This week in the crusade against women of color in leadership positions we have people calling Regina Benjamin fat. Charming.
I haven't done a video in a while (stage fright!) but I think the only way to reply to the fat-hate against Regina Benjamin is with a resounding "Fuck You!" Listen to me ramble. Transcript after the jump.
That last few weeks have shown us that when Conservatives are up against a wall they are very limited in their ability to combat with arguments so they focus on arguments that focus on characteristics and, when they can't disqualify someone's credit or merit, they make comments about them being fiery, as in the case of Sotomayor or they say they are fat which is the latest hee-haw over the appointee for Surgeon General Regina Benjamin who is by any accounts one of the most qualified people to be nominated for surgeon general. Given specifically the location that she has worked in and her personal and professional would make an amazing surgeon general and would definitely understand some of our most disenfranchised in need of healthcare and health advice.
So, naturally after her pic was posted multiple forums around the country have decried her body mass index as though this is somehow an indication of her lack of health and I think what is really sad about it is not necessarily that we have a superficial culture and we have a superficial online culture people say what they say, but there are news anchors that have also joined in on this..and they think that because she is overweight this disqualifies her for SG. Assuming that she is fat.
1. They have never met the woman, they have no idea.
2. Weight is something that is very subjective to a person. Alot of misinformation is out about what is considered obese, what is not considered obese and a lot of it is fat-hating and fat-shaming and it is to keep women complacent in hating their bodies and therefore not feeling good about themselves and not interacting with the world in effective ways. It is a means of social control and it is a means of emotional and psychological control that has wreaked havoc and terror on women across the country. So calling her fat is just an extension of this same sexist trajectory.
3. Finally, she is obviously extremely qualified and it is interesting because if she was a man no one would think to say she is fat because it is only women that are judged by what they look like and whether that is going to determine whether they are qualified to do the job, as opposed to men that are just evaluated in whether they can do the job.
So fuck you to everyone that has been fat-hating all week long on Regina Benjamin. She is awesome and I can't wait to have her as part of this administration.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Friday Feminist Fuck You: Regina Benjamin Fat-Haters.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15139
"it is only women that are judged by what they look like and whether that is going to determine whether they are qualified to do the job, as opposed to men that are just evaluated in whether they can do the job."
This is completely false. Stop making stuff up about what life is like for men.
I don't think I am making stuff up and I would never deny that there are pressures on men to look a certain way. I am talking specifically about women in the public eye, how women look wrt to work and to politics. They are always judged by the public and news media for how they look.
Then why not articulate your perfectly legitimate critique of the way women are treated without the completely false, gratuitous and weird male-bashing thrown in? If you'd said that women are under more pressure no one reasonable would have argued, as that's obviously true. Instead you decided to claim that men are judged "just" on qualifications and never on looks. If you want to know about being a man, ask. If you want to know how looks affect men's careers on a societal level, there's a ton of research. If you don't care, fine, then just don't write about it. But blanket claims like that are ridiculous according to common sense, men's experiences, and research doesn't strengthen your point any. It just contaminates your (ENTIRELY CORRECT) attack on Benjamin's weight critics with a wholly unnecessary display of ignorance and contempt for men.
Methinks you have blown this out of proportion just a wee bit. I wouldn't equate her statement with contempt and hatred of men. I do think she could have qualified her statement, but calling it a display of misandry is a bit over the top.
Perhaps. I think her habit of throwing un-thought-through and fairly irrelevant comments about how utterly easy men have everything speaks to something pretty nasty.
Did you just accuse me of "male-bashing?" What are you going to call me next? A woman's libber?
C'mon dude, I did one take...if it offended you so much, go do a video on your own. You can see how hard it is to post something and then get scrutinized over and over. I am not feeling you or your line of commenting. I won't ban you, unless you give me reason to, but seriously stop staying I am "male-bashing.." or other things insinuating my inability to make accurate statements.
The only people that generally cry, "what about the menz??" are MRA's...imagine the difference if you had said, "actually Samhita I think you are overlooking the way men feel pressure.." verse "Samhita you lying male-basher!!!" It begets a different response.
Let's keep this thread about the actual point of the post. The way Regina Benjamin is being treated by the media.
No, nor am I going to call you a Communist, a sorcerer or a German sympathizer. Any other hypotheticals to get out of the way?
Whether you ban me is of course up to you. Before you do, can you tell me how you came to the conclusion that "it is only women that are judged by what they look like and whether that is going to determine whether they are qualified to do the job, as opposed to men that are just evaluated in whether they can do the job"?
Either I didn't see the last two paragraphs of your comment or they were added after I hit reply. I didn't accuse you of lying, I accused you of not knowing what you were talking about when you claimed that men are never judged by their appearances.
Seen dude, men are judged too. But not nearly in the same way or to the same extent. Like I said, I did one take of the video. Give it a try.
Let's not distract the conversation to "what about the menz!!!??"
The way she is being treated is a function of misogyny and sexism. The fact that men might also be judged for how they look doesn't change that fact at all.
"The way she is being treated is a function of misogyny and sexism. The fact that men might also be judged for how they look doesn't change that fact at all."
I didn't challenge that fact at all, I agreed with it without reservation. I said that it was obviously true and that only unreasonable people would argue with it.
"Let's not distract the conversation to 'what about the menz!!!??'"
I'm the one who asked why those menz needed to be brought up at all. It's the potshot I thought was both irrelevant and false, I complimented and agreed with the rest of the post. MRA? Really?
What potshot, though? She just said that men aren't judged based on their appearance. That's not a potshot, even if we assume it is inaccurate... It's still really frickin' hard to take that as an insult to or attack on men.
"Like I said, I did one take of the video. Give it a try."
Why don't you polish your script and rehearse before going on camera? And maybe take whatever number of takes it takes until it is good enough? As far as I know the "Friday Fuck You"s are not live events. Am I right?
Wow, you must think I have a lot of time on my hands. Again, what does this have to do with the OP. It was one word, one line. Frankly, I think you guys are trying to troll. Prove me wrong.
"Frankly, I think you guys are trying to troll. Prove me wrong."
Unfortunately the burden of proof falls on the accuser :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
"Wow, you must think I have a lot of time on my hands."
If you are serious and passionate about something, do it well. OK, I concede, taking more than two takes are maybe excessive for the purpose here but is asking for a rigorous, well written rant really all that much?
"It was one word, one line."
That is what Joe Biden would have said.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/016866.html
I am so flattered that you would compare my influence to that of Joe Biden.
I bet in the world of Feministing you are atleast as influential as Joe Biden :)
Am I not right?
Why is there the assumption here that someone who disagrees with a particular post always is a troll? Aleks posts in the comments section frequently and provides thoughtful points. Yet he challenges something clearly wrong that you said, and you call him a troll and issue a passive-aggressive threat to ban him. That's really unprofessional.
No shit! What's up with that nonsense?
People disagree all the time. When someone starts off by saying that the OP is "making stuff up," it raises suspicion.
When the OP then responds with a recognition of the commenter's argument (that men are under social pressure to look a certain way) and the commenter bounces back with a charge that the OP is "male-bashing" and has displayed "ignorance and contempt for men," it starts to stray into the realm of controversy for controversy's sake... Taking what could be a valid critique and making it wholly overblown and inflammatory kind of rings of the textbook definition of "troll."
