Jessica -- I loved the excerpt on the weight double standard! I'm so excited about this book now, and I'm off to Amazon to buy it!

Thanks!!

Weight double standards? Tell me about it.

As a skinny,myopic, geeky looking man, my role(s) in film/tv would pretty much be restricted to:

Nerd (social outcast)who gets beaten up by Jocks in canteen; girls look at him with contempt as he picks himself up.

Possibly becomes friends with buff, yet senstive dude with hidden super powers, later in show.

Possibly attempts to get a date with "hot chick" (Cheerleader) resulting in disaster and ridicule.

Burn Hollywood, burn!

Yes, I grant you that girls/women get it even worse.

What to do though? Short of burning studios to the ground and starting with a year zero style cultural revolution.:)

I tried to get a copy yesterday at the bookstore and they said they'd have to order it--it should be in by Friday. Yay! In the meantime, I chatted with the bookstore owner about fish and working outside, bought a book called ManifestA, and also a book called Bang Crunch (which I read in its entirety waiting at Midas for my oil change which turned into a 5 hour brake repair and eventually my being sent home truck-less). Anyway...I'm looking forward to reading the book!! I'm hoping to pass it on to my younger sisters (I have 5) (if I could afford it I'd buy them copies since I'm touchy about loaning out books) and I hope they'll get a lot out of it.

Congrats on the new book Jessica!!

Jessica, I finished the book a week or two ago and passed it on to a friend.

Great job!

Jessica,
This book looks like it would be surely an AWESOME read! I will certainly go find it and buy it... :)

Love the weight thing...that surely is a topic that is still a part of our society and maybe things such as your book, will allow people to WAKE UP!

I got the last available copy at BookWoman in Austin during Amanda's talk. BTW, for any Central Texans, they've moved to a new location on North Lamar (near Koenig) and are looking to re-establish contacts with the community.

Yay, Jessica! I am definitely going to pick up a copy as soon as school is over with for the year.

I read an excerpt earlier, and I was quoting you ("Sorry to mug you, Grandma, but I had sex twice this week!") to all my friends. Hee.

And the I love the idea of stealth feminism. :)

I don't really care for the not-so-subtle shaming of men who aren't attracted to fat women, in your excerpt.

As if there is something wrong with us. It's shaming, and it's insulting.

You might say it was unintentional to imply that, but from my viewpoint, it was strongly there.

Moving on from that, if your book is sourced in equality and such, do you happen to cover any of the double standards that are harmful to men, but beneficial to women? Or just a biased list of the inverse?

I bought it a couple of weeks ago. I loved it.

@ Techdoc

I can understand that you are coming from a different viewpoint from perhaps many of the people commenting here, but even in Jessica's title, her focus is on women (...Double Standards Every Women Should Know).

Just because someone has a particular focus on one thing in their book does not mean that they refuse to acknowledge other aspects/viewpoints. Perhaps it is just not part of this particular book.

And I have not read the book yet, so I cannot defend it as a reviewer, but I understand what it is like to be a feminist blogger and being accused of being biased because I don't address too many "men's issues." So that's where I'm coming from.

The book is coming in the mail Jessica! Can't wait to read all of it:) Congrats and keep fighting the good fight.

I'm guessing that the silhouette of the svelte, voluptuous woman appears at the beginning of every section, but I found it particularly ironic in light of the double standard you chose to excerpt here. I find its presence, at best, pointless.

I'm amused that, of only nine comments, two are dudes demanding that we think of the dudes.

To techdoc in particular: I don't presume to speak for Jessica, but I do think there is something wrong with you and I think it would behoove you to feel ashamed.

But, more importantly, it would behoove you to realize that this is not about you. This is not about men. If standards that harm men are of concern to you, learn to address them outside of "but what about us?!" contexts in spaces that are not for you. Write your own book. (If you engage in some genuine critique, you'll discover that the standards that harm you are patriarchally enforced, too.)

Stop trying to derail this discourse.

I don't think it shames men to point out that not all men are slaves to culturally constructed notions of attractiveness. I think instead, it recognizes that even in the face of enormous cultural pressure, some men and women don't automatically adopt the idea that being larger is unattractive.

What you wrote is just as silly as claiming that Jessica wants women to all be large in solidarity, when what she is actually pointing out is that there are lots of different body shapes and types, and that someone shouldn't be mocked based on their large size. It is cruel. She didn't say that men were particularly guilty of this, she said society was, and particularly with regard to women.

And I like the fact that it is targeting feminists and non-feminists both.

Sandinista- I'm imagining, like the case was with the FFF cover and Marcotte's book, that it's the publishers who have say in what goes on it, not the author.

I reviewed the book last week on my blog:

http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/05/13/of-sluts-and-studs-passion-and-bitterness-a-short-review-of-jessica-valentis-new-book/

It's terrific, and deserves a wide readership.

I picked up a copy yesterday. I'm pondering assigning it as supplemental reading for my gender communication class in the fall.

Jessica-
Do you have any plans to do book signings around the country to promote the book?

I really like the "back to basics" approach of this book. Ever since I started following the feminist movement, particularly through this and other blogs, I've faced obstacles in attempting to relate with people who are still blind to everyday unfairness. I've always thought the best chance at getting the message to those people would be to find a way to scale it back so that it wouldn't automatically put them on the defensive (as I always seemed to be doing).
I know you can't reach everyone, but I think this book has even more potential in that regard than FFF. I'll be picking a copy ASAP.
Also, I'm a big fan of there being "What You Can Do About It" sections.
Great stuff!

Congratulations and Thank You!

I'm amused that, of only nine comments, two are dudes demanding that we think of the dudes.

Don't use "dudes", unless you don't mind "chicks".

And why not? Feminists demand we think of the women, after all. My problem is that she acts as many feminists do: That everything is naturally peachy-keen if you're male, and nothing bad affects us.

To techdoc in particular: I don't presume to speak for Jessica, but I do think there is something wrong with you and I think it would behoove you to feel ashamed.

And why would I feel ashamed about what I'm attracted to (or not?). Lesbians/gay men shouldn't feel ashamed about what they're attracted to. The reason for bring that up, is nobody has a say in what they're attracted to or not.

Why would not being attracted to fat women be "something wrong with me" or something worthy of being ashamed?

you'll discover that the standards that harm you are patriarchally enforced, too.)

Except many of them are enforced by women. Funny,
that.

spaces that are not for you

And how would you feel if I said there were spaces "not for women"?

Probably call me sexist, I figure.

Stop trying to derail this discourse.

Stop trying to silence me. I'm allowed to state my thoughts and feelings on this subject, that's what comments are for.

when what she is actually pointing out is that there are lots of different body shapes and types, and that someone shouldn't be mocked based on their large size. It is cruel.

Life is cruel. The world isn't here to make everything sweet and cuddly for you. Anyway, she made a statement in the excerpt that wasn't exactly subtle to me, digging at males who "dare" not be attracted to fat women.

Oh dear. Please don't feed the troll. Techdoc, this isn't a space for you to gripe about feminists - I suggest you go to visit Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog and then come back to comment. Thanks.

Jessica, congratulations. This looks like an outstanding book for young women; I can't wait to give it to my daughter. Thank you for writing it.

