically to weight loss products/methods.

Why the Reluctance to Bring Transsexual Women into the Feminist Movement?

Liberal feminists have a history of unwillingness to include females that stray too far outside societal norms. In the 1970s Betty Friedan, the founded of the National Organization of Women (NOW) publically chastised lesbians. She called them the “lavender menace” insinuating that homosexual females could potentially work to undermine and discredit the feminist movement by presenting to society “way of life” that was considered “abnormal.” In our current day and age, homosexuality and lesbianism has, comparative to the 70s, become more recognizable and acceptable by a large percentage of the population. Many years have passed since this initial confrontation of the liberal feminists and lesbians. Now both groups have seemingly come together to work as one community. But now it appears that transsexual women are now being alienated by the feminist community.

During the Second Wave feminist movement, self-identified lesbians, women that are sexually attracted to other women, were chastised by feminists. Essentially, the feminists managed to merely consider these women by their sexual practices and desires. By doing this, they repeated the same cycle of oppression they spoke out against: men, society, only judging a woman in terms of her physical body. Currently, transsexual women are facing the same persecution at the hands of the feminists that claim they do not want to associate with transsexuals because they are not “real women” because of biological makeup. Julia Serano, a transsexual woman, writes of feminists in the Trans Woman Manifesto that “they claim that it is misogynistic when men create standards and expectations for women to meet, then they dismiss us for not meeting their standard of ‘woman’” (17). Serano believes that the exclusion of Trans women in the feminist movement goes completely against the core principles of feminism. She says that the only way to achieve full gender equality is by way of having the feminists accept trans people into their community and advocate for transgendered persons. If feminists see that they are acting wrongly with their exclusion of trans women, it would only seem logical for them to change their ways of dealing with them. Then they will do it….right? It is possible yes. But despite that marginalizing trans people may go against the core principles of their beliefs they may not feel it worth it to bring them in.

The truth is that the feminist movement is still fragile. Women that identify as feminists are continually ridiculed in society. People claim that all feminists are “man hating lesbians.” This has resulted in countless individuals unwilling to self-indentify as feminists or to even associate with feminist politics. Even some of the most liberal individuals, those that fully support gay rights, do not want to be called a lesbian. The underlying culturally reasons for this are complex and too diverse to attempt to decode now. But suffice is to say that lesbianism has for some negative connotations. A lot of this comes from ignorance. Some don’t fully understand what homosexuality truly is and instead use stereotypes to affix the meaning to a person. The meaning of what it is to be transgender is even less understood and the negative connotations are likewise affixed. It is likely that the ignorance about transgendered people has lead to negative stereotyping just like it did with lesbianism.

The feminist movement has historically struggled to gain public support. Individuals, particularly women, have been hesitant to associate their name with the movement for fear that they will be viewed in a negative light. For some dedicated to advancing the rights of women transsexuals actively participating in their campaigns may seem like a danger, something that could work to undermine their credibility. But I’d pose this question to the individuals in the feminist community that wish to omit trans women’s participation: doesn’t going the philosophy, and continuing oppressive and discriminatory policies that one is fighting against, also undermine your credibility.

Natural Women and the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival

“Bring the best of who you are—you will recognize yourself everywhere.”

It’s an inclusive, inspirational quote, dripping with the honey that will herald in the flies. So they come buzzing in with excitement and hope for revelation: womyn seeking the feminist values and community of the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival. Yet the above statement silently weeps vinegar, and internalizes the bitter taste of hypocrisy.

If the women who are running the festival are bringing the so-called best of whom they are, then the best they have to offer certainly does not include the best of all women, does not embrace the fluidity of sex and gender.

Looking at the Michigan Womyn’s Musical festival through the perspective of Julia Serano in her manifesto “Whipping Girl,” a discrepancy is revealed: men who identify as women are excluded from the festival, while women who identify as men are welcomed with open arms. Hmmm, I don’t think exclusion speaks to feminist values…

“Womyn born womyn only” is the criteria in Michigan. What a statement. So clear cut and cold and lacking any insight into the broad spectrum that is WOMAN. “Women are no longer defined based on their legal sex, appearance, or self-identification, but on whether or not they were born and raised a girl” (237).

