The Men's Journal advocates veganism

Lemmie tellya--hegans are hard to find. The heternormative script of "masculinity" doesn't exactly reward men who love animals or cherish the earth. But if male health can be re-routed away from animal flesh and fat, maybe we will develop more cultural space for the hegan.

Enter The Men's Journal (thank you, Gluten Freeway, for the link). In it's September 7th post of "The Men's Journal Guide to Going Vegan," MJ claims that just three weeks of a vegan lifestyle has you feeling better head to toe. I can definitely corroborate the quick time line.

Aside from listing vegan supplements, proteins, bars, and grocery tips, MJ also talks about "what to expect." I've inserted my comments in orange.

II. What to Expect

Week One:

Your entire body will feel lighter, as the meat built up in your gut is literally forced out by the deluge of fiber from all the vegetables. You will also feel less sluggish. “You start to come out of this fog that many people have from eating heavy, fatty foods,” says Susan Levin, the director of nutrition education at the non-profit Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. “When you give up dairy, you immediately breathe easier.” You’ll also have to deal with cravings for things like cheese. Find an appropriate substitute, like soy cheese. Your taste buds will adjust within a week. Uhhh...I don't know about any "cheese craving." But if you don't get enough healthy fats, you will crave animal products. When I first became a vegan, I was so busy eating beans, veggies, cookies, and rice, that I found myself craving meat. My friend told me my fat levels were likely down, and so I immediately incorporated nuts, seeds, and olive oil into my cooking and snacking. Voila! Also, soy is not the solution to all. It is generally over-processed, and there is controversy as to whether over-consumption has adverse health implications. Try making your own cashew cheese or picking up rice milk or almond cheese (available at Whole Foods).

Week Two:

You will have noticeably increased energy, and you’re likely to see some slight weight loss, because your overall calorie intake has likely gone down. “Not much weight loss,” says Levin. “We don’t want people dropping weight like crazy.” With increased energy, she says, you will find your workouts getting better and, as pro athletes have noted, your recovery time will become shorter. By the end of your second week, says vegan ultramarathoner Scott Jurek, you won’t feel as achy after your workouts.

With more energy, says Levin, comes a brighter mood and outlook. According to a 2009 Arizona State University study, people who cut all meat from the diets, including fish, showed less tension and stress.

Week Three:

“Enjoy everything you had in week two, but even more energy and probably a final layer of weight loss,” says Levin. But really, this week is where it gets molecular. “If you were someone who was meticulous and into blood labs, you’d actually see your blood sugars and cholesterol levels go down,” says Levin. “Your blood pressure will also fall as you’re breathing better and your arteries are clearing out.” If you are already in your target range of caloric-intake, a vegan transition likely won't result in weight loss. If you over-eat dishes with animal fat regularly, then perhaps. And don't forget--veganism still means cupcakes, cookies, brownies, fried seitan, and other deliciousness. Also, a note on the increased energy: it is true that you feel a crazy boost of energy. But then that becomes your everyday life, and the feeling normalizes over time.

the wing man, the grenade, and the fat friend

My blood recently started boiling while I was watching a show on MTV called Jersey Shore. I don't own a TV, but at the gym I have started to channel surf. The show is like a bad car accident--atrocious, but keeps you staring.

This was all fine and dandy until one of the male characters went on and on and on about "being the wing man"--perhaps he said "taking a grenade" or perhaps someone else told me that phrase--and repeatedly insisting that the "grenade" was "busted" and the like.

Scene 2. Enter Asher Roth. I'm having an awesome time bopping around to "She Don't Wanna Man" when after a while I finally start hearing the words:

"...ask him, yo can you take her fat friend? He laughs and then digs in hell yea ill be your wing man"

In this case, the weightist attitude is implied. "Taking" the fat friend does not explicitly mean that being fat is "undesireable," but it is the whole "taking one for the team" and getting with the "fat girl" to prove your brotherhood and then--what is the verb, bragging, exclaiming, excusing?--it afterward. Don't get me wrong: canoodling with someone you find unattractive so that your friend can interact with the unattractive person's friend is not what disgusts me.