Is this comment for real? Is this whole bullshit critique for real? Sami is being a lot kinder than I ever would have been. People are tearing into her for a pretty innocuous comment. For people who have all the helpful "advice" on how to be super duper perfect, go get your own blog. Jesus.
I know the troll term is being thrown around and I'm probably risking a short-term ban, but I think that that one sentence is important, especially considering that no one here is questioning the entire content of the video. We all agree that fat hate is wrong; we certainly all agree with the message that it should stop.
However, there was a blanket statement made which doesn't even imply that men aren't judged on appearance. It's a pretty important misstatement to point out, even if both you and Samhita disagree. It's obviously important to a lot of people here that it be addressed.
I'm in no way asking for YouTube perfection. Being on camera is very difficult, I've done it. But acknowledging when something may not have been said in the best way is actually something this community prides itself on through our commenting process. I've been called out many times for single sentences I've put and had to make corrections or clarifications.
I don't understand why this is different, or why his critique is less important.
And I would call it a critique because there was not this issue when we here were called "Pearl Clutchers" by an understandably frustrated and upset POC about 6 weeks ago. It inspired posts in the community (which I know does not necessarily reflect your views as editors) about silencing tactics and how to see "beyond the anger" and "to the argument." The difference here is that this is an angry man talking about a blanket statement about his gender.
Please advise.
I don't know Gular, I don't think you can compare the anger of a POC with the anger of a man. The anger is coming from totally different places, imho.
The reason I draw that example is because there was no reaction from the mods about this comment, and it was a derail from the original subject.
Here, we see a comment which, while angry, was about the subject at hand in the meta-sense -- it was about a statement made in the material presented. Why would that derail not receive at least this level of attention, if not more? It's an inconsistency in modding which I think needs to be explained and addressed.
I'm not trying to equate the two, even if it initially came off that way. The anger of the oppressed is not something which should be equated to anything else. The woman who commented about "Pearl Clutchers" I heartily agreed with, and I even said that at the time, but she was a derail and, in the context of what the thread was (a Sarah Hastings/Haskins posting) a troll (
regard previous: it thought my "arrow" was html. There wasn't anything more to the sentence aside from a little snark about what a troll really does.
The only reason this was more than the first comment and Samhita's reply to it is that she never admitted that she said one incorrect thing in one line. The lame ban threats, accusations of trolling, and ad hominem attacks didn't really help matters.
And yeah, the first comment had a negative tone. Plenty of people have politely restated the same point. The fact that the first person to say it, said it rudely, doesn't completely invalidate it.
go samhita!
men do not have the same pressures from society placed on them when determining if they are qualifies for a position. It seems that as a society we have now become accepting of women in political positions if and only if they are also what society deems beautiful, confident, good mothers but at the same time shows no attempt at being outspoken ect. and then they tell girls while they are growing up that smart girls aren't pretty and pretty girls can't be smart, in effect continuing the women aren't qualified position under the guise of accepting women. We saw the same thing with hilary clinton, and regardless of how anyone feels about her the amount of hate mongers in our media during the election were awful. As far as your supposed "ma-bashing" men need to get over themselves and learn that when a woman opens her mouth and criticizes men for their unacceptable behavior we are not "man-bashing" but sticking up for ourselves and the other women around us. Once again I jsut want to say go samhita for daring to say what so many wouldn't and for not allowing this jerk to undermine what you said
Your video was entirely spot on about the ridiculous attention the nominees weight has been receiving. Ridiculous.
But that comment about how men are judged solely on their qualifications is completely false. I know you said you only did one take of the video so I can understand a slip of the tongue.
However, how you have handled criticism of this comment is... not so cool.
aleks was upset and pointed out the false, not to mention unnecesary, statement about men in your video. He agreed with everything else you said, "...your perfectly legitimate critique of the way women are treated...", but warned in a later comment how one bit of false information can taint your entire argument.
You said, and I quote, "...I would never deny that there are pressures on men to look a certain way." Um, actually no. In your video you said, "...as opposed to men that are only evaluated for whether they can do the job."
Your response to continued criticism? Repeatedly talking about how women are judged more by their appearance. No one is arguing against that. Why do you keep bringing this up? Just because men are judged too doesn't lessen womens experiences. I would expect you to understand that. This reminds me of the oppresion olympics that pops up from time to time in the comments here. It seems the most oppessed group gets to cry their situation until they are blue in the face. But if anyone else dares to speak up. If anyone else says, "I get such and such", they are instantly attacked for complaning when they have so much privilege.
You then said, "I won't ban you, unless you give me reason to..." WTF. Saying "I won't ban you"... Is a way off threatening to ban someone. Seriously not cool.
Then implying that everyone that is calling you out on your comment is an MRA or trolling or this or that. I mean, seriously now. All this could have been avoided by owning up to your mistake. Something simple as, "Oops, my bad. I only did one take and that just slipped out. Men are judged too. Not as bad as women but men are judged too." Then we could all be discussing the rest of your otherwise excellent video.
Sami has handled the "critique" perfectly. The first comment was a nasty-ass "stop making stuff up." That's not a critique, and we all know it.
do us a favor.
go and find instances of random Media Pundits talking about how "hawt" a white male politician is. find us examples of journalists bashing white male politicians fashion choices. find us examples of the media critiquing white male politicians weight.
did you find *anything* like this, at all, aimed at male politicians? aimed at straight white men at all? there *might* be some critism of white straight men not making any effort on the appearance at all (along the lines of "didn't he wear that exact same pair of ratty holey dirty jeans for the past three days?"), there *might* be some critism of white straight men taking effort with their appearance ("doesn't he look "metrosexual" - i thought only gay men used hair gel!")
but i cannot think of a single fucking instance where a media representative said something along the lines "Look how overweight Senator X is! how unhealthy, he's 20 pounds overweight, this *obviously* means he cannot do his job and is just a lazy, piggish slob". i cannot think of a single fucking instance where a media representative has said "Look at this nominated Person X, look at how ill-fitted his suit is, look at how the color doesn't really match his complexion, and look how it shows his ankles! this *proves* that he is unable to dress himself, which means he is incapable of doing the job of X that he has been nominated for! and possible also means that he is a gay man!" (as sooooo many people accused Hillary Clinton of being a closet lesbian because of how she dressed and did her hair)
you will *NEVER* find and *entire* political column devoted to talking about how "hawt" or "fugly" a male politician is, never ever hear a fucking discussion on how a male politician (or nominated candidate) is overweight and is therefor not qualified for a position.
in case you missed the point, women who want to work in the public sphere, as politicians, journalists, or in cabinet-type offices like Surgeon General are *FIRST* torn apart for their physical appearance - they have to conform to a certain type of beauty standard if they want even a bare chance of attaining the position without the media attempting a character assassination of them.
men do *not* suffer through this. men do have to conform to certain standards of dress, but those standards are themselves not as repressive as the standards that women must work under.
and acknowledging the fact that men who work in the public sphere do not go through the same shit, and/or comparing how men are treated to how women are treated, are NOT "attacks" on *MEN*. they are attacks on the PATRIARCHY. which needs to be attacked, dismanteled, destroyed.
which, by the way, is not at all the same thing. hating the patriarchy is not the same thing as hating men. wanting to do away with patriarchy is not the same thing as wanting to do away with men.
but men who feel that hating the patriarchy and wanting to get rid of the patriarchy are attacks on MEN need to examine their privilege. closely.
denelian
Oddly enough, the only instance I found was about Stu Rasmussen
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1491912.php/Silverton_Oregon_mayor_Stu_Rasmussens_clothing_complaints
Irony?
