Owning My Thin Privilege

I'm having a hard time accepting my own thin privilege. RMJ at Deeply Problematic wrote a post a little bit ago about coming to accept her thin privilege. That was really the first time that I thought of myself as having thin privilege and it made me kind of uncomfortable. And I want to explore that uncomfortableness here.

So what is thin privilege exactly? Anji at Shut Up, Sit Down offers these examples:

For a start, the ‘thin’ in ‘thin privilege’ does not mean “size zero”. It means “of ‘normal’ weight”. Some examples: If you can walk into Top Shop, Miss Selfridge or any other high street fashion shop and know their size range includes your clothing size, you have thin privilege. If you can book a flight without fear that other passengers will hope like hell they’re not seated next to you or worse, that you will be refused entry to the flight because of your size, you have thin privilege. If you can happily travel by car or bus or train and know that the seat will be built to accommodate your arse, you have thin privilege. If you can visit your doctor without being constantly berated about losing weight and having every physical malady you suffer attributed to your size and nothing else, you have thin privilege.

So yes, I have thin privilege.

As a child, I was very slender. But then puberty hit and as I started growing, I started putting on weight around my middle. Now, I go between a size 12 and 14 in bottoms and between large and x-large in tops, depending on the store and style. I rarely ever have to be concerned about the fatphobic things that Anji lists above (depending on the store, I'm not always guaranteed clothes in my size range). But even without being subject to blatant fatphobia, I feel as if society judges me for being fat. I have started to come to terms a little bit with my body. I have started wearing shorts shorter than knee-length again (see picture to left of me playing Red Rover with my friends). I try to dress for my body type instead of what's "in style."

I am, as some would say, a woman of "average"* weight and size...though you wouldn't know it by looking at the media and clothing stores. Because of this, I have thin privilege. So, why I am so uncomfortable at accepting this kind of privilege. Part of my interest in feminism is examining different kinds of privilege and my investments in them. So why is it so hard for me to accept this privilege?

Society tells us through the media, clothing stores, new reports, etc. that the "average" is, in fact, a size 4 - maybe even a size 2. Since puberty, I have not seen myself reflected in the media and as a result, have not thought of myself as having thin privilege. There are profits to me made to make women of all sizes feel bad about themselves, so that is what the media is going to do.

I try to be aware of fatphobic language and events, but maybe my denial of accepting my thin privilege contributes to a fatphobic society. Just because I am self-conscious about my body does not mean that I don't benefit from thin privilege. I have to start doing a better job at recognizing my investments in thin priviege.

Coming to terms with one's own thin privilege does not mean that you will not have any body image issues. Today's society thrives off of creating body image issues for women (and men). Owning one's thin privilege is more about realizing the ways that you are invested in the fatphobic tendencies of society.

*I dislike using the term "average" or "normal" to describe people's bodies. It implies that there is something abnormal or not average, when everybody's body is different. By using this term, I am simply using it statistically...my body is statistically average. But there really is no such thing as a "normal" body. Using the term "normal" just contributes to othering and oppression.

This Week in Blogs: August 16-22

Happy Sunday! As you may have noticed, I have started posting some link love on Tuesdays and Thursdays as well as Sundays now. Sunday's link love posts will be slightly different now. I will include some of my favorite posts since Thursday, but I will also feature some of my favorite posts from the week overall, including posts that were already loved previously. Just a disclaimer: I have been kind of lazy about my reading this week, so the list is not as long as it normally is. I'm always looking for new posts and blogs to read, so don't forget to leave your links in the comments!

New link love:
The Girl on page 194 - Below the Belt
A look at how we judge women's bodies by examining the "real woman" picture in Sept's issue of Glamour magazine.

Sex is scary (at least to some journalists) - Clarissa's Blog
How our fear of sex is a result of the patriarchal culture.

But men aren't pretty - o filthy grandeur
Challenging gender norms through language.

Today's WTF: Fragoli - The Undomestic Goddess
About how lesbianism is portrayed in advertising

Thomas Jefferson: The Face of a Rapist - Womanist Musings
Thomas Jefferson was an integral part of the development of our country, but should we forget that he was also a rapist? Also posted at Feministe.

Weekly Link Love:
Attn. Straight Women: Gay men are not your accessories - Feministing
"Perhaps the more subversive act today is to decline to preface the term "friend" with a description of that person's sexuality."