A casual sexual exchange does not upset my ethical code. The fact that the Jersey Shore goof ball thinks he is getting it on with someone unattractive does not bother me. What bothers me is parading around and degrading a person's body--especially after two adults had some sort of consensual exchange. But the story doesn't end there.

The most mystifying part is how this degradation is somehow culturally praised. How is at all funny to degrade a person's body, and diminish a person's sexual being? What part of that could possibly be humorous, or warrant a high-five or whatever these people do?

My only answer is that behind this behavior is a desire to feel powerful and in control, and that a combination of insecurity to assert some sort of "ideal" self coupled with a superiority complex replaces any respect for boundaries and personhood. When you look at culturally praised constructions of hyper-masculinity, the whole scenario is not very surprising. (This is not to say that women don't exhibit this type of behavior. From my experience, it is more prevalent and pronounced among heterosexual males. Feel free to comment if you disagree).

Regardless of a gendered analysis, I still don't understand how this is fun or funny, so chime up if you have an answer.

fat rolls and "roll models"

Forget cutting carbs. I'm talking about cutting self-criticism and becoming a true "roll" model.



This post was inspired by the image above, taken from Glamour, as part of a "body image revolution." The photo struck me because I have seen healthy, normal-sized models--even plus-sized models--but I have never seen an unedited fat roll on any type of model. The fat roll is actually what makes this image so provocative.

You know. Pooch. Muffin Top. Roll. Whatever you want to call it. Many of us, men included, spend our lives fighting against the roll, hiding the roll, being ashamed of the roll. This picture champions the opposite. Roll with the roll. Love the roll.

While critics of the media cast the "thin hype" as a top-down phenomenon (we are victims of what we see), there is a bottom-up mechanism that is absent from mainstream discourse. Two scholars come to mind. Of course, this has Foucault written all over it (we self-regulate, and self-discipline. Think panopticon). More strikingly, feminist scholar Marilyn Frye remarks on the way that we participate in our own oppression: "We acquiesce in being made invisible, in our occupying no space. We participate in our own erasure."

While men, women, gender queer, and trans people suffer from body image issues, this post focuses on women, simply because I am speaking from my own experience. In reclaiming our bodies, I think that one of the most helpful tools is considering the ways that our choices and self-regulation oppress other women by promoting a standard and encouraging destructive behavior. In this way, we judge and punish ourselves, and in doing so, judge and punish the bodies of other women, whether we do so knowingly or not.

Forget cutting carbs. I'm talking about cutting self-criticism and becoming a true "roll" model. What's a roll model? It means loving your healthy self and eating delicious things openly, and providing younger girls with better alternatives than deprivation and weakness. It means eating well-balanced meals, and indulging in life and desserts. It means being fit and active and having the energy to lift weights or swim or bike or kick box or whatever gets your goat. It means being truly focused with your friends and partner because you are not freaking out about what you are eating, or missing the gym to enjoy a night out. It means having energy to focus at work or to accomplish your goals because you have eaten enough food. It means appreciating your life, and letting it rub off on other people. It means you can be sexy and attractive and have some flesh on your body.

I am by no means advocating being "fat"--whatever that means. I am promoting being healthy--whatever that means. Being healthy looks different on each body. I feel for women who are naturally very thin and are constantly being accused of having eating disorders. After all, being active and fit looks different on each body. While I can't say what this means for each individual woman, I can tell you that for the vast majority of is, this means fat on our bodies. Millions of years of evolution don't care about your modern feminist agenda; even if you want to be a professional workaholic without children, your body has typically evolved to carry some abdominal fat to protect the fetus, plain and simple.