Many years ago I went to Burning Man. One of the most surprising effects was that in an environment completely divested of the continuous barrage of manufactured images of beauty, my perception of female beauty changed. I remember seeing a Cosmo at a friend's house right after the drive home; the woman on the cover was not beautiful, but rather emaciated and plastic (literally -- as in, not human). I wanted to hold as long as possible onto the more genuine ideal that had taken root, so I turned the magazine over, wishing I could just make them all disappear.

Which is a long way to say: hear hear.

Nothing in the excerpt says that all men must find larger women attractive. The excerpt says that it is ludicrous for Hollywood to portray it such that NO men find large women attractive. Large and small men do find larger women attractive. Not all men, but some, so it doesn't make sense for Hollywood to portray large women as not having any chance at love the way they are.

FeministMe,
I think it is unfair of you to be critical of the men who wonder about the types of double-standards that are addressed. After all, since the book is about double-standards between men and women, they HAVE to address men.

I think techdoc would say, for example, that every woman should be aware that if she engages in domestic abuse against a male, police will rarely arrest her if he calls the police (usually, they will arrest him). I mean, it is a double-standard and a very powerful one that "every woman should know."

Read it a couple of weeks ago, and I think it's great. A lot of possible teaching material in there, too (I teach firs-year comp, but always do a big unit on gender).

I just had my local library order this book. I hope that many men and women stumble upon it while brousing the shelves.

I don't have a problem with the subject matter being limited to double standards which are applied to women, because I think it's a tremendously important issue, and the book does a great service in its efforts to illuminate it. I do, however, think that act of directing said knowledge exclusively TO women ("Double Standards Every WOMAN Should Know") represents a real missed opportunity. It's equally important for EVERYONE to be aware of these double standards, since we're all potentially in a position to combat them.

The need to rectify injustice is not contingent on one's set of sex organs or gender identity. This sentiment isn't a cry of "omg but what about teh MENZ!"; it's an expression of a desire to see women's issues addressed in the most effective manner possible, and I think the book's title unfortunately fails in this regard.

Hee, stealth feminism. Being a skinny blonde girl who occasionally dresses a bit like a Stepford wife, I've been considering putting the words "stealth feminist" on a t-shirt to wear around for a couple of years now. Seems like people always assume I'm a sweet, docile thing until I open my mouth. I love that surprise effect, because it sometimes startles people into rethinking the ideas they have about feminism. I think that could happen with this book, too, and that's neat. :)

Oh dear. Please don't feed the troll. Techdoc, this isn't a space for you to gripe about feminists - I suggest you go to visit Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog and then come back to comment. Thanks.

Don't arbitrarily classify me. It's rude. If you don't like feminists being blanket classifed as "man haters" or any other stereotype, stop being so insular and immediately classifying anyone who doesn't agree as a "troll".

It's incredibly presumptuous and insulting.

Being a comments page about your book, it's a space for me to offer my comments ON said book, and said quoted excerpt. No, I will not go read your instruction manual or whatever.

Nothing in the excerpt says that all men must find larger women attractive. The excerpt says that it is ludicrous for Hollywood to portray it such that NO men find large women attractive. Large and small men do find larger women attractive. Not all men, but some, so it doesn't make sense for Hollywood to portray large women as not having any chance at love the way they are.

I never said it said "all" men. I just said it was a not-so-subtle dig against men that don't. Acting like there's something wrong with us.

I see the opinion a lot, women acting like there's something irredeemable because we don't have an interest in fat women.

After all, since the book is about double-standards between men and women, they HAVE to address men.

Exactly my point, thank you.

I think techdoc would say, for example, that every woman should be aware that if she engages in domestic abuse against a male, police will rarely arrest her if he calls the police (usually, they will arrest him). I mean, it is a double-standard and a very powerful one that "every woman should know."

Mandatory arrest laws always target the male, even if he's bruised and bloody, and she's carrying a pool cue.

"Support movies and media that portray women of all sizes. That includes magazines that claim to value women no matter what but always seem to find a size 0 to stick on their cover!"

Hi! Picky editor, crashing the party! Jessica, that should read, "That doesn't include magazines..." right? Or am I just completely misunderstanding where you're going with that?

Jutgory: FeministMe,
I think it is unfair of you to be critical of the men who wonder about the types of double-standards that are addressed. After all, since the book is about double-standards between men and women, they HAVE to address men.

Does the cover say "... and 49 double standards everyone should know"? Or are these specifically double-standards that society applies to women? In which case, if you want a book that addresses men's double standards, why don't you get off your ass and write one rather than whining about how this book about women fails to address your particular gripes?

Thanks, Maggie - you're right. I believe this pdf is one of the pre-final-edited ones. At least...I hope!

And techdoc, buhbye!

FemiDancer, you beat me to it.

It's also worth considering the possibility that the *reason* fewer men (though certainly not all, or even most) are interested in large women (or are less interested in large women than in smaller women) is because they aren't exposed to much of cultural significance that would make them think otherwise. Just like they say women dress up for other women, men in many ways subconsciously base their decisions about women on what other men will think.

However, I was able to think of one example of a fabulous, gorgeous large woman who is portrayed as the beautiful and sexy woman she is: Sara Ramirez from Grey's Anatomy. On multiple occasions her character has slept with one of the hottest guys on the show, and he's definitely portrayed as being VERY attracted to her.

That you quoted that particular section is ironic, given that others would say that the reason Jessica gets more attention/book deals that other feminists is her conformity to what society and Hollywood tell us is attractive.

But I'm guessing the irony is lost on you, given that you put the naked torso of a clearly young, white thin woman who would not be out of place in Hollywood on the cover of your first book.

jessica and fellow feministingers -- we're giving away 10 copies! http://skirt.com/giveaway

come and get 'em :)

Theaetetus,
I believe you may have missed my point.

The question is not about my "gripes." The question is about the double-standards addressed in the book.

Are they merely the double-standards that victimize women? Or, do they also address the double-standards that empower women?

I would think that feminists would want to focus on the latter as much as they do the former.

So, it is a valid question about the book.

men in many ways subconsciously base their decisions about women on what other men will think.

Subconscious, heh. It's down right codified, Thou shalt not express attraction to an ugly or fat chick. Thou shalt not even be seen talking to an ugly or fat chick. I just read some disgusting Man Manual which I have thankfully forgotten the name of which offered a point system for behavior with respect to women. It deducted points for interacting with ugly women. I almost puked. That's just one book, but that book would not have been written if there were not an underlying zeitgeist which awards status to men who seen with beautiful women and deducts status from men who are seen with so-called ugly women.

@techdoc
I suggest if you're curious about the double standards in the book that maybe you try getting a copy of it. Judging the whole book by one excerpt might not be the best idea.

Also if she was writing about the double standards that favor women would it be seen as "And now for the stuff you can get away with." Chapter that might be misconstrued as encouraging using the double standards in their favor.

Wow. I'm disturbed by the "if you don't like it then make your own" responses. If that's truly how it is then Hostel II gets a free pass cuz afterall... if you don't like the way it treats women then you should release your own film for chrissakes.

Ultimately, since this is a book about double standards it really should address double standards. So yes it should have included men's issues as well as issues of class and race. This book is not subtitled "Double standards every white woman should know can hurt her"

Also, stop trying to silence some of the posters by calling them "whiners" and "trolls". A post is a post. Criticize it on it's on merits or lack thereof, not by name calling.