When thinking about this whole “women born women only” rule, I’m reminded of the Aretha Franklin song “Natural Woman.” Franklin bellows, “You make me feel, you make me feel like a natural woman.” By way of birth, I am a “natural woman” as I’ve got the parts and I’ve got the looks. Then, there are the women that “feel like natural women” but lack the parts and lack the looks. So, they may not be “natural woman” in biological terms, but there is more to womanhood than that. There are the physicality’s, the emotions, the identification, and the experiences. I think that being a woman is an understanding not a standard.

My question for the organizers of the festival is why not open up the dialogue of what it means to be a woman to the range of experiences that it encompasses?

“Each year brings together the most amazing cross-generational multi-cultural group of womyn to live as friends, lovers, neighbors all.”

Let us look at the word all. There is an implicit irony there, because as Serano points out not all women are included. I think it would be more amazing to attend a cross-generational multicultural festival that allowed the diversity among women, among sexes, among genders to blossom into a fragrant flower of womanhood.

Serano mentions her experiences to end trans-exclusion with Camp Trans. I was excited by the rebelliousness that Camp Trans incites, a counter counter-culture. The movement exists as a thorn on the side of the festival, setting up camp across the street and providing alternate workshop and information. As the years have progressed, the rebellious spirit has flourished and expanded.

Tristan Taormino writes for the “Village Voice” of the shake up that has occurred within Camp Trans:

“Many of them fit the "woman-born" criteria; it was the "woman-identified woman" label where things got a little sticky. You see, these Gen Xers don't identify as women, but they don't necessarily identify as men either…when lesbian feminism starts constraining women instead of liberating them, we have lost our way.”

And that is exactly what the festival is doing; it’s envisioning itself as an environment founded upon women’s liberation and ignoring the movement’s still shackled. By ignoring the needs of transgender and transsexual people, feminists tie themselves down as oppressors.

I’d much rather envision a truly liberated environment, one that includes a celebration not just of women-born-women but also of the very identity of women.

Fashion: A Trivial Pursuit?

"Raise your hand if you're a feminist," asked my freshman year English professor. Assuming that most students identified as such, I shot my hand up immediately. But as soon as I realized that I was the only person with a hand up, I pretended to scratch my cheek and quickly put my hand back on my desk. I was confused. The professor did not share my confusion, I assume he had posed this question each semester and received the same sea of shrugs. One brave student volunteered why she did not consider herself a feminist, "they're so abrasive, plus I like girly stuff." Whoa there! I like girly stuff, too. I looked down at my dress, tights and heeled boots, so relieved that my professor hadn't seen my hand up. I had been a phony feminist and I didn't even know it! Lucky for me, my professor didn't agree with the student. He instead gave us his own definition of feminist, "you're a feminist if you care about women's issues, men's issues... human issues." Phew!

My credibility has been called into question several times since then because of my feminine, often trendy, dress. Fashion, a pursuit that goes hand in hand with popular notions of femininity, is seen as a frivolous preoccupation rather than a genuine interest. Beyond that, fashion is presumed to be at odds with feminism. The fashion/beauty industry has created and shaped the unattainable beauty standards that cause many women and men to feel inadequate and ugly. At the same time, the history of this industry is rich with stories of female entrepreneurs, especially women of color. Selling hair care products made Madame C. J. Walker the first black, female, self-made millionaire American! The stigmatization of feminine pursuits has kept fashion from making its way into academia, where its history and cultural significance could potentially be further explored. In Spring 2011 Professor Treckel began offering a history of women's fashion course, one of the first of its kind on our campus. I was lucky enough to be a part of that the class and within the first few weeks I began to realize the rich, complex history of the beauty industry. Fashion is not a frivolous interest; it is a highly influential practice with tight ties to multiple aspects of our culture. Taking part in this practice should not be a reason to have your credibility called into question.