For women to reclaim our bodies, we need to reclaim the roll. I know there is that special moment in nearly every relationship where, in the midst of a cuddle or what not, the fat roll makes its debut. For a lot of us, this is a really mortifying moment. It totally kills the mood. We are embarrassed. Millions of thoughts begin to race, and we lose focus on our partner.

I'm saying that we need to reclaim that moment, and understand that fat is a part of our healthy bodies, and respect that part just as we respect the rest of us. If your partner finds this off-putting, I really hope that you do not emotionally or legally bind yourself to that individual. Call me crazy, but I think your partner should enjoy your healthy self--not some restrictive, self-deprecating, and calorie-obsessed version of you that can't concentrate in a romantic moment if you see a fold of flesh.

Beyond just you, young girls need to look around and see that they can eat and enjoy food, that they can be strong and active, and that they can be themselves, as well as successful, happy, and loved. When you are proud of your pooch, your life becomes more enjoyable, and you can potentially help another woman cope with body image issues. So I'm saying eat a fucking cupcake, and enjoy your life.

While women play the largest role in learning to love their rolls, their partners have an impact as well. It continues to amaze, disappoint, and sadden me to hear the way that (I am going to be heterosexist here) men talk about female bodies in discussing their attractions. The following conversation took place with a particularly (insert pejorative adjective here) heterosexual male earlier on in the semester:

Him: So-and-so is really hot.
Me: What does she look like?
Him: She's skinny and...

I was really blown away that "skinny" was the first attribute listed. Why skinny? Why not healthy, or active? It's really disgusting to me to think that a male would know or have reason to know that he was dating a woman who was depriving herself, and find this attractive. My mind goes back to an article I read a couple years ago by a man, reflecting on his college years. He talked about a severely restrictive and underweight former girlfriend. After their breakup, he began dating a healthier girl and curvier girl, with whom he loved eating pasta (which the previous girl would never eat). The former and underweight girl, feeling jealous I suppose, commented, "Oh, I didn't know you liked fat girls." The man shared in his article, "It's not that I like fat girls. I like happy girls."

That was really meaningful to me. If men want to be part of female empowerment, they need to understand that affirming unhealthy bodies is destructive to women. Even more to the point, I think some men need to seriously think about why they are attracted to a woman who is depriving herself and punishing herself to maintain a weight that is not natural or healthy for her. This is not to say that men should not be attracted to thin women. There are women who are naturally thin. I am talking about rewarding and affirming women who engage in self-destructive behavior to maintain their weight. Note that self-destructive behavior need not include a diagnosed eating disorder, but disordered and restrictive eating in general, coupled with destructive and self-deprecating thoughts and behavioral patterns.

Aside from loving your own body, and finding a partner that loves your healthy body, the other important part to this movement is changing the way we interact with our friends. The number one thing you can do to help your friends is to stop entertaining them when they deprecate their own bodies. This means cutting off friends who talk about how fat they are, or how many calories or carbs they ate. This is not helpful or productive for anyone. If your friend is seriously being unhealthy, then that is a legitimate conversation that has nothing to do with weight. It has to do with lifestyle. The irrational obsessions of "does this make me look fat," or "I gained so much weight this week" need to stop if women are ever going to be free of this obsession and live in the moment.

Their are many of us who have lead unhealthy lives, and we are in the process of getting on the right track. During this process, we may experience frustration about our bodies. It seems hard and counter-intuitive to love your current body when you know you are undergoing a process that means your body will be changing (presumably losing weight). In this context, it's hard not to obsess. This is when it's helpful to know that your body may change, but to realize that you love your body where it is today.

Their are also many of us who internally obsess over destructive thoughts about ourselves, and can't seem to stop them. This calls for the "fake it til you make it" approach, where you pick a one-liner and repeat it in your head until you force destructive thoughts out. This can be anything as simple as, "I love my body" over and over and over again. The goal is to stop entertaining your own destructive thoughts, the destructive thoughts of your friends, and the destructive thoughts of your partners, and hope that you can be a roll model along the way.