Spottieottiedopalicious, I don't really think a conversation about the way I look or how you think I "conform" to attractiveness standards is appropriate. Judging me on the way I look is the same old sexist shit.

If you want to know about the FFF book cover, there are a bunch of threads dedicated to that - but I'd ask that you please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.

First of all, I have to call major bullshit that police who respond to domestic violence calls are only going after the menz.

I have police officers in my family and police officers make up a great deal of my current colleagues. I'm also colleagues with domestic violence victims' court advocates. There is no way that police don't arrest women when the man has marks. I've been told horror stories of women prosecuted based on bite marks on men's armpits and inner thighs. Jeez, I wonder what he was doing to her that would have her biting him in those places.

I suggest looking up Claire Renzetti and her work on women-perpetrated domestic violence to get a clearer understanding of how relationship violence by women is explained within patriarchal society.

Or, do they also address the double-standards that empower women?

Double-standards based on patriarchy, even when they "benefit" women, they certainly don't empower them because they are the result of patriarchy that systematically subjugates women.

When I picked up your first book, I was already calling myself a feminist. I then passed it on to two of my friends, and they now call themselves feminists too. I think next I'll lend it to my mom, to show her that being a feminist is not going to make me a lesbian, which she unfortunately believes. I think she'll be open-minded enough to see feminism for what it is and recognize that, as a strong, independent, successful woman, she herself is in a way living the feminist life-style. Anyways, thanks for writing such an awesome book, and I hope to read the new one as soon as possible.

Ellestar,
Your post helped prove my point. You cite women who are prosecuted for abusing men and then wonder what HE did to deserve that. That is the double-standard: men are violent and women are only violent in response to violence against them.

Also, you make a good point. If feminism believes that even double-standards that benefit women are the product of patriarchy, then ALL of the double-standards are the result of the same source (and should be "fair game" in the book). There really should be no distinction between them.

"Also, stop trying to silence some of the posters by calling them "whiners" and "trolls". A post is a post. Criticize it on it's on merits or lack thereof, not by name calling."

The only thing being silenced is sexism and misogyny.

I read this book just a few days ago, and immediately after finishing it I picked up Full Frontal Feminism. I loved, loved, loved these books and will be passing them along very soon. Jessica, you did a FABULOUS job, and I am already looking forward to your next one. (No pressure.)

As for all this "what about the men?" stuff going on, I just want to ask if there is such a thing as a positive double standard? Can anyone, male or female, be "empowered" by a double standard or a stereotype? Even if it appears to affect one group in a positive way, it is not exactly conducive to acheiving any kind of equality. It's like saying there's "good" racism; if you say that all black people are good at sports, it sounds like a compliment, but it is actually racism.

It seems to me that these guys expected Jessica to address every single possible reaction someone could have to her book before publishing it. Would it be preferable if she had written, "...a man needs to be convinced to love awoman of a certain size and that she wouldn't be able to get some loving otherwise. As if someone couldn't be attracted to her (gasp!) appearance. Not that there's anything wrong with this. If you like skinnier women, that's perfectly fine. Of course, if you like larger women, that's good too. If you're a lesbian and like skinny women that's also okay. Anything you want to do is good and fine and okay. Sorry if I offend anyone." Please.

Oops. I double posted. Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;)

I really REALLY hate to have to find myself in any way on techdoc's "side", but iqonefiftynine actually made two valid points, and the "it's ok to indimidate & ignore people when they're wrong" opinion expressed by Xana essentially amounts to more namecalling.

techdoc was oafish, his points ranged from mildly topical to willfully ignorant, and we can all agree that the discussion will be better in a lot of ways as a result of what I assume is his bannination by Jessica, but I don't think that justifies the equally rude way in which he was dismissed.

If "we" are so enlightened and "they" are so ignorant, than "we" should hold ourselves to higher standards for interaction.

I remember the thread in which you asked us to throw out our most hated double standards. It was such a long, substantive, quality thread, full of double standards that mainly hurt women and double standards that mainly hurt men.

But like kalidikeds pointed out, double standards never really benefit anyone, when you get down to it.

Wouldn't it be weird if Africa scholars were constantly pleaded with to "focus on Asia!"
Or if people from AARP were asked to give equal time and attention to the issue of infant mortality.
Jessica's main focus is feminism. Let her write a goddamn book about it without insisting that she give YOUR issue equal time. This site spends a good amount of time highlighting the ways in which the patriarchy hurts men.
Perhaps you should engage in discussion on those posts (and maybe pretend to give a shit about how the patriarchy hurts women) rather than only voicing your opinion to complain when you and your sex aren't the center of attention.

Your post helped prove my point. You cite women who are prosecuted for abusing men and then wonder what HE did to deserve that. That is the double-standard: men are violent and women are only violent in response to violence against them.

Actually, no, because I added the Renzetti reference (in New Versions of Victims, Lamb, ed., 1999) that DOES explore why a significant majority of women are violent towards men. Here's a paraphrase:

It's the cycle of violence evidenced my most men in abusive relationships. The cycle includes a honeymoon period where the guy is lovey-dovey and attentive and not at all violent to their partners. Then comes the escalating tension stage where he starts getting shorter and shorter tempered, the verbal and psychological abuse re-emerge. Next is the physical violence often taken to a "degree too far" so that the women will want to leave. Then, to keep the women, the honeymoon period starts again.

Now, based on this study, in the times that women initiated violence, it was in the escalating tension stage of the men's violence cycle. To have some control in the relationship, the women instigate the violence to get it over with. They know it's coming and exercise the only control they have in the violence: the timing.

Are women violent? Sure, but intimate partner violence in heterosexual couples, whether by men or women, is best explained by male violence in patriarchy.

Unicron... wonderful application of the words "we" and "they"

SarahMC... Africa and Asia are not overlapping land masses and I have yet to meet a retired infant. So of course I agree with you.

Double standards, however, especially when you look at the "everyday" kind written about often in this book, are experienced by multiple groups and yes those groups deserve equal time, cause their feelings are as important as yours. To paraphase my earlier comment... this book is not subtitled "Double standards every white feminist should know can hurt "her""

Well, this conversation has wandered pretty far from thoughts about Jessica's new book, so I guess I'll post the other half of my earlier comment after all. I was thinking it was off topic, more fool me.

First, though -- thank you, Jessica, for the reference to the "Feminism 101" blog above. The FAQ on what roles should men play in Feminism was thoughtful and useful. I also strongly agree with the thoughts in the what about the menz? posting. I will read more of that blog in my (sadly, not copious enough) spare time.

I remain unfulfilled, however. I am unmistakably a privileged white male. I am unapologetically liberal, and had you asked me two years ago would have claimed I was post-feminist. This blog, and some other readings, have awakened me to the reality that while I'm probably ahead of the curve, I'm by no means enlightened: just somewhat aware and working on it.

To me what seems to be missing in this conversation is a discussion for the "pro-feminist man". I absolutely don't mean "what about the menz" -- I mean instead, "what can the menz do to help the womenz?" What can I do to advance gender equality, beyond guardedly watching my own behavior, raising a strong daughter, and calling other men on their sexism when the opportunity presents itself?

To this end (and to bring it back to the book), I would have really appreciated if Jessica's "What to do" section had included me. I want to help. Please -- help me help you!