The Gender of Clothing

For the last couple of years, one of my favorite places to shop has been my dad’s closet. He never gets rid of anything, and he has the cutest stuff that I can easily apply to my own sense of style. Really though, his old motorcycle jacket is by far my favorite article of clothing. Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to find myself shopping in the men’s section almost as much as in the women’s or juniors departments. Obviously men’s clothing doesn’t include some things I love like skirts and dresses, but I sometimes find the quality of their cardigans and accessories surprising.

Lillian made a point in class today that really stuck with me. In terms of a gender hierarchy, it’s okay to dress above your gender, but not okay to dress down from it. So with society being patriarchal and men being at the top of the food chain, it is deemed okay that I sometimes wear men’s clothing- if anybody notices. However, the converse is not accepted by society. For example, if I saw a person who was visibly a man except for the fact that he was wearing heels, my first response would not be “nice pumps.” It would be more along the lines of, “what the heck is he doing?”

Men and women get the clothes they wear analyzed in different ways. For men, clothing isn’t really noticed unless it’s specifically feminine or especially eccentric. You don’t usually walk through a crowded hallway and hear males commenting on their friend’s clothes. For women, style is noticed much more. You can tell a lot about her, from fashion sense to income based on clothing. Women tend to have greater clothing freedom in the respect that we have more power to send whatever message we want with our clothing and generally not have our sexuality questioned unfairly by society. For example, about a year ago I got into the habit of wearing a watch everyday. My watch is not nearly as loud as many of the watches made for women these days- instead of being hot pink, it’s very neutral toned, and everyone loves it. I get more compliments on it then on any other accessory I have ever worn in my life. However, even though I consistently wear a man’s watch, no one doubts that I am a heterosexual female. If the opposite were to happen and a man wore a watch that was obviously feminine, chances are he would be ridiculed and/or questioned about his sexuality.

That is not to say that a woman who shops exclusively in the men’s department wont get questioning looks and assumptions made about her. However women do have more freedom to pair a man’s sweater with women’s pants and still look appropriately feminine in societies judgmental eyes. But does occasionally wearing men’s clothing or accessories mean I should identify myself as transgender? Or that a male who wears skinny jeans from Forever 21 should? When do our clothing choices define our gender, and how does our own self-definition fit into that?

Patrick Swayze, Mockery, and Underrepresentation of Transgender in Media

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2lBCSpdbAc

As a self-proclaimed movie-aholic, I’ve seen a vast amount of movies over the past two decades of my life. I’ve watched everything from big budget blockbusters like Titanic to cult classics like Dazed and Confused and Clueless; I’ve seen endless amounts of romcoms such as 50 First Dates to cheesy horror movies like the Leprechaun. So, when we briefly discussed the representation of transgendered people in media, a particular movie came to mind. I remember first seeing To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything Julie Newmar when I was really little, sitting on the couch as my older sister laughed away at Patrick Swayze in a wig and dress. Now older, and able to understand why Patrick Swayze is wearing the wig, I still love this movie. The film, which centers around three drag queens travelling across country, keeps me laughing from beginning to end.

But maybe a question I should ask myself is what kind of impact this had on me as a child. The mid 1990s (aka my childhood,) much like today, showed a severe underrepresentation of transgendered people in films and TV shows. So, naturally, with little else to go off of, I assumed on some level that the three drag queens in this movie were an accurate portrayal of all transgendered people. I assumed that every transgendered person wore bright, noticeable clothes and had red painted fingernails. Moreover, I assumed that every transgendered person was funny and witty. Because this movie, like most movies that portray transgendered people, showed the drag queens being feisty and outspoken, there is a lot of comedic situations they find themselves in. So, to the five, ten, fifteen year old self, I assumed that all transgendered people looked and talked outlandishly and were unabashed by gaining the attention of the others around them.

What’s wrong with this, as much as I love this movie, is that it is a mockery of transgender. While the characters in the movie are kind and portrayed in a positive light, they are nonetheless structured to illicit laughs. In class, we discussed the idea that the image of transgendered people is sometimes portrayed as “freakery.” The very limited representation of transgendered people in media such as movies has been, for the most part, linked to the idea of “freakery. “ Even in movies such as this one, where the characters are portrayed positively, there’s still the idea that they are “different” and that they are something to be marveled at. Even if this “freakery” isn’t always explicitly negative, it exists in the fact that transgendered people, as portrayed in the media, are something to be laughed at.