(Note that men also experience pressure to self-regulate their bodies. See "rethinking the beef cake: weightlifting and the regulation of male bodies")

more on male privilege

Aggravating incident on the day:

Someone told me today that he finds it irritating that our text book uses default female pronouns.

I told him that I was sorry that his male privilege was being disrupted.

speaking of female sexuality and culture...

Just imagine me, fra la-la la-la, minding my own business trying to fax something at FedEx Kinko's, and wham--obnoxious cultural representations of my sex/gender on a lame greeting card.

Let's take a look at the messages: naggy, needy, housework-oriented, more romance/less sex, and the like.

And one of my biggest pet peeves, the whole "take me out."

Why couldn't the button say "let's go out" or "night on the town" or "date night" or anything that does not imply that the man is active and the female is passive?

Rescue me. Take me out. Pay for me. Take care of me. I'm your dolly.

I know some readers are shaking their heads at how I am blowing a trivial card out of proportion. But I think we all know that this greeting card does not exist in isolation--it is microcosmic of larger hegemonic institutions of gender and heterosexuality.

It seems to me that if two presumably competent and consenting adults are engaged in some sort of relationship with one another, there should be equal partnership.

Oh right...but men and women are separate but equal. How could I forget?

if it walks like a duck: sports and the regulation of female bodies

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...it's a duck.

Substitute woman for duck, and one has illuminating insight as to what our culture finds appropriate femaleness, as well as the absence of wiggle room.

Just ask South African athlete Caster Semenya. Muscular body? Deep voice? Stellar athletic performance? Must be a man.

Top it off, Semenya now needs to take a "gender verification test."

News flash: gender is not a more sophisticated or politically correct term for sex. Sex refers to chromosomes and genitals, and gender refers to social performance. Therefore, a person whose biological sex is male may have a female gender performance.

This brings about another issue: how do members of trans communities participate in sports teams? I will guest post this on the Trans Blog Group and hopefully get some feedback.

WORKERS AHEAD: the verdict is in

I recently launched a campaign against sexist roadside construction signs in Los Angeles, including ways to take action (there were a lot of mixed reviews on this topic).

I have to say, the bureaucratic process worked wonders this time around; I was contacted by the Women's Advocate of the City of Los Angeles Human Services Department, who looked into my concern.

The findings? The federal government went gender-neutral with signs in 1988 and the State of California in 1996. In short, "Men Working Ahead" signs are illegal and can be reported.

If you live in Los Angeles and see these signs on city construction sites, please report them to Seffy Wiles of the LA Bureau of Public Works at (213) 487-2408.

MY BODY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, part II

In a recent post, MY BODY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, I described the way in which a man violated my boundaries through criticizing (and attempting to police) my body based on its physical appearance.

(Note: I normally avoid making descriptions of people sex/gender-specific, but since I believe that the sex/gender relationship of the violator in question contributed to his feelings of male privilege and subsequently granted him perceived permission to violate my boundaries, I do find "maleness" to be relevant in this post.)

However, due to recent events, I find it appropriate to continue this discussion. In the past week, I have been very alarmed to be the recipient of two unwarranted and aggressive verbal attacks, resulting in a concern for my own physical well-being. So now I must push the point: it is not just the physical appearance of my body that is none of your business, it is my body in the overall sense of my being.

According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime (as compared to 1 in 33 men. I do not have statistics regarding non-sexual assault). I have had the fortune of never being scared for my physical safety.

Last week, a man forcefully followed me to my cab and pushed his head through the open window and violently yelled "You stank white bitch" after I politely dismissed myself from an invitation to call him so that he could have my number. I was shaken not only by his unabashed anger, but by the fact that he followed me and violated my personal space and sense of safety by putting a part of his body through the car.