Go check my mail and low and behold what's in my mailbox? My Amazon.com order, complete with Jessica's new book. Can't wait to dig into it.

Double standards, however, especially when you look at the "everyday" kind written about often in this book, are experienced by multiple groups and yes those groups deserve equal time, cause their feelings are as important as yours. To paraphase my earlier comment... this book is not subtitled "Double standards every white feminist should know can hurt "her""

iqonefiftynine,

I'm very sure Jessica is aware of that and guess what, she picked double standards that affect WOMEN. My Gawd her audacity. These double standards, such as he's a stud and she's a slut, and others in the book, do affect WOMEN. They affect black women, they affect white women, they affect Asian women, Latino, etc. They affect the the rich, the poor and the dwindling middle class. So that's why the book doesn't HAVE to be titled double standards for rich white women. Double standards for women pretty much covers-get this-WOMEN. All of 'em.

Now, you might like her, or someone, to address double standards black women face against white women, and maybe how double standards affect men and so on and so forth but that's an entirely different topic and maybe she'll get to it, maybe she won't. It's up to her to choose what she wants to address and it's within her right to tackle one subject at a time. If Jessica didn't feel comfortable addressing non-white, non-female issues I'm not going to hold it against her, she is still, after all, one person and this jumping down her throat for not addressing issues that you want addressed helps nothing. Count me among the people who'd be pissed if we were talking about a book based on the double standards the black community felt, and then there were people on the comments going, "What about white people, huh?" Or if we were talking about issues gay people face and then people were going, "what about straight people!" The only thing it does is distract from the issue at hand that people ARE trying to discuss.

Anyway, congrats on the book Jessica.

I find the term "stud" personally offensive, or I would if anyone have ever used it to refer to me.

I pre-ordered your book when you announced it, and LOVED it when I finally got to read it. It was my final feminist fix before I had to go home to my neo-con household.

"...and calling other men on their sexism when the opportunity presents itself?"

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!! That can start in the comment threads, actually...

okay, so I'm reading the book, (need something to do while waiting for my chicken to marinade) and low and behold, I'm only to page 62, Chapter 13 "He's Tough, She's a Tomboy" and Jessica addresses a double standard that hurts men! Wowie! And before that, in Chapter 2, "He's Chill, She's on the Pill," she addresses how birth control has been used as a tool against, GASP, women of color and low income women and how the cost can disproportionately affect them. And in Chapter 3, "He's Rough, She's Dainty" she mentions that most children's toys are marketed toward white children! Not only that, oh no, but in Chapter 5 she talks about the unrealistic beauty standards and how they mostly feature the thin, white, blond, and sometimes big boobed, tropes. Thusly pointing out in an efficient manner that women who don't feature these traits, are typically women of color and aren't deemed "attractive" by society.

Holy hotcakes, Batman! I can't believe the things I'm learning from the book by ACTUALLY READING IT. It's amazing, it really is.

/rant;)

"Just because someone has a particular focus on one thing in their book does not mean that they refuse to acknowledge other aspects/viewpoints. Perhaps it is just not part of this particular book."

Indeed. You don't have to discuss *everything* whenever you want to discuss *something*...

"Wouldn't it be weird if Africa scholars were constantly pleaded with to 'focus on Asia!'
"Or if people from AARP were asked to give equal time and attention to the issue of infant mortality.
"Jessica's main focus is feminism. Let her write a goddamn book about it without insisting that she give YOUR issue equal time. This site spends a good amount of time highlighting the ways in which the patriarchy hurts men."

Exactly!

"Subconscious, heh. It's down right codified, Thou shalt not express attraction to an ugly or fat chick. Thou shalt not even be seen talking to an ugly or fat chick."

That reminds me of the "secret girlfriend" comment I saw in response to an advice column Q&A once:

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-tribune/TRH13APBJL86N7PI5/p3#c55

"'I've been dating a boy for about a week, and he's extremely shy. I can tell he's really stretching his comfort when he talks to me or when we walk in the hallway.'

[she asked the advice columnist if she did the right thing by not showing him her breasts when he asked in the schoolyard]

"Okay - people may not like what I'm going to say but dahellwithit
"She may be the 'secret girlfriend' if she's not attractive and/or overweight. As in doesn’t really acknowledge her in public like getting out of handholding, not talking to her for too long like she said above. Do his friends know he is dating her? If not, then she is the secret girlfriend.
"Secret girlfriends are the ones you will spend time with (and go further with) in private then convince her that the more of a secret the more 'special' the relationship is. Usually focuses on the more hard sex activities (no first soft romantic kisses, hugs, standard making' out)
"Being a fat and ugly teenager I had a boy I grew up with in the neighborhood spend about a week with me when I was about 14. We were playing pool, talking, etc. Then out of nowhere he wanted to wager a bj on the outcome of a pool game. I never heard the term before (I know about the act….just not that particular term) but something about the gleam in his eyes made me say 'nope'. And no more hanging out. But I'm pretty sure if I had said yes I would have been the 'secret girlfriend' who he would have denied even knowing let along dating."

I might have to buy a second copy if I want to review it in a timly fashion. My partner, usually complains that I spend too much time reading obscure books but she started reading my first copy of your book and won't give it back! That's pretty good sign it's got general appeal, Jessica. --fl]

"I think techdoc would say, for example, that every woman should be aware that if she engages in domestic abuse against a male, police will rarely arrest her if he calls the police (usually, they will arrest him). I mean, it is a double-standard and a very powerful one that "every woman should know.""

I think they should also be aware of the deliberately manufactured misconception that women are somehow equal perpetrators of domestic violence. The men suffering the greatest amounts of DV are men in GAY relationships.

Oh, and they regularly take both parties into custody, no matter who was the likely perpetrator.

Thanks for you guys providing the token, cliched, "But what about the menz?!"-contributions, though...

Ultra you may know Jessica personally, but I don't and based on the cover of her first book I'm not so sure this one is so inclusive by design as you make it out to be. I mean the words "slut" and "stud" are so ethnic... as is that little red european silhouette on the cover. And metrosexual, lolita, and fashion plate just scream asian. You may wanna check that white women as the standard woman sentiment.

I for one don't prefer the ghettoization of social issues over inclusion especially when it 's a majority group doing it and we are talking about everyday issues. It's a bad habit to get into. Your comparison to blacks and gays is a stretch. Last time I checked even together they wouldn't make 20% of the population in America.

"Every group should just stick up for themselves" will not make a better society. Following that bad rule is how we all got unequal in the first place?

Wow, Jessica. We tell young women all the time to not speak as if they are apologizing for what they are about to say! I read at least three such sentences in this post. Be proud of your book. People will want to buy it because it's good. And this is your blog. Dammit.

Why should double standards that are harmful to men be included in the book at all? The title clearly states that the double standards are ones that “every WOMAN should know�. Men aren’t supposed to be the ones reading the book….its supposed to be read BY women and is written FOR women (hence the title).

An imperfect analogy would be for a woman to complain to a men’s fashion magazine editor that the magazine should include articles on women’s fashion, when clearly, the magazine is aimed at men.

I get that this book isn’t meant for men, so why are some men complaining about it in terms of inclusiveness?

I mean the words "slut" and "stud" are so ethnic

You've got to be fucking kidding me, right? Stud and slut are exclusive to what ethnicities exactly, iqonefiftynine? I know plenty of white men who've got the "stud" label and, as Jessica writes in her book, there are plenty of white women who are called a "slut" every fucking day. Those words are universally applied to people of all colors.