As transgendered people have slowly started receiving recognition and slightly more representation in society, it’s important to keep a close eye on how they are represented. While I obviously find it appalling that transgendered people are represented mostly in forms of mockery, I believe that representation (even if it is not very positive) is the first step in their being accepted into mainstream culture. However, what’s important is that now that transgender is being recognized and debated, the mockery of transgender representation has to soon fade. We need to start seeing positive representations of transgender in films and other media. Otherwise, how are we (and by we, I mean all of us who have only the media to understand transgender, without being opened up to transgender in person) going to be able to realize the scope of what transgender means. Transgender does not explicitly mean a flamboyant drag queen. Transgender is a large, and somewhat confusing term, and as such it needs to be represented carefully and with respect. It needs to finally be steered away from the idea of “freakery” in order to accurately educate people.

The Talk Turns Around

Lately I’ve been paralleling “the talk” to a confusion that runs deep into the blood of American culture and society surrounding sex. When I say “the talk” what I am referring to is the small scope of information about sex and babies that some parents give to their younger children before they reach the cusp of whatever age. This really clichéd and insufficient information is supposed to tide kids over until parents can no longer shelter their kids from the elements of the world, and the “hard” questions have to be dealt with. The problem with “the talk” is that it is completely insufficient and kind of a brain washer, basically telling kids that when they grow older they will conform to the social standards around them and have kids with a loving husband or wife. This is problematic because it does not take into account the many different gender identities that are present in every single person around them or the fact that life may generally not be like this. Now before I go on, I want to be sensitive to the fact that, number one, parents don’t always give the talk to their children and if they do, they are not all the same and number 2, that we did not all have parents growing up in the world. But in general there are still many misconceptions growing up that can turn into monsters if one is not given the knowledge to combat it.

            The many misconceptions that are spurred from “the talk” and other misconceptions around gender identity in general have suffocated a growing people who are itching to be free from the gender norms that don’t define them. The word for these glorious gender identities in between the norm would be transgender. Transgender refers to the fluidity of gender identities, not just tying itself down to any certain category. The word transgender means a lot of different things to a lot of different people but it expresses that there is no perfectly placed box that everyone in the world fits under in regards to gender. There is no black and white but instead, there is a majesty of colors represented in all of us with different shades and hues. Because of talks like “the talk” and other cultural and societal misconceptions surrounding gender identities, the word and the act of being transgender has become labeled in a negative light. This is not okay because we then aren’t given a chance to understand that there will be differences in gender identities in other people and we all need to know that transgender does exist and that it occurs in real life. Now I’m not suggesting that all parents and sex ed. classes should spring up the topic of transgender to kids who will no doubt be confused but being open and accepting about gender identities, I imagine, would help. “The talk” should maybe then be called “the explanation” and should be given a couple hours to digest and reflect upon.

Isis King (Surgery)- The Tyra Banks Show Part 1

“Mommy I’m a girl not a boy: How young is too young?”

Before I’d seen Datelines 20/20 episode “My Secret Self” I did not know of a disorder called GID. Gender Identity Disorder. This “disorder” is present from birth and it is classified as being born a particular sex, but identifying as the opposite sex. Growing up, I’ve heard so many things or diagnoses for people who did not feel like they were the right sex. The main term that comes to mind is homosexual or gay. As we continue to study various transgender classifications, it is very clear that automatically assuming that people who do not identify with their sex is gay or a homosexual is not only ignorant, but rude. The “symptoms” of GID are valid but I do not believe that they should classify these “symptoms” as a medical or psychological disorder. Not fitting into the gender roles of society is not a disorder, it is simply what it is: people not fitting into or agreeing with the gender roles made by society. That is NOT a mental illness. But I did appreciate how the special featured people who do not agree with their biologically designated gender when that topic is still such an extremely controversial subject. Hearing these kids’ testimonies shed light on transgender through an innocent approach. The children featured in the special were described to have extremely strong feelings as early as age two about basically being in the wrong body. Little boys wanted to wear dresses and little girls longed for a penis. Mothers and fathers were concerned and took their children to specialists. After their children were diagnosed, the parents decided to raise their child according to the gender their child self identified with. Is this good-parenting? Or is this a down right shame?