Fast forward to earlier this evening. I had parked my car on a busy street (Ventura Blvd in Sherman Oaks), and was on a phone call while putting coins in the meter. I was then approached by a man whole loudly and rudely demanded to know with whom I was speaking (I'm not even embellishing. Perhaps this person was not all there). In response, I gave him the one-moment hand gesture and continued on what was an important phone call. This only fueled his anger; he proceeded to walk closer to me, become louder and more angry, and demanded to know what was wrong with me, why I had an attitude, and what was with my scowl. I was scared he was going to touch me or hit me in some way.

At this moment I ended my phone conversation, and though for a quick instant I wondered if I would be provoking more aggression, I walked up to this person and asked in an equally elevated tone sprinkled with hostility (I had previously been reserved and calm), "Sir, what is the problem? I am on an important phone call."

Although he was still vehemently yelling at me, he did so while walking away.

One of the issues at hand is the false sense of security people--particularly women--are prone to feel during the daylight and in busy areas. But let me tell you, nothing was scarier than the fact that on an empty sidewalk with cars driving by quickly, there was nothing in between a hostile man coming closer, and my own body.

I do not deny that women can be aggressive and violent. I only claim that aggression and violence in men are more systemic and institutionally reinforced. This dynamic, coupled with gendered relations of power, can create feelings of male entitlement and dominance that, in their unchecked forms, create the delusion of authority over women. Yes, yes...men may enter vicious territorial brawls and harm other men to prove a phallic point...but the interaction contains a completely different sexual politic when the other party is socialized to be more passive. Quite frankly, I think women have a problem articulating boundaries and are unable to realize when they are violated on a less severe scale (i.e. "flirting" that is actually sexual harassment).

Okay, I'm starting to ramble. The point is, as a woman, it seems like my being is automatically subjected to some heightened degree of commentary, observation, or interrogation. Let me introduce a small concept called "boundaries."

It doesn't matter if I never want to call you, or if I don't find it appropriate to report with whom I am speaking.

My body and my self are mine, not yours. I am none of your business. Do not violate me, my body, or my personal space.

the ERA is back

Shout outs to Representative Carolyn Maloney for re-introducing the Equal Rights Amendment with fellow Republican Judy Biggert of Illinois. It's nice to see both sides of the aisle come together for the equal application of the Constitution to both men and women.

Not familiar with the history of the ERA? Check out my blog post The Equal Rights Amendment and the Three State Strategy.

WORKERS AHEAD update

After you call your councilmember and report your concern, try the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, as well as the only 2 female members of the Los Angeles City Council.

Los Angeles Department of Transportation (213-580-1177). You can press "0" to speak with an operator and have the opportunity to leave a voice mail.

Councilmember Jan Perry's office (213-473-7009) was extremely friendly and helpful. I strongly recommend that you additionally call this office.

Councilmember Janice Hahn's office (213-473-7015). After being put on hold, I was told that these signs are no longer used. After replying that these signs are up right now, I was told to talk to my own member. Obviously, I have done that, but I felt female councilmembers might care more about this issue.


Read about the Workers Ahead Campaign

take action for WORKERS AHEAD

Following up from my last post regarding sexist roadside construction signage, I am trying to figure out where is the best place for our complaints. So far, here are two ways you can help:

1) Call your Council Member and report the problem. Much of the San Fernando Valley and West Los Angeles is represented by my Council Member, Paul Koretz. You can call his office at (310) 289-0353.

2) Send an email to the Bureau of Street Services within the Los Angeles Department of Public Works. The email address is bss.boss@lacity.org

Here is a copy of my email:

To Whom It May Concern, I am a resident of Encino, and am highly offended by roadside construction signs that say "Men Working Ahead."

I find these signs extremely sexist. Women work, and they work in construction at that. Such discriminatory signs have no place in my neighborhood or anywhere else. These signs must be modified or replaced to say "Workers Ahead."

Please let me know if there is a better source to contact regarding my concern. Thank you, and I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,


Keep checking in for more updates and ways to take action!

Click here for updated ways to take action

men working ahead: the politics of road signs

When I passed this sign driving down the hills of Lake Encino in the San Fernando Valley, I actually had to stop, reverse, turn on my hazard lights, get out and take a picture.