Your comparison to blacks and gays is a stretch. Last time I checked even together they wouldn't make 20% of the population in America.

This isn't the fucking oppression olympics either. I cannot fathom how you thought that brining up numbers has anything to do with the discussion/debate at hand. Jessica wrote a book about double standards FOR WOMEN. That includes ALL WOMEN. And there have been comments about "what about MEN!!" So yes, saying that if someone were to be talking about their book on the issues the black community faces, and then to have some posters come in and go, "What about WHITE PEOPLE" is a pretty good fucking example.

Then there are the posters that say she's not addressing women of color's issues, when, if you're a WOMAN of color, yes, she IS addressing issues that relate to you. She even brings up issues of race and class in her book, and as far as I've read she's addressed double standards that negatively affect men which most here would know if they ACTUALLY FUCKING READ THE BOOK.

Ultra you may know Jessica personally, but I don't and based on the cover of her first book I'm not so sure this one is so inclusive by design as you make it out to be.

1) What the fuck does me knowing her personally have to do with anything? There are plenty of posters here who are backing her who haven't met her at all and 2) WHY DON'T YOU READ THE FUCKING BOOK THEN? I guess my eyes going over the words on the page, reading Jessica discuss in Chapter 14 how black women often get slapped with the "angry black bitch" label and are constantly portrayed in the media as being pissed is me making stuff up in my head. Sheesh. Does she go into minute detail? No, the book is a light and quick read designed to be as entertaining as it is informative. But she does address it.

oh, and BTW, iqonefiftynine: and based on the cover of her first book I'm not so sure this one is so inclusive by design as you make it out to be

Judging a book by ANOTHER books cover? Wow. Just, wow.

Judging a book by ANOTHER books cover? Wow. Just, wow.

Well, they do say you can't judge a book by its own cover, so I've always wondered what cover I should use. It's nice to finally have an answer.

I convinced my library to buy it, and I read it in probably two hours. I liked it! I think the part that I enjoyed most was Jessica including things we can do- because unfocused energy doesn't really accomplish anything. The other day, I was bored on my lunch break, and I picked up a gossip magazine. Then I put it back down, remembering that Jessica mentioned that, for good reason, we shouldn't read them. I felt good about the decision.

1. I completely agree that this is a book meant for women focused specifically on women's issues. Including every single double standard that exists in our society would require complete destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

2. On a completely seperate note, I don't understand why Jessica put "obesity epidemic" in quotes (yes, the irony of that last sentence is staggering). Obesity is serious health crisis. It does not in any way justify the shaming of overweight women in the media or in relationships(women who are actually overweight, not normal women who are not size 000 and therefore "fat" by Hollywood's standards), but treating obesity as if it is purely a societal construction is dangerous.

@ Mathgoddess

read this:

http://kateharding.net/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/

The concept of obesity is a societal construct!(BMI was invented in the 1890's) People can be healthy at any size!

Oh and for all the men that are whining because they think Jessica is shaming them for not liking bigger women. Guess what, YOU DON'T have to! But you still must treat them with as much respect as you would a thin woman! Why do you feel that you only have to be respectful to women you find attractive?

I finished the book about four days ago. I love the approach and how this book serves as a good starting point for discourse, but I don't think it adds very much to the practical application of social action. True, each section ends with a "so, what to do?" blurb, but these are very repetitive ("speak up!"). There's even one instance when the chapter ends with "There's so much work to be done!" but the what-to-do section simply states, "I don't know, dude. Move?"

I loved the book because I admire Jessica's work, but it's not going on my favorites list anytime soon. Hopefully the next one will be more thorough and feel less rushed!

"Oh and for all the men that are whining because they think Jessica is shaming them for not liking bigger women. Guess what, YOU DON'T have to! But you still must treat them with as much respect as you would a thin woman! Why do you feel that you only have to be respectful to women you find attractive?"

Exactly! For example, the problem with an employer thinking "she's fat so she's not sexy so she can't be a good accountant" when hiring isn't the "she's fat so she's not sexy" part, it's the "she's not sexy so she can't be a good accountant" part. Trying to solve her unemployment problem by trying to change his sexual orientation so that he's oriented towards her too is less direct and less likely to work than speaking up about how unsexy people can work well too.

-I know plenty of white men who've got the "stud" label-

Indeed! "stud" is very white. That's exactly my point, UltraMADnus. I guess the sarcasm went over your head.

"Oppression olympics" Do you write for Fox News in your spare time? I don't know why I brought up the numbers either it's not like you understand the nuance.

Actually I did read the book... and before this thread! I was with my girlfriend and her friend in a Barnes and Noble. The book reminded us of a Cosmo article only longer and on different paper.

You write "fuck" way too much. If you wanna disagree with me go right ahead, but do so with civility.

Every time I see the name IQ 159 I think to myself that it's exactly like someone using Penis Size 10" when you just know it's more like 3.

The moniker is a stunning display of intellectual insecurity.

Kelly, to be fair, the "move" line was a joke... :)

Bought it. Read it. Loved it. My 17 year old sister is now reading it.
THANK YOU JESSICA!!!

Holy shit, what a massive clusterfuck. First off, without having read any of Jessica's books, I don't see why everyone always wants to jump on her for perhaps not giving WOC etc. the treatment they deserve. She is white and middle class and it's not a diss to say that her situational biases affect the content of her book. For some reason I don't think we would hold a WOC writing a book to the same standards if she specifically focused on minority and class issues. It's totally okay to enjoy it for what it is - criticizing it for what it isn't is always the FIRST criticism of any book and is, like, the first way to attack a book without dealing with its content directly.

Now, regarding the obesity thing - what the fuck. I'm from Oklahoma, and believe me you coastal bohemians, there is most fucking definitely an obesity epidemic. My local Wal-Mart is full of corpulent men and women headed for the straight and narrow of heart disease and diabetes. Honestly I'm a little disgusted at all the excuse making by people because it's just unhealthy, period. What is contentious is the social construction of the line between whatever/obesity. It's too low, especially with regards to women, and that is a problem, but as a thin man dating a thin woman, I'm frustrated by the current mindset that to be a good feminist or whatever, you have to embrace the fat acceptance movement. Let's not get too tied down into social constructions that we lose our common sense.

Hah! sgzax. I was thinking that too.

His arguments may be weak and disingenuous, but just look at his username! Trust him.

thewellofemoness-

This may be a case of "he said, she said" but Harvard did a study and found that obesity increases the risk of: stroke, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, osteoarthritis, bloodclots, diabetes, and heart disease.
Seems pretty dangerous to me. Again, NO REASON to disrespect people who are unhealthy weight-wise; as your blogger says, they ARE STILL PEOPLE.

And, even though I'll admit to my own biases against obese people (this is more of an oklahoma culture thing anyway), sociological studies have shown public shaming to be an ineffective way of getting people to change their behavior. Doesn't mean it's okay, though.

And, even though I'll admit to my own biases against obese people (this is more of an oklahoma culture thing anyway), sociological studies have shown public shaming to be an ineffective way of getting people to change their behavior. Doesn't mean it's okay, though.

