Mad Gastronomer

red3blog:

(Had a request to post this answer in a rebloggable form, so here goes)

Thin shaming is not a thing in the same way that misandry is not a thing. Just as “misandry” isn’t actually concerned with attacks on men, thin shaming isn’t really about body policing of thin bodies, which obviously happens. Rather, the concept is about enforcing thin privilege through establishing a false and destructive false equivillence between what a privileged group experiences and what a disenfranchised group experiences. That’s what people do when they suggest that body policing of a thin body is exactly the same as body policing a fat body. No it isn’t. And by asserting them as exactly the same thing, you aren’t standing up for thin bodies, but advertising a disrespect and disregard for fat bodies and for our real oppression.

Saying misandry isn’t real isn’t saying that some cis-male individuals don’t get targeted by women for abuse. Its saying that equating this with misogyny is hurtful and purposefully counterproductive. Its acknowledging that the purpose of such claims is to negate and disregard the abuse that an oppressed and disenfranchised group is subjected to and to recenter attention onto the needs and problems of those who already enjoy great privilege.

I don’t think body policing is justified, but none of what anyone I’ve seen said even comes close to even being body policing. And even if it did, it would be functionally different than what fat shaming is. That is why thin shaming isn’t a thing. Its not about body policing of thin bodies, but of appropriating the language of oppression to use as a tool of oppression. That’s nothing I’m obligated to acknowledge.

Ohai

Hey, folks. I know I haven’t been around much. I’m taking a badly-needed break from Tumblr, as it was making me even madder than I usually am. However, if you’re interested, I have a new blog up elsewhere, Fat Carries Flavor, my own little Fat Acceptance blog. I’ll try to syndicate it to my Tumblr, but who knows when I’ll manage to make that happen. In the mean time, come over and check it out, if you feel like it.

Every day is a “fat day” for me.

living400lbs:

shakethecobwebs:

Because I’m fucking fat.

If you want to stop having self-doubt days, go right ahead. I will support you in any way that I can.

But fuck you for saying that the days you feel gross and lazy and unsuccessful are your “fat days.”

Because my fat days are full of love, and compassion, putting up a fight for those that I love, feeling beautiful, and fighting against those who would rather see me fail. 

Fat is not a bad word, and it’s not the reason for your shortcomings. So stop it.

THIS.

Every day since jr high has been a fat day for me.

The day I graduated high school.  

The day I graduated college (cum laude). 

All my jobs. 

All the times I’ve had sex. 

My wedding day.  The day my mother died. The day my fathered died.  

I AM FAT.  

palilicium:

so shakesville just banned me for

1) responding to this quote by melissa mcewan:

Obama opened a door, and I’mma walk through it with my usual pissy swagger demanding more, always more.

with “I’m glad you’re supportive and I appreciate it, but straight people are already through the door, that’s the whole point. And I’m really glad allies are supporting us but it does start to feel a bit appropriative at some point.”

and 2) politely expressing my discomfort to this quote by shakesville contributor eastsidekate:

I’m not expecting the United States to ever elect queer leaders. If queer people saw ourselves mirrored in our nation’s leadership, we wouldn’t be very queer now, would we?

aphra_ben, another shakesville moderator, made it pretty clear:

In case you missed it, the commenting policy covers telling people what to write and how to write about it.

i realise this isn’t exactly new information, but i just figured i’d give another fyi that politely disagreeing is forbidden on shakesville, especially when you’re hurting melissa’s straight feelings by suggesting that maybe the opinion of someone actually affected by homophobia might be worth listening to.

but wait, i forgot, it’s her right because

Yes, I am a straight married person. I am also a professional social justice advocate.

oh my bad then!  although, on second thought, pissy swagger is probably a pretty good description of the way straight people like melissa act when you dare to suggest they’re being a tad homophobic.

edit:  this is older, and i wasn’t involved but i still haven’t forgotten how she referred to donations to shakesville as a tax to be free from misogyny:

“Just as there is a “misogyny tax,” there is a tax to be free from misogyny and all other forms of bigotry; there’s a cost to providing a safe space.”

G/gypsy

vixyish:

golden-zephyr:

I am so tired of this argument. The one that has been leveled at me multiple times in the past couple of days.