I commend the children and the parents of these individuals “suffering from GID” who have taken the necessary steps to properly raise their child. To be subject to ridicule and misunderstanding, and to still openly share their story with the world was brave to say the least.

But, lets face it, most people you see living life as the opposite gender are older and have made a mature, conscience decision that “this is the life I choose to live. This is me. I accept the consequences that may go along with this decision.” There are countless numbers of LGBT violence cases discussed about on the news. People can be so hateful that they take violent action against individuals who are simply unique. LGBT individuals are often teased at school. This teasing sometimes leads to suicide and maybe even homicide. LGBT are unfortunately at times looked at as freak shows. Walking down the street, they often get sideways glances as if they have a “stare at me” sign stamped across their foreheads. There are so many people who just do not understand the complexities of transgender (along with lesbian, gay, or bisexual) individuals and this misunderstanding can ultimately lead to a very difficult, maybe even problematic lifestyle for LGBT individuals. Can a six year old who feels that God has made a mistake on their genitalia make the decision to live life as the opposite sex?

Before you answer that question take a look at this clip from the "My Secret Self" 20/20 Dateline special.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8F9CaPyQz8&feature=player_embedded

I really can’t say for sure but it sounds to me that this six year old biological little boy, self-identifying beautiful little girl, has a pretty good idea of how unenlightened the world is and how that unenlightened world will portray her and her lifestyle.

Questions for thought:

1) What would you do if you were in the shoes of these parents?

2) Do you think GID is a legitimate disorder?

Gender Neutral Bathrooms are for Everyone!

“The choice between being hassled and holding their water affects thousands of people.”* This quote, taken from a New York Times article, describes the decision that trans-gender citizens must make every day. If one’s identity falls in between male and female, which restroom does one use? This debate has been ongoing and has led to the emergence of a gender-neutral restroom option. College campuses, shopping malls, and highway rest stops across the country have begun to adopt the new style of “family” facilities.

After reviewing this topic in class, I was curious, I had never thought of a gender-neutral bathroom as plausible. Picturing an average, multi-stall/ urinal bathroom with both men and women in it at the same time just never seemed socially acceptable. I suppose this is from the “social construction” that has told me since I was little that men and women used different rooms because they “pee” differently. After thinking about it for a while, I was fine with the idea but then thought “are the urinals still there? Is there a stall for them?” That would be my biggest concern, not wanting to make myself or other folks uncomfortable by seeing them exposed. Anyway, after working out a setup in my mind of a proper gender-neutral restroom, I decided that they seem like a very good idea for those who do not fit into a specific gender category.

The American version of the gender-neutral restroom, I found, is normally a one-stalled lockable room. The sign outside the door has a picture of both the classic male and female signs.

Gender-neutral bathrooms are a great step towards accepting the transgender community completely. Leaving people excluded from the public-restroom scene seems to me just as bad as the racial segregation of the 1950s. “Very few spaces in our society remain divided by sex...there’s marriage and there’s toilets, and very little else,” says Professor Mary Ann Case of the University of Chicago.*

As all change-related topics go, there is always opposition. Most of those against gender-neutral restrooms are afraid that they will be targets for sexual harassment. “You can be sure that stalkers and peeping toms will take full advantage of this change,” one adversary says. * Another argument arises from the socially constructed element of shyness about bodily functions between the sexes. There seems to be a façade that women are clean and do not expel their waste. Breaking the separation can make both males and females uncomfortable.

With the average American gender-neutral bathroom, however, none of those arguments stand a chance. Without others in the same area, there is no one to know or see what is going on. Also, isn’t judging someone who is transgender for using a restroom sexual harassment itself?

Nationwide, the gender-neutral bathroom has become fairly common, appearing under the name “family.” This shows that not only the transgender community can benefit; the facilities are convenient for parents with children of the opposite sex and the disabled as well.