I just have so many questions. Who approved a sign that implies either women don't work, or that only men work in road construction? When was this sign first designed? How often are signs updated?

And most importantly, who am I going to have to call to get to the bottom of this?

I know there are some anti-equality mongers who violently hiss that "man" somewhere, somehow includes "woman." This same logic was in heavy circulation prior to 1920; women do not need to vote or hold office because men vote and hold office--and these men represent the interests of women. Hence, man comes to include woman.

Gendered relations of power aside, "Workers Ahead" would actually use less space and less paint. It makes more sense.

Come to find out, I'm not the only person angered by sexist roadside signage. In Atlanta, these signs were covered or replaced after a woman was nearly arrested for spray painting "wo" in front of "men," starting a grassroots campaign.

While some might criticize that a budget crisis is not the time to go on a crusade (signs cost money to replace), equality and dignity are priceless. Tomorrow I am calling the Department of Public Works to figure out against which office my campaign will begin. I'll keep you updated.

recession forces some brothels to consider female sexuality

Now that Las Vegas brothels are getting desperate for profits in a crippled economy, some are adding men geared toward pleasing female patrons.

That's right, folks. Female sexual desire is recognized only in times of desperation as a new quirk to hopefully make a few.

Read the article

Crank: High Repulsion

Seeing as I don't watch television, I really didn't know what Crank: High Voltage was about--but I figured it was some sort of action flick (which I love) involving a tolerable amount of hyper-masculinity and distasteful but limited female subjugation. I was terribly mistaken.

The extreme polarization of stoic, hyper-aggressive and reckless masculinity coupled with the humiliation and physical abuse of women as strippers and prostitutes was both embarrassing and horrifying as an American. More mystifying was the uproar of male laughter during scenes of ultimate female degradation, e.g. physically abusing a prostitute or sexually exploiting women. By the way, I do have an appreciation for the physical form, but not when it exclusively and disproportionately parades the female body naked/scantily cladden under male dominance, as the object of exclusively male pleasure and property, and with no counter-acting sexualization of the male body--with a complete disregard for female pleasure ta boot.

It could be argued that in one sex scene the leading female actress was receiving mutual and consensual sexual pleasure--then she was literally thrown off the main character's cock into the mud, hosed down with water, and humiliated before thousands of spectators.

Other themes to ponder include homophobia, ethnocentrism (particularly the mockery of Asians), ableism and animal abuse.

Three things really struck me:
1) The destructive model of hyper-masculinity found praiseworthy by males and young boys
2) Audible and overwhelming male laughter at the expense, humiliation, and abuse of women.
3) Women accompanying and finding acceptable the amusement and laughter of their (presumably) boyfriends during scenes of female degradation.

Yes, yes...this is "just a movie." However, these models are internalized and contribute to greater normalizing of hyper-regulated and hyper-gendered bodies--at the expense of more well-rounded, well-adjusted, emotionally balanced and safer individuals and communities (not to mention more authentic and diverse self-expression).

taking eating disorders to the Hill

Over 100 grassroots lobbyists converged on Capitol Hill last Thursday with The Eating Disorders Coalition (EDC), pressuring their representatives to co-sponsor the Federal Response to Eliminating Eating Disorders (FREED) Act. Introduced by Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) the FREED Act is a comprehensive bill that provides federal action for research, treatment, and education/prevention of eating disorders. The EDC is an umbrella advocacy organization seeking to advance federal recognition of eating disorders as a public health priority.