Words matter. Language matters.
We know that heavier men and women earn less income, but this effects women more. We know that physical attractiveness has a roughly equal effect on hiring rates for men and women. We know that both men and women reported feeling judged on their appearance/weight at work, but women report this more than men. We know that large percentages of men and women are dissatisfied with their weight, but that more women are dissatisfied. We know that men are ridiculed for not appearing strong or dominant, while women are ridiculed for appearing strong or dominant. We know that height has a roughly equal effect on the salary of men and women.
Aleks was completely in the right in calling out the language used by Samhita. There is an important difference between saying "Women are often judged more harshly regarding their weight" and "Women are judged on their appearance and men are not". Samhita's choice of words brought focus on an issue deeply affecting the lives of many women but did so by using language that minimized and trivialized the problems faced by many men. This was unnecessary.
I was disappointed in the knee-jerk reaction of editors. This entire thread could have been avoided if Samhita had simply responded "Oops, my bad, my words implied that I believed men face few pressures, I meant to say that women face more intense scrutiny of their weight/appearance". Instead she denied every saying that men face no pressures and then went on to make excuses for her wording (I was tired! only one take!) as opposed to just admitting her wording had been a problem and vowing to be more thoughtful in her language choice.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ ARGUMENT AGAINST ALEKS: Like the word "troll", the "what about the menz "critique is overused. If Aleks had objected to Samhita saying that women are judged more harshly regarding their weight and then started a discussion on men, this would be both a derail and a "what about the menz" distraction. But Aleks objected to Samhita minimizing the issues faced by men rather than accurately describing them. This is objection is desirable, particularly on a site devoted to understanding how gender systems are formed and maintained and affect the behavior of women, the behavior of men, and the behavior of men and women towards each other. I understand that MRAs try to derail conversations with inappropriate insertions of the male experience, but that doesn't justify sweeping the legitimate insertions and objections under the rug.
WATCH YOUR TONE ARGUMENT AGAINST ALEKS: I would have phrased my objection to Samhita's comment differently, probably in the dry academic speak used above. But emotional responses to a perceived slight can be valuable, they can be more likely to be heard. Aleks was clearly upset by the way Samhita minimized the issues faced by men, particularly because it was completely unnecessary to do so.
She's not making stuff up. Have you ever watched or payed attention to the news? When is the last time a man or male political figure was judged on his looks in terms of being able to perform at his job? And how often was that in comparison to female political figures, such as Hilary's cleavage and "looking old or distressed"; Sotomayor's being too "bitchy" or "hostile" (ok, maybe that's not looks, but it IS a personal judgment), the fact that she's Latina or Hispanic (as if that has ANYTHING to do with her performance); Michele Obama's arms, fashion choices, weight; Sarah Palin's looks, calling her a VPILF, etc; and now Regina Benjamin's weight.
Tell me, when does it stop? And how did it come about that we got such immature people making judgments about political issues to begin with?
And you want to tell me Samhita is making stuff up? Are you serious?
Ask someone who saw Kennedy and Nixon debate on TV if looks were a factor. Obama, McCain, Kerry, Gore and Pres. Clinton's appearances all got a great deal of ridiculous attention. Was it on the same scale as the frivolous attention to Sen. Clinton or Sec of State Rice's, or God help us Gov Palin's? No, of course not, which is why you'll notice I didn't claim or imply or in any way indicated that I believe there's any kind of parity.
"And you want to tell me Samhita is making stuff up?"
I wanted to tell her, not you. But yes, in saying that "only women that are judged by what they look like and whether that is going to determine whether they are qualified to do the job, as opposed to men that are just evaluated in whether they can do the job" she was "making stuff up". Where do you think the insight came from?
Aleks,
We can also add Silvio Berlusconi's hair transplant. Nicolas Sarkozy's height. Francois Mitterand's teeth.
Edwards' hair, although admittedly the man himself is a peacock.
People focusing on Edwards hair was an attempt to feminize him - so...yeah.
So ... yeah he wasn't a man being judged on his look?
Nixon got "attention" for appearing sweating and incompetent, but was still eventually elected president. Clinton (Bill) at one point got jabs for his weight gain, but that was nurf and Obama's one picture had people talking for a little while. There was NOT a huge stink about it and there certainly wasn't a huge stink about whether it meant they could do the job or not (unfortunately for Nixon, it should have. SOMETHING should have...).
"Nixon got \"attention\" for appearing sweating and incompetent, but was still eventually elected president."
In fact people hearing the debate on the radio thought Nixon did better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Debates
That you made the above statement shows that you yourself judged Nixon based on his appearance thus proving aleks' point.
Nixon learned from this the lesson that looks matter (even to men) and did not make the same mistakes in 1968 and 1972 (of course Watergate helped in 1972).
There's a fairly high chance this will be calling 'trolling' and possibly deleted, but so be it.
The position of Surgeon General is distinctly different from most being, say, a Senator.
For all of those examples that you mentioned, the criticism was unrelated to the job. Whether Sarah Palin is attractive has nothing to do with her ability to govern a state.
There is a big difference when the primary role of the position is to be the government's primary spokesperson on public health. Whether or not she is obese IS actually relevant to her job.
I don't think you would be hearing this same nearly as often if she were nominated for, say, Solicitor General.
Now, whether it should be a significant barrier is a slightly different matter, especially given what we do not know about her personal lifestyle and genetic makeup. I am of the opinion that she is most definitely qualified for the position and should be confirmed. But it is not entirely irrelevant in the way that most of your examples are.
And yes, I would say the same thing about a male nominee.
nobody ever criticized Surgeon General Koop for being overweight. Oh, because he was a man... yep.
I was wondering if anyone was going to mention him.
VADM Koop pictured here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/C_Everett_Koop.jpg
He could be sucking in his beer belly!
Nobody ragged on VADM Koop for being obese (doesn't look like it, thought he could be overweight) because the national hysteria over obesity wasn't there when he was Surgeon General. This hystera has come into being only over the last decade.
I knew someone was going to reply with Koop. Yes, he wasn't 'skinny' but he was no where near Benjamin in terms of weight.
Maybe he was 'overweight' (having seen pictures of him, I wouldn't even describe him as such) but even if he was, its by an order/s of magnitude less so than Benjamin.
Regardless of one's take on the issue, "BUT KOOP....!" is a disingenuous approach to take.
Why is it relevant to her job? Even if we assume she *is* obese, how is that different from having any other health condition? Can you not be the surgeon general unless your triglycerides fall in an appropriate range? What if you have a history of cancer?
There's no way you can argue that being overweight is relevant to her job unless you also argue that being fat is entirely her fault and means she is lazy and eats like crap. Is that really an argument you want to make?