Tofu.mon.amour, whatever gave you the idea that being fat was a choice? Or, for that matter, that type 2 diabetes and heart disease (both of which have strong genetic components) were choices? (I have a friend in his mid-40s with heart problems who has always been pencil-thin.)

Short of being put in concentration camps or contracting deadly wasting illnesses, most of us are not going to become permanently thin no matter what we do. A few rule-proving exceptions whose genetic advantages allow them to lose lots of weight and keep it off do not change that reality. And there's ample evidence that the massive social pressure to lose weight from a very young age makes people even fatter than they would be genetically. (Ask any of those fat women in Oklahoma -- because I'll bet anything that if only the men were fat it wouldn't bother you a bit -- how young they were when they started dieting. Do not be shocked when single digit ages are mentioned.)

@tofu.mon.amour

Your bias against teh fattiez is based on ignorance. How much do you know about those people you see at your local Wal-Mart? Can you honestly predict someone's health just by looking at them? If you're thin, can I then predict that you have an eating disorder? Can I predict that since you're from Oklahoma, you're a closed-minded bigot?

Your assumptions are incorrect. There are a lot of fatties who are perfectly healthy with normal blood pressure, normal cholesterol who exercise regularly, "watch what they eat" and are still fat. How do you explain that?

I, too, am from Oklahoma (I now live in NC -- not much different) and know for a fact that there are a lot of really hip Okies, but that there are also a lot of idiots who really DO hate pretty much everyone, which is, like you say, a cultural thing in Oklahoma. That doesn't make it okay to continue to hate on people you obviously know NOTHING about.

The thing I find most amusing about your comment is that you shop at Wal-Mart. A discount retailer that offers cheap goods and services to people with very little money. People with very little money can rarely afford to stock their fridges/pantries with organic, natural, non-processed items. I recently spent $60 on fruits and veggies, which only lasted about a week and almost completely wiped out my grocery budget for the month. Not having money means you have fewer options for food. I can get a hell of a lot of Ramen for $5 -- it'll feed me for days upon days, but $5 of fruits will put me on a two-day apple diet.

C'mon. Oklahoma looks bad enough in the media without us proving the nation's opinion of us as close-minded fools.

MathGoddess: The studies done on obesity are often funded by groups whose best interest is in proving that obesity is harmful. Often these are manufacturers of diet pills and sellers of diet plans (as well as other groups who rely on obesity being an "epidemic"). This can even be true of studies conducted by universities as they often accept outside funding. They often present correlative data and cite obesity as a "risk factor." There is no proof that an actual causal relationship between obesity and certain diseases exist. (In part because it is very difficult to make a thin person fat, see Kate harding link above.)

Between 33 and 55 Billion dollars is spent every year on weight loss products and services. They want us to believe that our fat is killing us so we keep buying their products.

So go ahead, hate on fatties all you want if it makes you feel good. But you should know you're just doing what the patriarchy wants you to do.

Wow, this got derailed quickly. Who invited the Glenn Sacks fan club? :)

ANYway, I really appreciated this book, thanks Jess. I have a collection of books I'm saving for my daughter and this one will be one of the first I give her- it's easily digestible, it offers SOLUTIONS which I admire so much, and it lays out some pretty obvious yet often undiscussed issues. Thank you.

A young friend of mine and I were having an argument over her relationship life- she has had an ongoing flirtation with a guy who seems great, but they are both shy about the actual "going on a date" aspect. It seems to me he's opened the door a dozen times now, and is looking for a little encouragement. She has been quite stubbornly waiting for him to "make a move" (apparently these moves haven't been "real" moves) because that's the way it's supposed to be. Made me bang my head against the wall. No, dear, it's not always like that... then book arrives off my amazon que, I devoured it and I HAD to pass it on to her. The book said what I'd been trying to express better than I ever could have, and she's loving it to.

Re: obesity and health

The clue that health concern for people who are obese is due to fat bias rather than actual concern is the lack of complementary concern for the underweight. No, I don't mean people who have anorexia or bulemia. People with eating disorders can, in fact, be of healthy weight. People who are underweight do not necessarily have an eating disorder.

There are real health risks associated with being underweight just as there are real health risks associated with being obese, yet there is a glaring disparity in the number of conversations about the health risks of being obese vs. the number of conversations about the health risks of being underweight.

Wow, Unicron_The_Vagina, way to misinterpret my words...where in my one sentence did I "indimidate & ignore people when they're wrong"?

I didn't namecall at all. I'm sick of the "what about the menz!" arguments that always surface on these posts. Some individuals said they were being silenced when in reality they were being rationally argued against.

had a question on the slut/stud paradigm, please forgive me if its already been covered.

I hate the stud/slut paradigm and have had many debates/talks about it over the years. I have begun to wonder though if at least a tiny little bit of the reason for it existing is the difference in sexual power the genders have. As a 28 year old man, when talking with a female friend, to demonstrate the difference in sexual power I ask her something along the lines of "what would happen if I were to ask 100 random het women to sleep with me or let me perform oral sex on them" then ask "what would happen if you asked 100 random het men to sleep with you or let you perform oral sex on them?" What it came out as is that in general, or at least in my age group, women seem to have a lot more sexual power, if you really really want dick, dont care whos attached to it just want it, you can get it pretty much whenever you want (not you have to like the guy, not it has to be right, you just want sexual contact period). Does this difference in power and availability effect the stud/slut paradigm? If some het woman with thst kind of power chooses to sleep or suck as many guys as possible, could not the word slut be applied (if you used such a word, I dont as i think its idiotic but just trying to understand a different part of the where the paradigm came from that isnt discussed very much). I apologize if I'm not being clear.

I'm not talking about poor people buying organic fruits and healthy meats - I'm talking about not frittering away your money on cheap processed food and instead opting for CHEAP grains, beans, etc. Look, I sympathize with the structural factors blocking access to healthy foods, even without considering the organic/conventional side of it. But here's what I do observe in Oklahoma - a lot of people who don't know how to cook, don't know that tofu is cheaper than meat, eat a whole bunch of SHIT food, and in general are so ignorant about what goes into a healthy diet that any gains in public awareness are going to be tenuous at best.

And of course, because I'm a man, I don't care about the spate of obese men with diabetes coming into the place that I work at, sliding downward into poor health. What I observe is CULTURAL: people are in a circle of reinforcing poor attitudes about eating TOO MUCH MEAT (which is EXPENSIVE) and eating too much in general - ever heard of the southern diet?

I see a lot of people's opinions about the weight double standard as such: women are more targeted for being fat than men, thus we should be more accepting of fat people. I'm on the opposite side - we shouldn't be giving a pass to obesity, regardless of gender.

I CAN'T BELIEVE the kind of rhetoric around here saying that the causal relationship between obesity and diseases is tenuous - how can you think that? The fat acceptance movement is plagued by the bane of all sociologically-informed social movements: too much focus on structural factors (patriarchy, whatever the oppressive hegemony of healthy people is) at the expense of mitigating cultural factors, which around here, there are plenty of. FACT: the traditional American diet and lifestyle facilitates obesity; if you think most people suffer from some genetic problem, you've got another thing coming.

And I don't need to generate any more bad raps for Oklahoma than there already are - the place is a fucking shithole of cultural destitution and an absence of any redeeming contributions to society, except for an exemplary divorce rate and heart disease casualty rate.