While an estimated 9 million Americans suffer from bulimia nervosa, anorexia nervosa, binge eating disorder, and eating disorders not otherwise specified (EDNOS), research remains drastically underfunded and the genetic predispositions to eating disorders remain largely unexplored. Over 50% of factors that make one vulnerable to eating disorders are hereditary. More to the point, two people may share the same environment, but only one with certain genetic susceptibilities will develop an eating disorder. It was once explained to me that eating disorders are relationship disorders—relationships with self and others. As Dr. Lisa Lilenfeld shared at the FREED Act congressional briefing, “put someone with an eating disorder on a desert island alone, that person will still have an eating disorder.” Additionally, eating disorders impact males and females alike, with a previously understood ratio of 10:1 now approaching 3-4:1. Yet the stigma of eating disorders as passing phases or afflictions of the superficial and stupid cripple funding for research and awareness, keeping the problem in the closet and unaddressed—hiding the fact that eating disorders have the highest death rate of any psychiatric illness. Consequently, FREED includes provisions to determine the prevalence, incidence and correlates of eating disorders, as well as more accurate mortality rates.

While the bill itself is an exciting advance in promoting science over stigma, participants in the lobby day had their own telling stories to share. One recovered anorectic explained that, despite her doctor’s warning that her parents should prepare for her death, her insurance would not cover hospitalization unless she lost more weight. Fortunately, her parents were able to use retirement savings and take money out of their home. Another recovering bulimic shared concerns that none of her in-network therapists had any specialization in eating disorders at all. While the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Parity made some progress, the bill still leaves open the opportunity for insurance companies to decide who gets money and how much. Under these conditions, insurance companies undermine the advice of doctors and implement their own ambiguous criteria in determining coverage.

While eating disorders may be expensive to treat, the economic burden is even greater when these illnesses go under-treated or ignored. The lack of access to modern, science-based treatment means that thousands of families are spending thousands—and sometimes hundreds of thousands—of dollars on care models that simply do not work. The research portion of the FREED Act includes an economic analysis to determine years of productive life lost, missed days of work, reduced work productivity, costs medical/psychiatric treatment, prescription medications, hospitalizations, costs of other comorbidites, and other costs to society and family.

Considering these factors, it is fitting that The FREED Act comes into play during political discourse favoring prevention as a healthier and more cost-efficient plan over treatment after-the-fact. This specifically involves better training for professionals dealing with children and adolescents, and reconsideration of the way that BMI is discussed, measured, and reported in schools. Various legislative assistants commented that certain provisions of the FREED Act could feasibly be incorporated into larger healthcare reform packages to come. With time, increased visibility, research and education can combat harmful stereotypes that create barriers to information, care, and the willingness of survivors to share their experiences. Having faced the difficulties of recovery myself and as a junior board member of the EDC, I was touched by the turnout of the event and the candid stories of the participants. However, I will admit that I was struck by the male to female representation. As the lobby day was dominated by women, I milled over two thoughts. First, how perceptions of eating disorders as (upper-class, white) female neurosis create a cultural climate wherein male sufferers are less likely to come out and advocate for themselves. And secondly, even if more women suffer, where are the fathers, brothers, husbands, boyfriends and male friends who know first-hand how scary and painful these diseases truly are?

radical lesbian separatism coming to an end?

The New York Times featured a great piece on radical lesbian separatism and the "feminist utopia."

Secluded in open natural settings, these all-women, all-lesbian communities came about in the 1970s in response to the women's liberation movements. Women faced a bitter battle for socio-political enfranchisement, and lesbians bit a bigger bullet at home and in the workplace. A matriarchal utopia seemed like a fitting remedy. And it has been.

But these women from the 1970s are aging, and the new generation of feminist women lack the separatist policies of their fore bearers. Previously silent communities looking to avoid publicity have agreed to be interviewed in hopes of keeping their way of life alive. Read the article.

More than anything, I thought this was an interesting testament to the nature of utopia as dynamic and historically specific. While an older generation of feminists find ideal seclusion from "male violence," the new wave finds most fitting the prospect of complicating binaries and hammering out differences--and some of us even enjoy the competition.

rethinking the beef cake: weight lifting and the regulation of male bodies

I suppose it all began that first day I sat in a small office for my fitness consultation. I was very adamant in my goals. "I want to be strong," I said. "Very strong. I want to be able to do pull ups and one-armed push ups. I don't care about weight loss. I want to be strong."