It is relevant because her job is successfully advocate for a healthier lifestyle.
Her job is largely a PR and advocacy role. Regardless of whether we desire it to be otherwise, image is of great importance to such positions.
If her weight affects her ability to successfully impart such messages to the American people, it is relevant.
I don't think it does, but it's not an entirely irrelevant
I think it is interesting that out of everything Samhita said, the only thing you thought worthy of comment was a hyperbole. I also think it is very much a derail. At least if you had commented on the issue at hand, I would have felt that you were concerned about feminist issues. But all you seem to have zeroed in upon was that one sentence!
I think there is a much higher expectation for women to conform to societal standards of attractiveness. Women are supposed to wear cosmetics to look professional. I don't think the same applies to men, at least in most areas like medicine or governance.
Sexist statements against anyone is a feminist issue.
He also said he had nothing else to disagree with.
He didn't say that in the first post, Gular. He only deigned to make that part of his post after Samhita agreed that men have pressures to look good too.
Yes, sexism is a feminist issue. But don't you see, this is a bit like what happens whenever trans issues are brought up or weight as a feminist issue is brought up. Some cisgendered or non-overweight person Always takes over the thread. That is what this seems like to me. Samhita is told to rehearse and polish her draft before doing the video, but it would have taken aleks a minute to think about the issue at hand and make a comment about it too.
I don't think aleks even did it consciously. I have seen his posts on other threads and agreed with some of them, but just like Samhita exaggerated a sentence that became sexist, I think aleks derailed a thread making it about the menz.
I don't agree with telling her to rehearse or telling her what to do with her time/life. I think that's entirely out of line.
Having seen the trans derails here and being incensed by them (I often have to walk away from here and come back several hours later), I wouldn't necessarily equate the two. The trans related entries don't suggest, say, that being cis gendered means you never have to worry about being attacked for the way you present yourself. The trans people and trans allies here are very careful with their blanket statements.
As for what happened as things transpired, he said something about the specific comment within it. He never said that everything else was then invalid. He never said anything of the sort. Samhita was the one who suggested that, if I read the thread correctly. aleks then responded agreeing with everything else Samihita said, but sticking by his assessment that the statement about men never being judged on appearance was invalid, and suggested it was a form of male bashing.
Samhita them accused aleks of accusing her of male bashing. etc etc etc
Unless I'm missing something when I read it, which I may very well be, I don't necessarily see aleks being totally at fault here. The entire exchange was angry from the start. The critique (and I maintain it is a critique) was angry, but valid.
I don't understand how the reaction from people here isn't any different than any other "watch your tone" argument used to silence other people. It is because aleks is known to be male that it makes it ok? I'm just dumbfounded by what appears to be a double-standard. So he's a man, that doesn't mean he can't be silenced by the actions of others. He's still a person and can be intimidated/shamed/frustrated into silence like anyone else. While not as common, it's still possible.
She is 100% correct, if it was a supposed "over weight" man there would be no question about whether or not he qualifies for this position. Stop being naive, we live in a soceity were women are suspected to be attracitve and skinny, and if they're not they have no place to be in the public spot light
Excellent entry Samhita (I always resist the urge to call you "Sammi" cuz I nickname everybody I like :)What makes my head hurt is no matter how ridiculous the gop charges are they still get treated as legitimate in the media, I like on time to hear a collective "get the fuck outta here" outside of the Daily Show.
Excellent post.
I think it's high-fucking-time that we start realizing "thin" does not equal "natural." For some people, thin is natural. For others, it is not. And it's just silly to keep promoting this idea that it's our default. As a girl who goes to the gym 3-4 times a week, avoids eating sugar and red meats, and tries really hard to make healthy food choices all the time, I've realized that my size 14/16 self is just natural for me. The only way I've ever been able to get below it is through very unhealthy eating habits of minimal intake (that was a long time ago), and that certainly wasn't natural.
Thank you, Samhita.
I sometimes wonder how much the invention of video damned women to this kind of scrutiny. I know mass production enabled society to homogenize beauty ideals, but I think the video (and all of it's afterthoughts) allowed all women to be known for their appearance as soon as anyone heard their names.
Irony: the advertisement beneath your post says "lose 25 pounds of stomach fat... in 3 weeks... as seen on ABC."
Here's what I hate: every time we raise an issue in terms of how women are treated as a whole in society one can always sidetrack the entire conversation with "men have that too". We know it is not the same to any degree unless we are being disingenuous.
Of course it's not to the same degree. I said that it wasn't. My issue was with Samhita's claim that "it is only women that are judged by what they look like and whether that is going to determine whether they are qualified to do the job, as opposed to men that are just evaluated in whether they can do the job." If the topic wasn't men, why through that jab in there at all?
It's not a fucking jab, dude... it's statement of fact... albeit, maybe a little too hyperbolic for you, but pretty damned true... I've sat on hiring committees and I've seen how public figures are treated... It's pretty damn obvious that women are explicitly judged on appearance almost before all else and men, most certainly, are not, though it can, at times, figure into popular perception.
Also, it's really different to weigh in to the conversation saying, "Well, I think men do actually face different treatment based on appearance, though it may not be close to the sort women face by several orders of magnitude" than to start off the comment thread by saying "stop making stuff up."
I mean, come on! "completely false, gratuitous and weird male-bashing"??? All she said is that, if Benjamin were a man, this conversation wouldn't be happening. Which, if you look at, say C. Everett Koop, you'd realize is completely accurate. For elected office, it's totally different... it's a fucking popularity contest - of course, appearance matters... but for an appointed position, it's kind of unheard of for a man to catch flak for being fat.
Even if Koop had been prevented from being SG because of his weight, Samhita may have been wrong, but certainly not committing a "gratuitous and weird male-bashing." That's just ridiculous. Get over yourself...
Look, I'm sorry you feel so threatened by Samhita, but take a step back and realize that your troubles aren't the most important thing in the world right now and then maybe that male-anxious defensiveness will slip away like muscle tension in a warm mineral salt bath.
"All she said is that, if Benjamin were a man, this conversation wouldn't be happening. Which, if you look at, say C. Everett Koop, you'd realize is completely accurate."
Unfortunately for your logic VADM Koop was Surgeon General from 1982-1989. The anti-obesity hysteria was non-existent then. I am pretty sure that in today's climate Michael Moore would not be appointed and/or confirmed as Surgeon General.
Maybe not Michael Moore, but a man the size of Regina Benjamin (who is not drastically overweight by any means) probably would not go under this kind of scrutiny at all.
This guy came into a feminist forum on a discussion about women and societal body issues and made it all about how he as a man is mistreated. Amazing.
Because this site is called "Feministing", is a feminist website, and the whole premise of feminism is the equality of women. She was comparing how women are judged on their looks often, where men wouldn't be, and she was emphasizing that point by stating a contrast. She did have a purpose and a reason to throw that comparison in her rant, and it was a legitimate and truthful comparison. There HAVE been surgeon generals, doctors, and health advisers that by today's standards would be considered overweight, and yet they were not judged or scrutinized to the same degree that Regina Bejamin is. The fact that she's a WOMAN makes her weight stick out more than a man's.