In California, building codes are now beginning to incorporate regulations that make gender-neutral bathrooms a necessity. San Francisco, New York, and three other major cities have made laws regarding gender-identity based restroom access. *

Hopefully in the near future, people of all genders will be able to use public facilities without being afraid of judgment or even worse, harassment.

*http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DF113DF937A35750C0A9639C8B63&pagewanted=all

Realizations Regarding Attractiveness

Amy Erdman Farrel opens her book Fat Shame with a tale of Greek life, underscoring that popularity is  subtly indicative of aesthetic appearance. Similar to Allegheny Greek life, there is a stark difference between the social placement of the pretty girls and the more heavy-set girls, correlating to which sorority they join.  

I was not totally aware that it was as cut and dry as this, ignorant until it was overtly spelled by a girl in a sorority last year. This particular girl was talking about another female who intended to join her sorority, and said: 

"She's so pretty -- she could join anywhere." 

I immediately realized the extent of my naivete, and began to accept that, especially prevalent with girls, social placement is based mainly on appearance, that a girl can be part of one sorority but shunned from another because they're not pretty enough. I quickly began to think that popularity could be tied up in all of this. 

What is popularity based off of? Is it defined by having a set of fraternity brothers who wanted to talk to you? And why do fraternity guys want to talk to one sorority and not another?

And the more I thought about it, both framing it in the context of individual experiences and the social practices of Allegheny's Greek life, the more I realized how vain this school and our culture is. Why was I more inclined to hang out with one sorority? Because - and I hated to admit this to myself - I enjoyed looking at one more than another. 

Our society is straight up vain, where attractiveness depicts popularity. There is a stigma - one which Farrel elaborates on - which follows overweight people in every day life. Eating junk food, searching for a partner, these are social practices in our culture made more onerous (for some) by physical appearance.  

This perception lurks and follows people around. In any setting, someone who is more attractive, or who is perceived by others to be more attractive, may garner more attention than someone who is overweight. Despite the capabilities of one person, at the bone and bare of it all - what creates initial perceptions for themselves - is how they look. 

The manner in which these perceptions are formed and created are usually external and stem from what others think about one person. It has nothing to do with how someone might be or is - the way in which they are perceived by others is what defines them the most.  

In America, the concept is almost paradoxical - we are one of the most overweight cultures, our obesity issues are unparalleled across the world. Yet we are thought to be a beautiful, successful, and hard-working culture - and what does that say about the people who represent us? 

It only perpetuates the perception that more attractive people are the ones who are more successful. Overweight people are not capable of representing us, they would never be. Faces of this country, like high-ranking officials, are required to be thin and good-looking. That is the essence of our vain society.  

We fear the unknown...so let’s get informed!

It is simply human nature to fear the unknown. And in the eyes of our society today Transgendered and Transsexual people are among those which are unknown, and thus feared and looked down upon by many. Explicitly defining what both of these are, how they are related, how they are different, and properly educating people are nearly impossible tasks…however that is not to say they have not been attempted.

Giving a proper definition of what is means to be transsexual and what it means to be transgender is a complex feat. Both David Valentine and Julia Serano gave different interpretations of what it means to be transsexual and what transgender. Valentine refers to transgender as being an umbrella term and saying that virtually everybody could be considered transgender. He thought men, women, transsexuals, transvestites, drag kings, drag queens, and so on, all fell under the idea of what it meant to be transgender. Serano defined trans women as “any person who was assigned a male sex at birth, but who identifies as/or lives as a woman,” (Serano, 20). As it is clear, coming up with one blanket meaning of what it is to be transgender is difficult, as it has much to do with personal ideas and experiences.

It is a generally well-accepted misconception that transgendered and transsexual people are homosexual. Though this does not contribute to the fear that I have talked about, it does add to the mystification and misunderstanding of trans people. From my basic understanding being trans is having a physical desire to be the gender, which they were not physically born as, but the gender they identify with. Transsexuals have physically gone through the change of reconstructing the body they were born into, to the one they identify with. Although there are most definitely homosexual men who identify as women, and homosexual women who identify as men; there are also heterosexual men who identify as women and heterosexual women who identify as men. For example, Julie Serano was a heterosexual man who identified as a woman; then categorizing him to be a homosexual woman.