I was unprepared for what I was asked next. The personal training manager, for being so overly-bulky and bulgy and unnaturally muscular, I thought would take my request for granted. Instead, he asked me "why?" I stammered a bit, admittedly confused. "I want to be healthy and strong," I insisted.

This was not enough. "Everyone has an emotional experience that makes them want to be strong. What was yours?"

I was shocked. That was rather self-aware of him. So I did what any other extremely blunt and very open person would do--I gave him a scoop of the old rocky road and truncated my own shaky past into a few sappy but truthful sentences. It was early in the morning, I had been ambushed, and was feeling the pressure of law school applications; I was not particularly prepared for a mini-therapy session. Don't tear up, don't tear up, I told myself. Perhaps I expected a callous or uneducated response--an "oh" at least. Instead, I met understanding and support. And there in that tiny personal training office, I had my first emotional exchange with a beef cake. Who knew? I was fascinated.

Now that my ambitions had been stripped to some sort of psychological hang up (but then again, isn't everything?), we dove into our first session. While the personal training I encountered in the past was more ball exercises and body weight maneuvers, if I wanted to get super strong, I was told that we would have to go "old school"--"none of that ball shit." For the first time in my life, I encountered physical strain that no yoga, ballet, kickboxing or cardio could prepare me for: repetitive and heavy lifting. After a fourth rep of assisted pull ups, I actually wanted to die, cry, vomit and fall over at once. More surprising then feelings of imminent death, however, was my ginormous trainer, who all at once assumed a culturally deemed maternal role of nurturing and support to combat my swelling tears and groans as I fought to reach the bar. Did I really pay for 36 of these in advance? This was one of the most difficult exertions of my life.

I looked at the sweating, bulky men around me (who, from a gendered perspective, disproportionately and egregiously dominate the lifting section of the gym), and I got off my high horse. Before this first experience, I (the alleged humanist, no less) would have written them off as beefy d-bags. But now I was beginning to see weight lifting as something else--an art form that, if executed properly, requires dedication, skill, and control. I developed an appreciation of isolating and flexing those esoteric back muscles. I understood the rewarding feeling that comes from getting something right, and getting through a hard set. Then it began to sink in. The stigma of the "beef cake" is extremely stereotypical, disenfranchising, and ignorant of the reality of weight lifting. I felt a little guilty. Shouldn't I have learned this lesson from the social stigma that casts eating disorder victims as stupid and shallow? There is much more going on here.

So I began to observe and nonchalantly interview. I have to say, my own initial stereotype of the emotionally primitive "hyper-masculine" douche was soon dismissed by warmth, fun, and conversations around the gym. The more I probed, the more I realized that themes of control, perfectionism, discipline, self-improvement, escapism and physical proportionality that accompanied the body building experience mirrored the same themes that plague victims of anorexia and bulimia. While lifting can be social in that a group of people--likely men--will meet and work together, it can also be very isolating. One interviewee revealed that he lifts alone because no one is as dedicated as he is. Similarly, eating disorder victims--likely girls and women--can restrict, purge, or exercise in groups for support...or they can completely withdraw and go at it alone.

In discussing the perceived "mismatch" of his body, my trainer explained how his naturally larger legs always seemed too big for his body, and so the pursuit of matching drove his upper-body lifting experience. My mind went back to the testimony of an anorectic friend, who explained her stomach was just too big for her legs and arms.

I am not trying to say that body building is the same as an eating disorder. Clearly, eating disorders are far more serious and deadly at that. Body building at its most extreme and obsessive form, accompanied by steroid use, begins to compete in terms of danger. However, it is quite striking to note how aspirations of rigidity, control, perfectionism and addictive/compulsive behavior--not to mention certain psychological contexts and emotional experiences--are mediated through culture and gendered relations of power, and largely find themselves regulating male and female bodies in different (and opposite) ways.