Michelle O.: "Intellectual Lightweight"? - Salon Broadsheet
Apparently Michelle Obama is not as smart as she thinks she is...

"Blinded by privilege": ableist language in critical discourse - Deeply Problematic
A reflection on how the language we use contributes to the oppression of others.

***********

There is a new blog on the block: Fiercly Independent
The blog is run by Leftunder Books and focuses on indie publishing, writing, reading, feminism, illustration, and some other stuff. Check it out!

Linkapalooza!

Happy Thursday everybody! Only one more day to the weekend, not that it matters to me because the entire week is like the weekend for me, just less exciting. But that's all about to change. I've finally found a job at Barnes & Noble that I will be starting soon!

Here are some of my favorite posts from the past couple days...

Lois Lane at the Movies: A Brief Herstory Part Two! [Bitch Blogs]
Looking at the role Lois Lane plays in the Superman comics and movies.

"Blinded by privilege": ableist language in critical discourse [Deeply Problematic]
A reflection on how the language we use contributes to the oppression of others.

Carnival of Feminists #2 [Female Impersonator]
A collection of feminist blog posts over the past two weeks.

Women in the Boardroom [Gender Across Borders]
Why are so few women making it to the top of employment ladder?

Racism and Power [Womanist Musings]
"The insistence on using terms like post racial, race card, and reverse racist, stem from the desire to not only present racism in a past tense but to infer that only Whiteness should exist with the power to realize its prejudice."

Link Love

Due to the large amount of amazing posts that are written throughout the week, I have decided to change my "This Week in Blogs" feature from once a week to three times a week. It will now simply be called "Link Love" and will be posted on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. Sunday's will usually be a little longer because I will highlight my absolute favorite posts from throughout the week, including posts that might have already been highlighted in previous "Link Love" posts. I decided to do this to keep the lists shorter than they have been, because including too many links in one post can be a little overwhelming...at least for me.

Movie Posters: Are You Ready for Death/Love/Prison? - Bitch Flicks
Bitch Flicks continues to look at how movie posters reflect gender norms and women.

Privilege - Clarissa's Blog
A little old, but still good. A look at the overuse of the word "privilege."

Michelle O.: "Intellectual lightweight"? - Salon Broadsheet
Apparently Michelle Obama isn't as smart as she thinks she is...

Costco and the Lil' Monkey Doll - Womanist Musings
Looking at how black dolls and white dolls are marketed differently. Also posted at Feministe.

Is Faking an Orgasm Anti-Feminist? - BlogHer
Pretty self-explanatory -- Do your feminist beliefs align with faking orgasms? Does faking an orgasm do a dis-service to yourself and to other women?

The F Word - Clutch Magazine
I bet you can guess what "f word" they are talking about!

Kate Blatt required to give pictures of genitals as a condition of employment - Deeply Problematic
About how trans people are dehumanized on a daily basis.

Attn. Straight Women: Gay men are not your accessories - Feministing
"Perhaps the more subversive act today is to decline to preface the term "friend" with a description of that person's sexuality."

When It Comes to Having Children

I am 22 years old. I have a long time before I, personally, will ever think realistically about having a baby. And right now, I don't know if I ever really want one. I know that this gives me a certain amount of privilege and bias. And these are my fears and feelings right now, when I am not mentally, emotionally, financially, etc. able to support a pregnancy and child, who knows what they will be when I get to the point in my life when I would consider having a child.

My aversion to bearing children has many roots. There is the fear of pregnancy itself. While I think it is realistic to say that I have had this fear since high school, it became very prominent in college during my anthropology class. In this class, my professor talked a lot about fetuses as parasites, which, while very extreme, really stuck with me. Of course, she had her own opinions about pregnancy, which were obviously very negative, but what she had to say about it really influenced me and spoke to me.

Then comes my fear of bringing another child into this world when a) the world is so messed up, b) there are so many children that already need loving homes, and c) I just don't know if I want to be a mother. Let's start with c. Right now, I don't know if I want to be responsible for another human being. I know that I might change my mind about being a mother as I get older or enter into a serious relationship, but right now, I can't really picture it.

Now, on to a. There are so many things wrong with the world right now, I don't want to be responsible for bringing a child into that. But one thing that I never really thought about, as the F Bomb pointed out, not having children can have benefits for the environment. Cameron Diaz has declared herself a "non-breeder" for the environment. This post points out, "one U.S. person is equal to 20 tons of CO2 per year and 24 acres of productive land." So not having children can really be considered an environmental act. So, just one more reason for me to be a "non-breeder" as well.