"There HAVE been surgeon generals, doctors, and health advisers that by today's standards would be considered overweight, and yet they were not judged or scrutinized to the same degree that Regina Bejamin is."
You hit it on the head when you said "today's standard". Unfortunately by definition they were appointed according to the standards of their day when we did not have this anti-obesity, anti-fat hysteria. In fact I would be pretty sure that some of our previous Surgeons-General also partook of the pleasures of tobacco.
Does that mean you would take up the cudgels and fight for a nominee to the position of Surgeon General if s/he was a smoker?
I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that a man the size of Benjamin (or Koop) would have no problem getting appointed to that position today.
Further, if the issue weren't gendered why would this "No Chubbies" dude on Fox start off his rant stating "this is going to anger a lot of your female audience"? I mean, really... The same commentary, time and again, that shames Benjamin for her body is blatantly gendered. To suggest otherwise would require ignoring folks' actual words. I mean, you don't even have to read anything into this shit, 'cos they come out and say it. Btw, I'm surprised at how pleased I was with Neil Cavuto in that interview: "if she's 50-60 lbs overweight, then I'm another planet."
Dude, I think you and the other bros who've taken over this site need to start www.SamhitaMukhopadhyayWatch.com or something. It might make you feel better.
I don't know, I think if Samhita had just owned this one and admitted she overstated her claim instead of getting defensive, this wouldn't have been a derail at all. We all know what she meant, she said it in a way someone took issue with (not without justification)- it was unnecessary for it to turn into an argument.
As a young woman who has hated her body to the point of illness (thank God that's over), the fat-shaming is nothing new. However, awareness of it is increasing, thanks to people like you, Samhita.
If you do a quick search for Dr. Benjamin, you will read a number of opinions, many of which agree with the viewpoint held in this post: why is it an issue, and aren't critics missing the point? So, there is hope for public opinion yet.
I also searched for C. Everett Koop (the only other S.G. I am aware of, thanks to the Simpsons), and I found a lot of people wondering why his weight wasn't criticized, which may be a response to some of the comments here.
What I think is most amazing is that people think that her not fitting into their view of "fit" means they can also choose to not consider of acknowledge that she:
1 - has been awarded a Macarthur Genius Grant. GENIUS GRANT, PEOPLE!
2 - rebuilt her clinic from scratch after hurricanes
3 - accepts shellfish and fish instead of money from her poorer patients
4 - after hurricanes she went door to door to check on certain patients
If I was dealing with all of this, I doubt I would have the time for a daily aerobics class, bio-engineered diet food, surgically removing the "publicly offending body part," or any other tactic to fit her critics' idea of thin=healthy.
I think that Regina Benjamin is exactly what we need. She has been a part of a health care system that has underserved portions of our population. Now she has a chance to be the country's foremost spokesperson on public health.
I wouldn't be surprised if this weight issue is a tactic of the part of the population who is scared of *another* woman of color in *another* public office. But this way, they don't "sound racist."
(copied from a comment I posted at http://community.feministing.com/2009/07/to-fat-to-be-surgeon-general.html)
Actually, if you look up thread, Samhita immediately agreed that men are pressured to look a certain way. Aleks has held on to it. It is plain and simple trolling.
I wouldn't have a problem with a smoker in a position they are qualified for, even Surgeon General.
We also have a problem with eating disorders so would we complain if she were too thin?
Agreed! Not to mention Aleks made some unfounded accusations, like Samhita was a male-basher and a man-hater. It's just as bad as that one commenter who said Samhita hates white people.
I think it's a shame that Samhita is one of the more scrutinized editors here at Feministing. I like her views because they aren't always mainstream and they challenge the status quo. She does a lot about fat-hating and fat-phobia. Unfortunately, when she does all the fat-haters come out of the woodwork. Why else derail the comments?
I read over aleks's comments and I did not see him accuse Samhita of being a man-hater anywhere. He did at one point say "weird male bashing" in reference to her comment that men are not judged by their appearance. I bring this up because I don't like it when people put words in other peoples mouths. As this is a blog you can read everything that has been written.
Why are you implying that he "derailed" the comments because he is a fat-hater? In all his comments he completly agreed with Samhita on her comments about how women are treated. You know, when he wrote things like, "...your perfectly legitimate critique of the way women are treated..." Those don't sound like the words of a fat-hater to me.
When someone implies an action, the doer of said action takes on the same name. When you imply someone is teaching, would it not makes sense that you are calling him or her a teacher? Come on! Why must everything be spelled out? Aleks implied she was male-bashing so that implication can also extend to Samhita being a male-basher.
And yes it was derailing because it was not talking about anything else in the video which is about fat-hating. These things are obvious and I shouldn't be explaining them to you.
Yes, aleks obviously implied she was a male-basher with that "weird male-bashing" remark. I was not arguing with you there. I was critiquing you for your use of male-hater. Future note: please repond to the criticism you actually receive and don't restate a moot point. That seems to be a common problem on this site and it is endlessly annoying. Now, aleks did not say "male-hater" anywhere. In fact the only place I see the word hatred is when someone else (YOU) misquotes him. In one comment he said, "...ignorance and contempt for men." The next commenter (YOU) changed that to, "...contempt and hatred of men." Why did you feel the need to misrepresent his argument by changing ignorance to hatred. Ignorance is not an insult, it is simply means a lack of knowlege. Okay, I take that back. Ignornace can be an insult, but it is nothing when compared to Hatred. Hatred is an ugly word and should not be thrown around carelessly. You could imply that by saying "weird male-bashing" he also meant male-hating. You could imply that sure. But it is not terribly honest and makes for poor argument.
I asked you before. "Why are you implying that he "derailed" the comments because he is a fat-hater?"
Again, you didn't exactly answer my question. You said ,"And yes it was derailing because it was not talking about anything else in the video which is about fat-hating." Okay you think he is derailing because he is not talking about the main content of the video but a single factual error within that video. I disagree about it being derailing, but I can understand your reasoning. You still did not answer my question. I was asking about the fat-hater part. You have once again implied some disgusting behavior on his part-fat hating-because he won't give up on the now infamous 'male-bashing comment'. Despite the fact that he has written repeated about how he agrees with everything Samhita said in her video except her one INCORRECT remark about men. IMO I think he just wants an apology, and honestly so do I.
You then said to me, "These things are obvious and I shouldn't be explaining them to you." I feel the same way about you. Take an argumentative writing class and learn a few things.
Grow up.
Victory! Nothing to say except a childish dig at me. **Now excuse me while I do a silly little jig** ;)
Not really a victory, considering that "contempt" is a synonym of "hatefulness." I can understand your responder not taking the time to check out the thesaurus for this one, but it's kind of common sense. Using the words "contempt for men" and "male-bashing" makes it pretty clear that aleks was putting forward that Samhita is a man-hater. You could say, no, aleks was saying that Samhita is a male-basher and holds contempt for men, but that's definitely putting too fine a point on it. Look up "contempt" in the MW11... it's defined as "the act of despising." Do you know what "despise" means? Come on...
Contempt, in a thesaurus, has "hatefulness" listed as a "related word..." should I really go on?
