I've been going through another of my disordered eating (or starvation, rather) phases again lately.
Something triggered it. I'm not sure what; maybe it's because I've been exposed to even more fat hatred lately than I usually am, or maybe the usual low-level-but-constant-and-painful awareness of the way that people who are shaped like me are seen and treated in a world where only thin people are regarded as truly human has just gotten to me again. Maybe it's guilt about being my age and still not really earning money; I live with my mother and she's retired, and her income is now more limited than it was even a year ago, and she's helping my brother to pay off his OSAP debt, so the resources that we have to live on are a bit stretched at the moment. Eating much of anything seems...well, once it's been consumed, it's gone, and I often feel that what goes into my mouth is a waste because I shouldn't even be here. Whatever happened, it's got me again. I ate a total of two small bowls of soup yesterday and felt ridiculously guilty even just for having the first one. I have a headache, I feel nauseated and a little weak, and I didn't sleep well last night—but I still can't bring myself to eat.
It scares me sometimes how powerful the urge to starve myself is. Though it's always there, much of the time I can ignore it, but there's always that little bit of guilt, that feeling that says, "Oh, come ON. You don't need to eat THAT. You're such a hideous pile of blubber. Save the resources for someone who actually MATTERS, you lazy, stupid and greedy pig!" And I know that the solution can seem as simple as just picking up the fork and putting food into my mouth, but it isn't that easy. After all, I'm not a thin woman who has a flawed mental image of her body or who is so afraid of getting fat that she'll risk killing herself to stay thin. I actually am fat. My body already is the one that so many people are afraid of ending up with. And practically nobody thinks it's such a bad thing when someone who can obviously stand to miss a meal actually does miss one.
And in the end, it's so much easier not to pick up the fork than it is to actually eat something. Sure, it's uncomfortable, but on so many levels it's so much easier to ignore the hunger and let the day pass without eating more than a little bit—not enough to get rid of my hunger, but just enough to keep myself going. It's more socially acceptable. It means that I'm not as much of a drain on our resources. In a way, it even helps with my feeling of self-worth; even if I'm not actually earning money at this time, at least I'm making some kind of sacrifice so that my mother doesn't have to.
I know what the risks and likely outcome of long-term starvation and malnutrition are. I know that this is essentially a very slow and painful way of committing suicide. But for now, my problem is stronger than I am, and even under all the guilt and feelings of unworthiness and reminders to myself that "I don't really need to eat this, so I won't," I am afraid of what I'm doing to myself and what it means for my future health.
Still, I do it anyway.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Veiled In Court
I read an editorial a few days ago that all but made my blood boil. It has taken me this long to get my thoughts clear on this matter because even a single sentence written by Mr. Den Tandt is so full of absolute unwavering FAIL that it's a wonder that I could get through it once, never mind the several times that clarifying my objections to it required.
I am not familiar with the case in question, though I have read the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which allows Muslim women to wear the niqab when testifying in court. The background given in the text of the decision states that the woman, who was "an alleged victim of historical sexual assaults, contends that her religious beliefs dictate that she must wear a veil covering her face, except her eyes, when testifying." The objection by the defendant in this case was that "his right to make full answer and defence requires that he, his counsel and the preliminary inquiry judge be able to see the accuser's face when she testifies and, in particular, when she is cross-examined."
Completely leaving aside the question of whether the niqab really is the oppressive symbol of female servitude and status as property that Mr. Den Tandt so gallantly wants to rescue her from, her beliefs require that her face be covered in this circumstance. Requiring her to remove the veil may very well be an act of re-victimization—in this case, the violation would happen through forcing her to expose more of herself than she is willing to show—or in the best case it may simply make her feel ashamed of what has happened to her. Furthermore, the way that Mr. Den Tandt phrases his oh-so-compassionate opinion makes it sound like the victim herself is the one who's on trial, not the man who stands accused of sexually assaulting her.
But then, in a culture in which women are frequently blamed for "causing" their own rapes (as if the rapist had nothing to do with it), any woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted is likely to be under even more scrutiny than her accused rapist.
Did she lead him on? Was she drunk? Had she consented to sex with him in the past? Is she lying to try to get back at him for something? Was she wearing revealing clothing? Was she walking alone at night? Is she married to him? Did she provoke him? Has she ever willingly had sex with a man? Is she known to be a slut?
CAN WE FIND SOME WAY TO PROVE THAT SHE'S LYING OR TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S HER FAULT THAT SOMEONE CHOSE TO RAPE HER???
So the focus of the trial ends up on the alleged victim, not the alleged rapist.
And you know, I've lived in Canada all my life and I've never come across the perception that covering one's face is rude. Not taking your shoes off when you enter someone else's house—that's rude. Being late is terribly rude. So's not pulling over and stopping when you see a funeral procession go by when you're transporting yourself from one place to another. Not holding a door open when someone behind you is also going to go through that door is pretty bad, too, unless it's one of those doors that open and shut automatically. Lots of people are bound to object if you stare at them, though avoiding direct eye contact in conversation is also rude. But I've never heard that covering our faces, whether they're covered with veils or not, is considered particularly rude. Of course it's entirely possible that this is a convention that hasn't made it to my little corner of the country, but for the most part as far as I know, people will think you're a little weird if you go around with your face covered, but they won't think you're being rude.