Those who have not experienced or learned about transgender and transsexual people have little to no idea of what it means, and therefore hold the possibility gain what Serano calls transphobia. Transphobia, much like homophobia as pertaining to homosexuals, is “an irrational far of, aversion to, or discrimination against people whose gendered identities, appearances, or behaviors deviate from societal norms,” (Serano, 12). Lack of information and sometimes lack of diverse exposure creates ignorance, creating fear. For example, even when I typed Transphobia into my Word document, it did not recognize it as a word.

Where information comes from can also fuel feelings of discomfort towards subjects such as defining and understanding trans life. Though I find RuPaul fabulous I understand people’s feelings that he exemplefies “freakery” as Professor Shaw said today, to the idea of what all transsexuals and transgender people act like. I feel this is a factor that reinforces notions of transgender people being over the top and intimidating. I feel that there should be a more varied view of trans people in media. RuPaul’s shows are wonderful and I think necessary but I feel as though more shows like “Sex Change Hospital” could help further the education of the null informed and fearful.

How else do you think we could further peoples education of what it means to be transgender? Do you think it is necessary?

Is America Killing Itself?

It should come as no surprise that America, as a whole, is a relatively overweight country. After all, according to a recent Gallup poll performed, as many as 2/3rds of Americans are overweight, and over a quarter of Americans are considered obese. Those are certainly frightening statistics.

Still, the issue I would like to address isn’t necessarily pertaining to obesity in America, but rather health. The question: Is our desire to be fit and skinny causing us to live unhealthy lifestyles?

Farrell acknowledges this issue in Fat Shame. “According to HAES advocates, the conventional focus on weigh loss rather than healthy living, fuels a dangerous and profitable diet industry as well as the growing field of weight loss surgery” (Farrell, 12). She goes on to point out that from 1992 to 2003, the estimated number of weight loss surgeries went from just 16,200 in 1992, to over 140,640 in 2003.

Undoubtedly, these surgeries address the ‘skinny’ issue, often siphoning out pounds of fat in order to make us skinny for as little as a few thousands dollars. Unfortunately, they rarely ever address the issue of health. Rarely are these surgeries performed in an effort to make us healthier. We might look healthier, sure, but are we actually healthy?

And certainly, as Farrell suggests, the answer is most often no. In fact, she goes on to argue that America, as a whole, has become misguided; that we have becomes victims of our own misconceptions and naivety and, therefore, are unsure of how to conduct our daily routines in a healthy manner.

Still, therein lies the question of what forces perpetuate these stereotypes. What forces cause us to be constantly aware conscious and conscientious of our figures? For some, as Farrell points out at the beginning of Fat Shame, it is that outside societal pressure. The expectation that in order to be successful in the cruel, calculating world, you have to be skinny and, therefore, attractive. That, in many ways, fat is unmarketable and therefore bad for business.

The "Delta Zeta saga", as Farrell labels it, is just one of the potentially thousands of different ways in which these misguided norms are perpetuated on a daily basis in America.

Yet another point of view -- and one that I have harped on frequently in class -- relates to the frequent advertisements that bombard us on a daily basis. We encounter thousands, if not millions of different messages and images daily, all instructing us, in different ways, on what we should spend our money on or how we should conduct ourselves. Some of them, too, suggest that a healthy and happy person is also one that steers clear of that "fat" characterization.

So, again, I address my initial question: Is America killing itself? In some ways, absolutely. Despite being an overwhelmingly overweight country, we have been taught that fat is bad. That fat will destroy us. Yet, at the same time, many often take short cuts like cosmetic surgery and diet pills that can often be more destructive, both mentally and physically, than they are beneficial to their health. Meanwhile others develop destructive eating disorders.

Yet, at the same time, there are people, entire movements and ad campaigns which encourage healthier styles of living and eating. Ones that aren't necessarily dominated by the same images that we often see in ads for clothing and cologne.

The question is, will those help us escape from our destructive tendencies? Will America ever be a healthy place?