Albeit, sure, if you want to be a stickler about it, maybe it's better to quote folks word-for-word, but in English, as it's commonly used, it's not out of this world to conflate the sentiment aleks expressed to be that Samhita hates men. It's really not a stretch at all.
And if that's the entirety of your argument, well, I'd also agree that "Grow up" is a reasonable response.
I actually find that Samhita has a problem of not completely reading or thinking through everything here. I'm a writer by profession. I understand what it takes to keep websites and blogs running, but "how much time do you think I have" isn't a legitimate excuse for making a false statement. In the marriage post a few weeks back, Samhita actually said the article she linked to said things when the author said the opposite.
In a similar way, Miriam apparently posted a video she hadn't watched this week. (I'll conceded that I rarely agree with Cavuto, but in that particular video, he wasn't the "asshole.") It's unfortunate because I see reference to Feministing as *the* source for young feminist commentary. Yet if I were a conservative, I could discredit this site pretty easily with those types of errors.
"Yet if I were a conservative, I could discredit this site pretty easily with those types of errors."
Exactly. Small stupid holes in an argument can destroy that argument if they are not mended quickly. Samhita has a lot of good things to say, she just needs to make sure she doesn't throw random untrue statements into her stuff. It causes problems like this.
Gee, then I sure can't wait to read the blog you two Perfect Feminists (TM) put together in the time you have when you're not working full time. Hopefully you will have kind readers who are tactful enough to fact check all posts and point out every error you make as well!
People are not perfect. That is what apologies are for. A simple 'sorry' would make everything better.
I do understand aleks' objection but he totally blew it out of proportion.
Thanks Samhita, very nice post! I was waiting for an intelligent post that responded to the fat-hating incidents of the last week.
I really don't get the comparisons to Koop as far as the discussion of weight goes. No blogs back then, no fat shaming obsession to the degree we have now. Of course people didnt talk about Koop as much. There werent 5 24-hour cable news networks and 5000 blogs to go over it with. If I remember right I think there some jokes made about his weight back then but all the late night jokes have kind of blended together in my mind. Anyone nowadays who was put up for the SG post would get a lot of static if they were "overweight". Of course a woman would and is getting it worse than a man would but it would happen in any case. Seems to be some weird new sport we've all picked up on. When do the fat-shaming playoffs begin then?
So every Surgeon General before now was a clean living non-smoking teetotaler, right? Because apparently, according to everyone I've been hearing, the only way to be a spokesperson for public health is by being a paragon of health yourself. The Surgeon General doesn't actually speak, or use her or his experience as a doctor, or anything of that nature, she or he just stands up on a stage and shines a beacon of healthiness down upon the masses.
(Also, not to derail, but I'm not going to reply to the many people on the thread I'd like to address, as they are apparently in the midst of conversations already, but a) I'm glad you're voicing your concerns, and glad you feel comfortable saying them, but b) there is a method to constructive criticism, and it's not being successful here. Instead of actually articulating your points (which, as far as I can tell, amount to taking issue with the amount of hyperbole used) your comments read like an attack. I don't care if they aren't actually an attack, because they read like attacks to me, and however upsetting I find it to read them on a site which is supposed to be a supportive community, I can only imagine how Samhita feels.)
This is not so much a comment on this particular video, but I'm not sure where to ask this question: I am hoping that someone can help direct me towards some articles or books or blogs to read which more directly focus on this issue - fat hating or fat shaming. I am trying to discuss this issue with a guy i'm dating who just thinks there's no excuse for people to be lazy enough to be fat and it's such an innate quality in me not to judge anyone like that, that i didn't even know where to begin. so if anyone could recommend some basic readings on these subjects, like 101 beginners so i can formulate some discussion points for him, I'd really really appreciate it.
so sorry if this was not the place to ask for that or if i'm going off topic - i just need some guidance here.
Check out:
http://www.therotund.com/
http://kateharding.net/
Kate Harding has a book out now, too :)
This is sort of a FYI in 'how to make a good presentation'. I took a technical communication class at school and I can already hear what the instructors would say about the way you presented yourself in this video. I say this because I want your videos to be the best they can be and I often see women(and men) make these mistakes when doing a presentation. Disclaimer-the presentations I did were for public speaking, but I am sure many of the same rules apply to video presentations.
1-Watch your 'ums' and 'uhs'. Verbal fillers do have a time and a place. They fill short pauses and help with consistent flow in the dialogue. However they are often overused and can make the speaker seem unsure and unconfident. (This was a killer for me when I took that class. I watched one of my recorded power point presentations and the 'um' tally was ridiculously high. I was not even aware I was doing it.)
2-Rising Inflections. When used at the end of a sentence it makes everything said sound like a half question. This again makes the speaker seem unconfident. Also a twist on the rising inflection is what I can only call the 'vally girl'. It is a certain tone combined with the rising inflection that makes the speaker sound like a ditzy teenage girl. ( I have spent years trying to banish this from my speach so I am highly aware of it in others.)
3-Eye contact. Infrequent eye contact makes the speaker, again, seem unconfident. This does not mean you should bore a hole through the listener with your eyes. We all know how creepy it is to talk to someone who just stares. However occasionally looking away, but then quickly reestablishing eye contact makes the presentation seem more natural. I noticed that you spent as much time looking into the camera as you did away. This was very distracting for me.
4-Correct information. Speakers who make false statements can be ripped apart by their audience. (Note to feministing readers-Engineering students are viscious)There was that one slip of the tongue that I won't bother going into detail about. It has already been discussed at length.
I don't want to make this all negative. The good.
1-Pace. Nice and even. Appropriate pauses, but no long awkward pauses.
2-Enunciation and pronunciation. You speak clearly and correctly.
3-Intelligence. You are obviously a very intelligent woman.
4-Conviction. You strongly believe in what you are saying.
Note: I don't want people to accuse me of being patronizing. I simply saw some very common mistakes with visual presentations in the video and I thought my tips would be helpful. This is constructive criticism.
"Engineering students are viscious"
There are 2 ways to mentally correct this spelling error and I think my brain made the wrong one. xD
oh no I hate it when I do that! My bad.
**Amendment for the almighty rules of visual presentation**
5-When making anything in print. Use the damn spell check!
To the menz:
- no, this isn't about you. Nothing, repeat nothing, on this site is about your life and situation, unless it's about how the patriarchy brings us down (i.e., what men and their hired minions do to make us miserable). This site is about *women* and what *we* go through, not you. Get over it. Move on.
- Dr. Benjamin doesn't look close to a medical definition of obesity. She may be larger than a size six model but that doesn't make her recklessly unhealthy, not by a long shot. Studies show some extra weight can actually prevent heart disease. Even if she were obese, *morbid* obesity may be a risk factor in certain illnesses, but so are a ton of genetic conditions, like diabetes. Would you deny a diabetic a health-related job?
To the menz:
- no, this isn't about you. Nothing, repeat nothing, on this site is about your life and situation, unless it's about how the patriarchy brings us down (i.e., what men and their hired minions do to make us miserable). This site is about *women* and what *we* go through, not you. Get over it. Move on. Or more appropriately: go to a men's website where you can discuss men's lives. This isn't it. Surprise!