And now, finally to b. I think, when it comes time for me to think about children, that I will seriously consider adoption. There are many children in this country and around the world that need loving and supportive homes. This one is fairly simple. Adoption is a great alternative to bearing children.

And that brings us to society's perception of "non-breeder." As the Huffington Posts' article about Cameron Diaz' non-breeder status points out, while there is progress being made, people still think there is something wrong with people who consciously decide to be non-breeders.

While there was plenty of support for non-breeders, there were the inevitable comments like "isn't [it] natural for women to have children?" and "as women we are or should be born with a natural instinct to have children"...
...It's a shame, for both our planet and reluctant potential parents, that too many people still see having children as something we all should do, or should at least want. When UK journalist Polly Vernon wrote an editorial about not wanting kids, she discovered that "voluntary childlessness is an unacceptable crime to cop to" and she was "denounced as bitter, selfish, un-sisterly, unnatural, evil"...
...Recent research shows that a childless status could even hurt the careers of childless women. Lancaster University professor Dr. Caroline Gatrell found that some employers see female staff who don't want children as lacking "essential humanity".

Throughout the article, there are many examples of the prejudice against non-breeders. Because I am only 22, I have not run into this prejudice too much, but I anticipate it. Even without a lot of this prejudice, I still feel like sometimes I am missing the "mom gene." But I guess I'll just have to get used to that.

*Note: In no way am I diminishing that amazing-ness of mothers. I think mothers take a lot of crap from society and from fellow feminists, which is not cool. Everyone has a mother and wouldn't be where they are now without their mother's influence (or lack of influence). Because I do not have children, it is not my place to talk of what mothers go through, because I do not know. This post is simply about my opinions about my body, my life, and my decision to have or not have children. In no way am I saying how other people should or should not feel about their decisions about child bearing.

Middle Class Privilege and the Realities of Global Poverty

My friend Marta is working at the YWCA this summer, which I am totally jealous of. She wrote this article for them about the feminization of poverty both in the United States and around the world. I thought it might be of interest. Marta is a rising senior majoring in Health and Society at my alma mater (weird to say that), Beloit College. She is from San Diego, CA, but is working at the YWCA of Rock County in Janesville, WI this summer as the Economic Empowerment Intern.

**************

Women and Global Poverty

Globally, seven out of every ten people who go to bed hungry each night are women.[1]

The feminization of poverty is the direct result of the increasing number of female-headed households world-wide. Previously a western phenomenon, women around the world are increasingly becoming solely responsible for their households. Because men have more earning power than women (30% more in the United States and even more in the developing world), households headed by women automatically lack a tremendous resource. This has resulted in women constituting more than 70% of the world’s poverty.[2]

Poverty is a feminist issue. As the economy takes a turn for the worst, it is clear that many women are carrying twice the burden of their male counterparts. But female poverty goes well beyond the economic depression in the United States. Globally, more than 1.5 billion (yes, BILLION) people live on less than $1 per day, and the majority of them are women who are responsible for children, agriculture (food production), and earning money.[3] Women have suffered profoundly at the hands of misguided cultural practices and norms, as well as urbanization and the emergence of cash economies in rural areas (which generally move men towards cities and away from their families and, consequently, their monetary responsibilities.) Inequalities between men and women run rampant around the world, sometimes subjugating women and girls so profoundly that their lives are literally at stake. It is not uncommon for women to lack the monetary support of a male partner, but also lack entitlement to basic human rights, access to inheritances, as well as land and property ownership. Globally, women are too often excluded from credit as well, which deeply disturbs their ability to rise out of poverty.

So, what are female-focused solutions to global poverty? Short of a global uprising against economic disparities between men and women, many have suggested that “investing in women's access to land, water, fertilizers, [and] farm labor… is the long-term solution to preventing a hunger crisis”[4] as well as lifting women (ever so slightly) out of the type of poverty that threatens their day to day existence. Others have suggested, and in some cases successfully implemented, microcredit programs that specifically target women, giving them access to credit and encouraging entrepreneurial activities. And still others claim that education is the way to brighter economic futures for women (in many countries women and girls are denied educational opportunities, therefore stunting their economic potential.) While these are all wonderful and decidedly practical solutions to helping women around the world make ends meet, none of them directly combat the root of the problem: a global epidemic of negative, harmful, and archaic views of women.