I couldn't believe the irony in having a thin, ideal body type silloutte next to the chapter title "He's Husky, She's invisible." I imagine that silloutte is at the top of every chapter, which is kinda disappointing.
This is now the 2nd book written by Jessica with a thin, ideal body type woman on the cover. Isn't this the part of FFF that got so much flack?
It is because I agree with the statement that "we should support publications that accept all women's body sizes, and that DOESN'T include publications/books that SAY that support women of all sizes and then still end up putting a size zero model on the cover" that I probably won't be picking up the book anytime soon.
And while I agree with Jessica that we have no right to talk about what she looks like, Spottieottiedopalicious is pretty spot on.

Jamespi, I think you should look at who you're including in the categories "men" and "women."
Because no, not all women can get any dick whenever they'd like. We are not all slim, young and conventionally attractive. Maybe you think the women you like could get any guy they wanted, but there are just as many awkward, homely, unattractive women as there are men. I've found that most men react with revulsion to the idea of being intimate with a "fat chick." Fat chicks are women too.
Also, even if your premise were correct, it would be highly influenced by socialization and double-standards. It's a lot more acceptable, in our society, for men to sleep around. Maybe woman A would like to sleep with strange man B, but is unwilling to be branded a "slut" as a consequence, so she doesn't.

Hey tofu: I don't disagree that as a whole people in our culture eat more meat than is healthy for the planet, and possibly their bodies as well (though some cultures eat even more meat), but tofu isn't that much cheaper than meat and it is way less filling. At my local grocery store, tofu is $1.99/lb. and ground beef is less than that. Also, some people don't enjoy the texture of tofu. Some folks don't like meat either. I eat both. I was a vegetarian up until a couple years ago and I didn't get thinner. Tofu won't make anyone magically lose weight, though it is yummy when prepared the way I like it. Oh, and I don't get a "free pass" for being fat. Cultural hatred of fat people definitely affects me and I fight most days to maintain some semblance of self-love. If shame made us thin, no one would be fat.

I'm definitely going to read this book. I'm curious to find out what other double standards she will include. Insurance companies that cover Viagra but not birth control? The fact that men who have families don't get penalized for it in the workplace?

"How much do you know about those people you see at your local Wal-Mart? Can you honestly predict someone's health just by looking at them?"

For that matter, how often can you tell who's actually fat and who's starting to show a pregnancy (I've heard of some pregnant women having swollen limbs too instead of only changing at the waist)? When you see someone and think "she needs to lose that gut for her own sake," don't forget that maybe she's trying to have a baby and would have to abort in order to meet your standard...

"Because no, not all women can get any dick whenever they'd like. We are not all slim, young and conventionally attractive. Maybe you think the women you like could get any guy they wanted, but there are just as many awkward, homely, unattractive women as there are men."

Indeed. The rest of us exist too!

I mentioned that in a comment on another blog and the blogger (a writer I used to respect in some ways) proceeded to go on and on and on for several posts about how women don't have it any better than men, any advantages men have had like more job opportunities and more custody of themselves are "fool's gold" because all you need is love, "the hand that rules the cradle rules the world," if you think women have had it any worse you're misandrist, etc. o_O It pretty much went from http://darkush.blogspot.com/2008/04/forgetting-sarah-marshall-and-forbidden.html to http://darkush.blogspot.com/2008/04/answering-request.html

I'm sick to fucking death of people telling me I'm getting a "free pass" because I'm fat. FREE PASS? What the hell free pass am I getting? I get stared at when I sit down to eat in public. People shout things from their cars. On tv, radio, in magazines -- hell, everywhere I look, I am being reminded of just how NOT FREE my pass is.

And yeah, Oklahoma is a den of ignorance. You're not helping.

I actually agree there is a problem with nutrition and lack of regular physical activity in this country, which reflects cultural and systemic factors and should not be considered a moral failing on anyone's part...but something that is offensive to me about those individuals "concerned" for obese or overweight people is that there are plenty of other life-threatening and health-threatening behaviors and lifestyles that somehow escape their "concern," most likely because obesity is *visible* and deemed unappealing (and is thus worthy of particular pity/contempt/correction). Where is your outrage about smoking, alcoholism, driving too fast, workaholism and no sleep, anger management problems, etc., all of which cause or contribute to a myriad of chronic illnesses? How about your concern for people who don't wear sunscreen? Or live in homes with lead paint or don't go to the doctor or dentist or travel without immunizations or do extreme sports? How about your concern for childhood abuse and traumas of other kinds, which are definitively linked to numerous physical health problems? Why the particular outrage about obesity? Because we as a culture conflate appearance with health and appearance with worth and appearance with personality and appearance with moral virtue. Period.

I really wish people would stop using the word "epidemic" without knowing what it actually means. It is impossible for fat to be an "epidemic" by definition.

As to the health concerns, start with the Obesity Paradox series at www.junkfoodscience.blogspot.com and keep on from there. It ain't true and it ain't getting truer.

I realized that maybe some terms haven't been properly defined - I'm not talking about "overweight" people, who very likely are in good health, subjected to off-kilter body image propaganda, etc. I'm talking about very obese people, those people whose weight IS CORRELATED to many, many negative outcomes. What the fuck does the situation of their life matter? Life situations are malleable (oh, shoot me for saying this) and most people's figments of caged-in circumstances are rather an internalization of their circumstances. If you have a million kids, work a shit job with long hours, whatever (and a lot of people in my town seem to) then you may very well let yourself go entirely. You're also by proxy going to fuck your children over by feeding THEM shit food too.

I think a lot of you posters who come from middle-class circumstances in relatively more progressive areas of the country are thinking that anti-fatties or whatever are targeting people who aren't that overweight. I'm not attracted to it, but neither is there much of an objective problem with it.

And I obviously was not implying that fat people get some sort of free pass now - no, I clearly said that they were publicly shamed in an ineffective way. But the fat acceptance movement is trying to facilitate something akin to a "free pass" by allowing unhealthily obese people to fall into this myth that their weight is somehow healthy and should be socially acceptable. I don't think it should be. Sorry. What alienates me is that for some reason I'm a bad male sympathetic feminist for it.

No, you're a bad person for it. Now what is this magic number of which you speak, and who determines it? You? Do you know there are bloggers who wear size 3x that run triathlons? I have friends who weigh nearly 400 pounds that have perfect blood pressure, blood sugar, blood cholesterol, and by every measure are quite healthy, living active, productive lives. They don't need a pass from you or anyone else to do so. They're going to live their lives and demand the respect they deserve as human beings. Obviously they won't get it from you, but that's because, as I say, you're a bad person. Tofu, that is.

Also, since you won't look at the medblog with the obesity paradox series (so many paradoxes about what they thought obesity does and that it doesn't really do, that it isn't even a paradox anymore - they were just wrong) try this one. It should put most of the myths you're spewing to rest.
http://kateharding.net/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/

Right, right. Well, I'll keep enjoying the oppressive hegemony of my thin, exercised, vegan frame while all of my fat coworkers eat out at greasy restaurants every day and pop back blood pressure pills. I must really be living in a fantasy world of anecdotal encounters whereby every fat person I know relatively well has terrible eating habits, developing health problems, and nonexistent exercise regimenes.