- Dr. Benjamin doesn't look close to a medical definition of obesity. She may be larger than a size six model but that doesn't make her recklessly unhealthy, not by a long shot. Studies show some extra weight can actually prevent heart disease. Even if she were obese, *morbid* obesity may be a risk factor in certain illnesses, but so are a ton of genetic conditions, like diabetes. Would you deny a diabetic a health-related job?
I think the problems is they're both right. Dr. Benjamin is being unfairly treated because she is a woman. Her weight would be a non-issue if she were a man. Although it is something to keep in mind that the whole thing was brought up as a publicity stunt to advertise a less then stellar business. It is as simple as that, sadly.
As for the other issue, since I do not wish to derail anything. I would, however, like see a separate discussion thread for it, because I think there is something interesting worth talking about.
Ooh. Good idea. Would it be possible to start another thread on the other issue? I know a lot of people want to focus on the fat hating of Dr. Benjamin but certain people, myself included, can't get over the other issue and want to discuss it.
Ok.
It's true that both men and women are judged on appearance. It is also true that young looking, attractive men have an advantage over older, not-so attractive men. So Aleks & co. you are correct.
However, I think it's also an issue of dominance, subject and object. (cis)Men are the dominant gender here in the United States: they make the rules, they make the most money, and own most of the property. Women, considered property to be consumed, must appear attractive; a woman's success is based on her looks. The way in which men experience discrimination, while unfortunate, is not the same as women.
In our society (within the U.S.) women's value depends on her age, body shape, and race. Donald Trump is not a handsome man, but he still has value. When people talk about Trump, they respect him for his empire (for lack of better word). Yes, they make fun of his hair, but his looks have never kept him from being successful. He doesn't have to change. On the other hand, Oprah Winfrey's whole thing is about her appearance. If she looked less than fabulous, then she would undergo heavy criticism.
Jennifer Love Hewitt and Jessica Simpson experienced harsh criticism from the media based on how they looked. They didn't even gain that much weight (not at all!)Rarely does the media chase men for baby bumps or weight gain. Plus it doesn't affect their careers. Look at John Travolta, Jim Belushi, and other large bodied actors. Travolta used to be thin and a dancer; he actually became more successful since his weight gain. Even better, look at porn. Ron Jeremy is still in porn with small, sexy women.
So while American men struggle with the importance of their appearance, their suffering is nothing compared with women.
Men have the privilege.
So when Regina Benjamin gets attacked for her weight and there are allegations about her being unhealthy (something that wouldn't come up as much if she were slender), there are several things at work, I think. She's a black woman who is not young and thin. I'm a black woman who is overweight and all I hear about are how unhealthy big black women are. I carry the weight (no pun intended, well yes it was, lol) of this stereotype. Big. Unattractive. Unclean. Lazy. Always eating fatty foods. You should see how these women are depicted in reality shows on TV or in TV sitcoms and movies.
When they received Regina Benjamin's picture, some people may have thought, "Who is this big fat black woman to tell me about what's healthy???"
If she was a large white man (like Surgeon General Koop) the attacks would not have come so quickly, if at all.
So my opinion is that the fat attacks are based in both gender and race.
But this largely misses the point of the objection made by Aleks.
The argument is not that men's body image issues are the same as women, or as pervasive on average.
The argument is that the wording in the original post not only minimized men's body image issues and appearance-related issues, but rendered them as non-existent. The wording you use here is similarly problematic: "So while American men struggle with the importance of their appearance, their SUFFERING IS NOTHING compared with women." (emphasis mine).
This is not only a false statement, it also raises the issue of which men you are talking about. Gay men report greater, the same, or fewer appearance related pressures than heterosexual women depending on what types of pressures you are talking about (e.g., lower eating disorder rates, similar body dissatisfaction levels, greater reports of feelings about their bodies having a negative impact on their sex life). Similarly, in some arenas, heterosexual men vs. heterosexual women's dissatisfactions are a matter of degree as opposed to being qualitatively different.
Stop with the goddamned derails. Your concerns were addressed immediately by Samhita, who acknowledged that men also face some degree of pressure based on appearances. Your refusal to let it go is what makes it trolling.
For the record: Feminism is about equality, yes, but seeing as how it is WOMEN who bear the brunt of oppression in a patriarchy, it is their concerns and issues that will be addressed and discussed first.
While I agree that my words "suffering is nothing compared with women" were problematic, maybe I'm hardheaded, stubborn and ignorant, but I'm struggling with denying the emotions behind them. My intention was not to deny the issue for men, but to move the discussion back to women.
The points you make about different types of men judging each other based on appearances and their body issues are completely valid. What I meant to say is that the issues are FAR from being equal. Men, the dominant group, make the rules. With their agency, they can always change them. As I said before, looks do not affect their lives in the same way they affect women. Perhaps the statistics regarding the effect of height and weight on the incomes of men and women gives us valuable information.
That said, a woman's appearance affects her well being much more than a man's appearance. She already makes less money, she is constantly bombarded with advertising and criticism to change her appearance (no matter what her weight), and she is taught from a young age that her focus is her looks. She's taught that she needs to snag a man. Men experience this as well but their focus is totally different. Many men seek to become successful so they can acquire women. The degree of their success might be based on how they look-true- but their success is not DEPENDENT on it.
So getting back to the main focus of this post...
The focus on her weight is absolutely ridiculous. Why can't people get it through their heads that obesity does not cause health problems (unless you get to the very upper ranges)?
What I would like to know is how this news coverage of her nomination is causing further prejudice against the obese. It is forcefully saying that weight should be a consideration when hiring a person for a job.
It's been a bad week of obesity related news focus. For example, and article celebrating the fact that a woman was able to lose enough weight in order to be eligible to adopt a child.
http://www.gnn.com/article/woman-overcomes-obesity-to-adopt-child/583497?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnn.com%2Farticle%2Fwoman-overcomes-obesity-to-adopt-child%2F583497
And an article focusing on Serena Williams weight
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090720/zirin
That is the height of insanity - she is a world champion athlete at the top of her game and people are still criticizing her weight. That deserves it's own feminist fuck you.
I agree :)
I found this video on YouTube...Mrs. Asathecomic says one of the things I've been trying to say in this discussion. She's funny but I'm glad she addresses the double standard :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7U74OWXs8E
I don't get the criticism of Samhita at all. I don't think a "fuck you friday" commentary is some academic excercise, I see it as an editorial coming from the heart and the gut.
Words matter. Language matters.
We know that heavier men and women earn less income, but this effects women more. We know that physical attractiveness has a roughly equal effect on hiring rates for men and women. We know that both men and women reported feeling judged on their appearance/weight at work, but women report this more than men. We know that large percentages of men and women are dissatisfied with their weight, but that more women are dissatisfied. We know that men are ridiculed for not appearing strong or dominant, while women are ridiculed for appearing strong or dominant. We know that height has a roughly equal effect on the salary of men and women.
Aleks was completely in the right in calling out the language used by Samhita. There is an important difference between saying "Women are often judged more harshly regarding their weight" and "Women are judged on their appearance and men are not". Samhita's choice of words brought focus on an issue deeply affecting the lives of many women but did so by using language that minimized and trivialized the problems faced by many men. This was unnecessary.