Overall, I think his objections to her wearing the niqab do not hold water. It is not "rude" to wear a niqab, and it certainly doesn't stop one from seeing most of the body language of the victim he's so keen on putting on trial. What I see here is a thinly-disguised* expression of personal disgust with the presence of Muslims in Canada and an attempt to shame the apparent victim of one of the worst crimes that can be committed against a human being. And if he really is so concerned with maintaining our stereotypical Canadian politeness and striking a blow for the Canadian justice system, he would do well to learn some fucking respect for what other people believe, for other people's notions of modesty, and for the courage it must have taken this woman to report her rapes, press charges and see that this case was brought to trial.
--,--'--@ --,--'--@ --,--'--@
*I was about to write "thinly-veiled," but that pun would have been just a little too bad even for me.
I am not familiar with the case in question, though I have read the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which allows Muslim women to wear the niqab when testifying in court. The background given in the text of the decision states that the woman, who was "an alleged victim of historical sexual assaults, contends that her religious beliefs dictate that she must wear a veil covering her face, except her eyes, when testifying." The objection by the defendant in this case was that "his right to make full answer and defence requires that he, his counsel and the preliminary inquiry judge be able to see the accuser's face when she testifies and, in particular, when she is cross-examined."
Completely leaving aside the question of whether the niqab really is the oppressive symbol of female servitude and status as property that Mr. Den Tandt so gallantly wants to rescue her from, her beliefs require that her face be covered in this circumstance. Requiring her to remove the veil may very well be an act of re-victimization—in this case, the violation would happen through forcing her to expose more of herself than she is willing to show—or in the best case it may simply make her feel ashamed of what has happened to her. Furthermore, the way that Mr. Den Tandt phrases his oh-so-compassionate opinion makes it sound like the victim herself is the one who's on trial, not the man who stands accused of sexually assaulting her.
But then, in a culture in which women are frequently blamed for "causing" their own rapes (as if the rapist had nothing to do with it), any woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted is likely to be under even more scrutiny than her accused rapist.
Did she lead him on? Was she drunk? Had she consented to sex with him in the past? Is she lying to try to get back at him for something? Was she wearing revealing clothing? Was she walking alone at night? Is she married to him? Did she provoke him? Has she ever willingly had sex with a man? Is she known to be a slut?
CAN WE FIND SOME WAY TO PROVE THAT SHE'S LYING OR TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S HER FAULT THAT SOMEONE CHOSE TO RAPE HER???
So the focus of the trial ends up on the alleged victim, not the alleged rapist.
And you know, I've lived in Canada all my life and I've never come across the perception that covering one's face is rude. Not taking your shoes off when you enter someone else's house—that's rude. Being late is terribly rude. So's not pulling over and stopping when you see a funeral procession go by when you're transporting yourself from one place to another. Not holding a door open when someone behind you is also going to go through that door is pretty bad, too, unless it's one of those doors that open and shut automatically. Lots of people are bound to object if you stare at them, though avoiding direct eye contact in conversation is also rude. But I've never heard that covering our faces, whether they're covered with veils or not, is considered particularly rude. Of course it's entirely possible that this is a convention that hasn't made it to my little corner of the country, but for the most part as far as I know, people will think you're a little weird if you go around with your face covered, but they won't think you're being rude.
Overall, I think his objections to her wearing the niqab do not hold water. It is not "rude" to wear a niqab, and it certainly doesn't stop one from seeing most of the body language of the victim he's so keen on putting on trial. What I see here is a thinly-disguised* expression of personal disgust with the presence of Muslims in Canada and an attempt to shame the apparent victim of one of the worst crimes that can be committed against a human being. And if he really is so concerned with maintaining our stereotypical Canadian politeness and striking a blow for the Canadian justice system, he would do well to learn some fucking respect for what other people believe, for other people's notions of modesty, and for the courage it must have taken this woman to report her rapes, press charges and see that this case was brought to trial.
--,--'--@ --,--'--@ --,--'--@
*I was about to write "thinly-veiled," but that pun would have been just a little too bad even for me.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
A poem that a lot of people should read. *sigh*
I found this poem when I was browsing through a poetry website the other day. It's religiously-themed, but I think that anyone who's hopelessly self-righteous about anything, not just their religion, should be made to read it.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
A Chain Protesting Choice
The annual Life Chain demonstration was held today. That bullshit like this still happens, even though abortion has been legal in Canada for a long time, is a source of never-ending frustration for me. And although as a general rule I try to keep a fair and open mind about people, I just can't think well of anti-abortion activists and in the past, I've stated why.
It's not that I dislike the fact that these people have the right to have this opinion, or that they have the right to express it. What I deeply and thoroughly object to is that their goal is to take away the possibility that a woman might legally make a choice that they personally disapprove of.
As they say, if you disapprove of abortions, don't have one. Harrassing women who have abortions, publicly protesting their right to have an abortion and condemning them regardless of the reason why they made the decision to have an abortion is just not right. Whatever their reason for doing it, they deserve better than the condemnation and self-righteous judgement of people who think that their decisions ought to be everyone else's as well.
It's not that I dislike the fact that these people have the right to have this opinion, or that they have the right to express it. What I deeply and thoroughly object to is that their goal is to take away the possibility that a woman might legally make a choice that they personally disapprove of.
As they say, if you disapprove of abortions, don't have one. Harrassing women who have abortions, publicly protesting their right to have an abortion and condemning them regardless of the reason why they made the decision to have an abortion is just not right. Whatever their reason for doing it, they deserve better than the condemnation and self-righteous judgement of people who think that their decisions ought to be everyone else's as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)