And, umm, just for some perspective, based on a cursory google image search, Kate Harding is definitely not the body type I try to hide my disgust with daily. I'd believe that she was healthy.

thanks for your response sarah. I do not completely agree with you and I wonder what youre assuming my type to be. Ive been with pretty much every type of man and woman out there, from age 14 (when I was 14 as well) to women in their 60's and men in their 50's. I know a lot of sexually empowered women, 2nd wave feminists perhaps, that are in their 50's or higher, some who are not conventionally attractive in the least who have full and varied sex lives with multiple partners. Do you not think that some of that socialization and double standards does indeed come from a difference in innate sexual power? I'm not even sure if i believe that myself and I strongly disagree with the whole premise really I'm just trying to find a way to understand it and failing miserably. If indeed there is a difference in sexual power, choosing to use that advantage (or disadvantage depending on your viewpoint) will necesarrily get you branded in certain ways in our society. I think its also the fucked up paradigm of men as taker, woman as giver but when I'm honest with myself, when I look at a guy who has slept with say 100 women, I do see it differently than a woman who has slept with 100 men as far as what it takes to get there. Hell I've seen a housewife in the midwest, at least 45, 5'2, 260 pounds+ use a craigslist ad to solicit sex and has been successful with well over 100 men of all types in the last year and she loves that. I'm very conventionally attractive, any chance I could do that with het women? Wouldnt be hard with gay/bi men, is that socialization or sexual power or both? Is it truly a double standard if the social dynamics are not even from the get go for a reason other than fucked up socialization? Gah I'm probably walking down the wrong road with this but damn it, there must be some explanations we're missing.

And, umm, just for some perspective, based on a cursory google image search, Kate Harding is definitely not the body type I try to hide my disgust with daily. I'd believe that she was healthy..

yeah, tofu.mon.amour, and if you'd gone any further than a cursory image search, like to her blog, you'd find that by BMI standards Kate Harding is technically obese, and exactly what you are railing against.

Nice.

And, umm, just for some perspective, based on a cursory google image search, Kate Harding is definitely not the body type I try to hide my disgust with daily. I'd believe that she was healthy.

Uh. If you'd taken a tiny bit more effort and gone to her blog, you might find that part of the reason Ms. Harding is a fat acceptance activist is because according to (flawed) BMI standards, she's obese.

Sorry for the double post - I thought I'd cancelled the first one; was trying to edit for clarity. Apologies!

Why the fuck are all of you so hung up on BMI? When did I defend the BMI as good science? It was simply a better stepping stone to more objective measurements of relative body size, which the medical profession DOES need. I'm done with this shit, especially after all the fucking horrible rubbish downplaying the oncoming health crisis of millions of obese (oh, guess I should define my terms better before you stuff me full of straw) kids.

"Well, I'll keep enjoying the oppressive hegemony of my thin, exercised, vegan frame"

And yet on the fatosphere I meet people all the time who are vegan, vegetarian, exercise heartily, and are - fat. You know, that thing you call "obese" to medicalize and dehumanize them. I also know plenty of thin people who eat like crap and don't bother to exercise - and there's where your free pass comes in, because no one bothers to tell them how unhealthy they are. Even though thin people get Type II diabetes (it's genetically linked) and underweight people die of heart attacks and lung problems far more often than the fat or very fat. I don't know - science keeps debunking all the fat myths, reporting them falsely (making them say things they didn't actually find in the studies) and people keep lapping it up. Here's the thing. You don't have to be into fat women. You don't have to be attracted to them. You have to mind your own business, treat them with the same respect due to all human beings, and maybe even start believing that they are. Or don't; be whatever kind of person you want to be. By the way, you don't stay thin through constant heroic feats of self-control any more than most fat people get fat by shoveling in 10 thousand calories per day and sitting on the couch. There IS no known way to make fat people thin or thin people fat - it's a medical reality: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html

It's not something people choose for themselves, any more than they choose their birthplace, their parents, their sexual orientation or their skin color. People have different body types. Time to deal with that fact.

Dr. Stosny at "compassionpower.com" has some really effective ways to to change and deal with double standards that are effective but it all starts from the emotional state of core value. Take the core value survey at "http://compassionpower.com/corevaluesurvey.htm".

Whoa - what happened to this thread!?

tofu.mon.amour, we don't tolerate hate speech here and that's really what you're spewing. Talk of disgust and otherwise, it's just not welcome here. So please take this as a warning. Thanks.

I am not surprised that this thread derailed on this one particular double standard. I've found that every post with even the tiniest reference to fat acceptance quickly turns into something like this - one side demanding "treat them/us with respect!" and the other side forever justifying "No".

Moving away from this whole weight issue... I just started the book, and I posted about #11 today in regards to Cindy McCain's Vogue spread.

I guess I'm just starting to get really tired of all the BS. It's always been there. I've always been aware of it, but this resurgence in obsessing over these women's appearance is really giving me a headache.

Hey, I'm really interested in the discussion about this book. I'm afraid I might have fallen into a similar cliche review in my comments on Amazon, where I gave the book 5 stars but reiterated the suggestion that these double-standards ares ones that should be known by EVERY person. I'm prepared to accept a brunt of confrontation, because I can see the very valid points made above to similar input (paraphrased, "this isn't your book, it's ours; if you want one for men go write one instead of expecting us to resolve your gripes"). That's a VERY fair response, of course.

I'm not the writer of any the male-posted comments above that received this rebuttal, but I imagine I might be in line for it as well. I'd like to clarify that my intent in pointing out the importance of men seeing this material isn't to co-opt a project for personal reasons, but because I genuinely have concerns about the culture my sons are growing up in. I'm afraid that the rebuttal "...then write your own book (about these double-standards") might inadvertently reinforce male privilege; it implies, after all, that an insightful document like Jessica's book simply cannot be used by men for malekind's own improvement, because it wasn't written by a man. If, as the rebuttal suggests, a MAN were to write this book for men to read, then all is fair, right? Nope. Is that really the intended lesson here? On the contrary, I want my sons (and men in general) to learn from books like this BECAUSE it wasn't a man who wrote it for men. I want my sons to be just as educated by the insights of women authors who point out this stuff, and not have to wait for a man to put it in man's words for men. That would tragically be a step backward.

So yes, I do wish the book had been written directly to ALL persons about double-standards women AND men should know. but it's not because I want Jessica to do the work I won't do; it's the reverse. I want fathers and sons and husbands and companions to also benefit from this work, without artificial constructs of "credibility" linked to the gender of the author.

I also thought the book kicked ass.

Hey, MattOKC. That was actually my comment (and something a lot of other commenters said) back when Jessica asked for feedback re: the book cover/title.
I think ALL people, regardless of sex, should know these (and other) double-standards. I think the "...every woman should know" just reinforces the idea that patriarchy only hurts women, and that only women should care about sexism and "women's issues."
But I still agree that it kicks ass. ;)

Whatever Jessica, let's not skimp on the hyperbole. Remember - internet: serious business. This is the blogosphere, the most self-congratulatory medium on the planet, after all.

oOo. Thank you for the excerpt. Looks like I'll soon have another book to be passing around. I'm not done passing Full Frontal Feminism around to all my friends and family (my dad's reading it now), so it'll be nice to have a new one.

Got it a couple of weeks ago and have already shared a few section with my students whenever I get a chance. Had a good class discussion about the title, especially. I also had a student do a speech on this topic she got so excited about the issues!