I was disappointed in the knee-jerk reaction of editors. This entire thread could have been avoided if Samhita had simply responded "Oops, my bad, my words implied that I believed men face few pressures, I meant to say that women face more intense scrutiny of their weight/appearance". Instead she denied every saying that men face no pressures and then went on to make excuses for her wording (I was tired! only one take!) as opposed to just admitting her wording had been a problem and vowing to be more thoughtful in her language choice.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ ARGUMENT AGAINST ALEKS: Like the word "troll", the "what about the menz "critique is overused. If Aleks had objected to Samhita saying that women are judged more harshly regarding their weight and then started a discussion on men, this would be both a derail and a "what about the menz" distraction. But Aleks objected to Samhita minimizing the issues faced by men rather than accurately describing them. This is objection is desirable, particularly on a site devoted to understanding how gender systems are formed and maintained and affect the behavior of women, the behavior of men, and the behavior of men and women towards each other. I understand that MRAs try to derail conversations with inappropriate insertions of the male experience, but that doesn't justify sweeping the legitimate insertions and objections under the rug.
WATCH YOUR TONE ARGUMENT AGAINST ALEKS: I would have phrased my objection to Samhita's comment differently, probably in the dry academic speak used above. But emotional responses to a perceived slight can be valuable, they can be more likely to be heard. Aleks was clearly upset by the way Samhita minimized the issues faced by men, particularly because it was completely unnecessary to do so.
Well said.
Actually, isn't Samhita's response to aleks exactly what you said?
"I don't think I am making stuff up and I would never deny that there are pressures on men to look a certain way.I am talking specifically about women in the public eye, how women look wrt to work and to politics. They are always judged by the public and news media for how they look. "
vs.
"Oops, my bad, my words implied that I believed men face few pressures, I meant to say that women face more intense scrutiny of their weight/appearance".
I don't see much difference in what she posted and what you suggested. She could have been more explicit and said that she had made an erroneous statement, but she did explain herself there. I don't understand why that is ignored.
yeah, insomniac, this is kind of what blows my mind. folks are continuing to derail and blast Samhita, suggesting that she say something almost identical to her first response in order to have a "valid" analysis in their eyes.
mind you, after she responded with her statement that "I would never deny that there are pressures on men to look a certain way," aleks went on to say she was "male-bashing" (which is fucking ridiculous even if you accept the specious argument that she was intentionally diminishing men's appearance issues) and displayed "ignorance and contempt for men."
i am just kind of blown away by the level of discussion on here right now... that folks give a great deal of weight to shaky and intentionally flame-fanning arguments such as aleks's (that Samhita is "male-bashing" and holds men in "contempt") while completely ignoring Samhita's actual statements... made most crystal-clear by a couple of posters (ie, EndersGame) suggesting Samhita say just about exactly what she said in her first response.
i mean, don't y'all feel at least a little ashamed? if not, please point where aleks is right that Samhita is bashing men or holds men in contempt... 'cos i'm just amazed - amazed - that y'all want to pick nits about Samhita's phrasing, but let aleks's ridiculous assertions go unchecked.
finally, Samhita never said that men aren't judged based on their appearance. she did say that only women have their competence judged based on their appearance. in her first comment (before any of y'all started posting, except for aleks), she softened even this perspective. so, um...
and, insomniac, i think i do kind of understand why these cats are so selective in what statements they recognize... but i think it's too big a can of worms to open up right now.
I agree with you - her first response could be intrepreted as implicitly acknowledging that face appearance scrutiny, or interpreted as her failing address the fact that she had made a poor choice of words and framing in her video.
I think Aleks 3rd response was potentially antagonistic because of the not so subtle insinuation of dark anti-male sentiments swelling in Samhita's heart, but I don't think Samhita dealt with the overall critique well with comments like
>>
and
>>
It was that series of comments denying/excusing her original problematic claim that motivated me to write this post rather than continue my habit of reading the posts and arguments rather than posting. After dismissing his/her concern raised in the first post, she then managed to pack a "watch your tone" and "what about the menz" into one sentence.
[35+] aleks said:
"it is only women that are judged by what they look like and whether that is going to determine whether they are qualified to do the job, as opposed to men that are just evaluated in whether they can do the job."
This is completely false. Stop making stuff up about what life is like for men.
This Aleks first comment to which Samhita responded. I have to be honest, I am not a perfect person, but this would have pissed me off. Aleks started this whole discussion with antagonistic words. The second comment was better, but the damage had already been done.
If the mods can take how aleks said his criticism and dismiss it as ranting, I think other posters can take Samhita's response(s) and dismiss it as a non-apology. In the quote you lined up, she doesn't say "I misspoke" what she says is "yeah, well, that's not my point anyway: this is my point." That's not an apology or an admission, it's a really big non-apology because it's suggesting aleks just doesn't understand what she's talking about.
That's how I read what she said. Perhaps it's a misinterpretation on my part because I spend too much time following politics, but that's how any good politician would apologize for saying something which upset someone. it's essentially "you wouldn't have been upset if you got my point".
First off I agree Regina shouldn't be disqualified from the job based on her weight. Having said that some other things you say in your video blog are not completely true. You mentioned Conservatives at the beginning of your blog attacking peoples characteristics. I'm sure they do, but most of Regina's attackers seem to be mostly Democrats and people in special interest groups that want to put a stop to obesity. A stand in for the Bill O'Reilly show even interviewed a woman who was the spokesperson for one of these groups and actually defended Regina!!! I know that these special interest anti-fat groups would have bashed a fat male nominee just as much a female nominee.
Who, exactly, are the Democrats who are opposing Benjamin's nomination? Incredibly specious statement, if you ask me. The only folks I've seen have gotten airtime on Fox (even if the commentators were "opposing" them) and none of them were identified as Democrats or any such thing.
Salon.com, which is often identified with Democrat-leaning politics, was pretty overt in its support of Benjamin.
In fact, the only people I've seen espousing this point of view were the guy in the Neil Cavuto bit, the NAAO president on the O'Reilly Factor and 3 doctors interviewed by ABC (in an article that actually supports Benjamin).
So, I'm just curious... considering that right-wing and center-right broadcasters/publishers are the only ones giving folks like Meme Roth a platform and national audience, I'm curious as to what role "Democrats" are playing in calling out Benjamin for her weight.
I'd like to know of whom you're talking.
I think if a man came into this forum in GOOD FAITH they would come with knowledge and understanding as allies rather than as nitpicky victim wannabes.
I totally know what you mean, and I always love Samhita's posts, and I loved this one as well. I just feel like a big part of the attitude and the project of feministing is to be really careful about what you say, how you say it and who you are including/excluding in everything you say. Gender being as fluid as it is (or as I believe it is, and I think a lot of feministing-ers think it is), the contributers to this site should be careful with broad statements.
This site has a seriously huge readership. To be a total nerdface: "with great power comes great responsibility".
That's not to deny that this is, as it should be, predominately a women's space. It's just that words are important, and published words stick around.
Clearly this is an issue people wish to talk about. So, I ask, again, for it to have it's own thread. There's a great deal I would like to say about it, but I don't wish to be seen as encouraging the derailment. However, I will say one thing. Language is important. Not just what is said to us, but what we say.
The community site is a great place to make that happen.