---

[1] http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/beijing12/womeninpoverty.pdf

[2] http://poverty.suite101.com/article.cfm/feminization_of_poverty

[3] http://poverty.suite101.com/article.cfm/feminization_of_poverty

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ritu-sharma/women-can-plow-under-a-gl_b_230907.html

*************
Poverty is a feminist issue. As feminists, how can we ignore the fact that so many of the people living in poverty are women, and many of those women are single mothers supporting their families?

I have privilege living in the middle class and growing up not being deprived of anything important (though I didn't see it like that at the time). But I try to always be aware of this class privilege (as well as my other privileges). It's not always easy, but it's important to point out privilege when it is present to bring it into light and into discussion. This is the only way that the privilege will ever be addressed.

So as feminists, we have the responsibility to acknowledge that privilege that class gives some of us and the realities of women and families that live in poverty. Because of the feminization of poverty is prevalent throughout the world, feminists have to address this social reality. If feminists don't have a say in tackling this massive problem, the women who live in poverty will not have the voices heard all of the time.

White Men's Objectivity

Why is it that white men think that they are the only ones that can be objective?

I must be honest, I haven't been watching the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, but I have been doing my blog reading about them. From what I have been reading, it is obvious that these hearings are not being as "objective" and respectful as they claim to be.

But one of the things that really bothers me is how they are focusing on her often misquoted "wise Latina" speech (which can be read here). In this speech she talks about the importance of embracing cultural differences in reaching decisions on court cases. Women and people of color have different experiences than white men and these different experience influence their court decisions.

Many far right wing-ers think that this shows her lack of objectivity and inability to reach "fair" decisions. But I'm right there with Judge Sotomayor. Realizing how one's experiences influence their decisions is important. For some reason, many white men think that they are the only ones who can be objective because their life experiences don't effect them. But they do.

Everyone's experiences effect the way they think and the way they approach an issue. White men's privilege effects them, even if they don't recognize it. On Feministing, Samhita says...

Session's attempts to grill Sotomayor on this question of impartiality reveals the obvious ignorance that when white men hold partial beliefs they are natural and objective, whereas when women of color do, they are unable to effectively do the job.

When women or people of color (and especially women of color, it seems) use their experiences as a basis for their decisions they are emotional and biased, whereas white men reach the "truth" through their experiences.

I think what these men are delusional of is that there is actually something called objectivity. I don't think objectivity exists. Maybe you can try your hardest to be objective, but your experiences will always influence you. Only people who have the privilege of not noticing their privilege (white men) would believe that their experiences don't effect them because they can reach the "truth".

(Note: I just want to make a comment that this is not all white men. There are many white men who work towards realizing their privilege and how their experiences effect them and the people around them. But it is usually white men who make these assumptions about objectivity and bias because these white men do not realize their privilege.)

In addition to the idea of objectivity within the hearings, the media is still attacking and misrepresenting Sotomayor. I just read a post at Shakesville about The Colbert Report last night. Normally I appreciate Colbert's sarcasm and satire, but last night he went too far. In discussing Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, Colbert placed Sotomayor's head of the clip Sharon Stone from Basic Instinct where she flashes her "nethers" during an interrogation.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Stephen's Sound Advice - How to Bork a Nominee
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Jeff Goldblum

This unnecessarily sexualizes Sotomayor and further demeans her to the point that she is seen as in a lesser standing than men. Why can't Sotomayor just be valued for her professional qualifications rather than focusing on her gender and race as some sort of "disability" to making effective court decisions.

I hope that the confirmation hearings will change in tone after the first day, but I'm not so sure that they will. Conservatives will continue to focus on her experiences as a Latina as a "disability" to her ability to be a Supreme Court justice and the media will continue to make jokes about her qualifications or straight out support the conservatives treatment of her during the hearings.


Note on the cartoon:
I'm sure many of you (if not all) have seen the cartoon that I chose to include in this post. While it is straight out racist, there is some truth in it considering the first day of the hearings. Conservatives are attacking Sotomayor because she is Latina, which I assume this cartoon is trying to say. While it is racist, it does portray how conservatives and the media are treating Sotomayor. But I'm not saying that I agree with the message that the cartoon sends.