The one that says:

You can’t be offended if I use the word gypsy with a small ‘g’.

Actually, I can.

And here’s why:

It doesn’t matter whether you’re using the word as a proper noun, an adjective, or a bloody verb. They all describe and have been attributed to the same group of people.

If you decide to capitalize the G and make us “Gypsies” then you are creating a distinction and a group that does NOT actually exist. The word “gypsy” is used to cover a LARGE number of UNRELATED groups—such as the Roma, Romanichal, Pavee, Scottish and Irish Travellers.. etc etc. These groups, the ones I listed as proper nouns ARE OUR CORRECT APPELLATIONS.

The word Gypsy then would denote an ethnicity or a group of people residing in a specific region—like German or French or perhaps even Amazigh. Since the word covers so many groups of people, this cannot (and is not) the case. Both nouns and adjectives are capitalized in English when referring to nationality or ethnicity.

There is no capitonym for the word Gypsy.

Oh I’m sorry, did I use a word you don’t know? Let me explain… that is the Capitalized word and the Lowercase word DO NOT CHANGE IN MEANING (such as the words Alpine/alpine, Divine/divine, or He/he). 

Adjectives derived from proper nouns KEEP their capitalization. So, since in your world the word ‘gypsy’ is derived from the word ‘Gypsy’ it should maintain it’s capitalization. Like a Gypsy caravan, or a Gypsy skirt, or a Gypsy house.

Your attempts to delineate between the words based on capitalization makes me sick to my stomach.

Tell me, is there a difference between Nigger and nigger?

No? Really? By your reasoning their should be!

OK, so you then tell me that capitalization only applies to words and abbreviations of specific names but not names of things that came from specific things but are now general types.

The problem with this is, you can’t generalize an ethnicity or a race of people into a non-specific entity. You claim that the word Gypsy only applies to the people, but the word gypsy is for use with the non-specific application to fashion or lifestyle.

This is SO problematic for SO many reasons. Let’s make a list shall we? Lists are always good!

• The word gypsy, whether capitalized or not has historically been used as a generalized appellation to coral multiple ethnicities into one specific and non-generalized idea.
• The word gypsy, whether capitalized or not is a racial slur used against ALL people placed under it pejoratively to oppress, discriminate, marginalize, and often brutally victimize.
• The word gypsy, whether capitalized or not has been used to erase multiple cultures, languages, and ways of life deliberately and consistently.
• The word gypsy, whether capitalized or not has been used by politicians and states to whitewash and minimize human rights issues and abuses against all people under the appellation.

So, your argument that there is a difference really does not hold water.

There is no difference whether you call me a Gypsy or a gypsy. There is no difference whether you attempt to use is as a proper noun, and adjective, or a verb. It doesn’t change the meaning, since in reality the word has been used in all aspects of speech at all times to apply to ethnicities pejoratively placed within it.

You can think of it as a box, if that makes it easier. All of us are thrown into the box together—the Roma, Pavee, Sinti, Kaale, Calo, Domari—even though in reality we belong in separate containers. 

The box is a pseudo-ethnicity. That is, it applies to all people who are descended ONLY from certain groups of people (yes, Pavee are a separate and distinct ethnicity within Ireland). You can’t claim ‘gypsy-hood’ simply by placing a lowercase letter instead of uppercase.

Ethnicity, marginalization, and indeed racism don’t work like that.

An ethnic slur will remain an ethnic slur whether you spell it wrong, write it in a foreign language, or capitalize it.

Gypsy, gypsy, gipsy, gipsie, tsigan, tzigane, zigeuner… all ethnic slurs. All offensive. All the same.

This has been on my mind a LOT lately.

An ethnic slur also remains an ethnic slur even if you say “oh but I don’t mean it that way when *I* use it!”

We’re not Humpty Dumpty; we don’t get to say “when *I* use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean!” We don’t get to decide to divorce a word from its history and modern context of discrimination and violence. We *can’t*. The history and context still exist whether we mean it or not, and the history and context still hurt people whether we mean it or not.

Does it really create such a huge hole in our lives to stop using a word when someone says they’re hurt by that word? Once you find out that something causes harm, why would you keep arguing in favor of doing it? Is it really going to cause us some terrible pain or setback just to… not use a word?