Shameless publisher Stacey May Fowles has been honoured with a pick in the National Post’s Canada Also Reads panel of books for her novel Fear of Fighting (Invisible Publishing, 2008).

The Canada Also Reads panel was set up by the National Post’s The Afterword in response to the mainstream CBC Canada Reads, which has sometimes been criticized for showcasing already well-known books. Canada Also Reads put out a call for nominations of books that were relatively new and comparatively unknown. A very long longlist was eventually shortened to five, including Fear of Fighting.

Want to read Stacey May’s novel but can’t shell out $19.95? You’re in luck! The book will be available as a free e-book download from the publisher’s website until April.

Being a word/books person, I do a lot of thinking about the power of language. The more progressive blogs and new sources I read, and the more I talk and think about feminist and progressive issues on a daily basis, the more I notice the words people drop into casual conversation that make me pause.

Language is more powerful than we realize. At its best, it can facilitate communication, bridge huge distances and build communities. But as we’ve heard, with great power comes great responsibility, and I believe that as feminists, it’s important for us to be conscious of the words we choose when communicating and to avoid problematic and alienating language as much as possible – not only to avoid offending or alienating others, but to hold ourselves to the highest standards and set a positive example.

Problematic or triggering language is all around us: everything from “that’s so gay” to “what a pussy” to “that exam totally raped me.” Examples like these are obvious, but some that are more often overlooked include “that’s so lame” and “you’re insane” (ableist, physically and mentally, respectively). Personally, expressions that are dismissive of mental/emotional differing abilities (“insane,” “crazy,” “stupid”) are ones I’m currently working on eliminating from my vocabulary.

I’m not necessarily advocating becoming the language police, and I know that different social situations have different standards of communication. It’s just something to think about.

I’ve only given a few examples in this post. What are some of your personal language peeves, and are you working on being more conscious of your words? Do you call out others who use problematic language?

Just the title makes me feel nauseated, now that I know what it refers to.

I was alerted to this horrifying product last week by Amy Sedgwick, aka @UterusLover (profiled here on Shameless by D. Cole). “My New Pink Button” is a “beauty product” designed to be used on the female genitals to temporarily dye the inner labia to turn them pink.

Yes, really.

From the FAQ section of the product’s website:

Q. “I used to be so “Pink” and healthy looking on my inside Labia Lip area. Now I am losing that fresh look. Is there anything I can do”?
A. Yes, now there is a solution! “My New Pink Button” is a Cosmetic Dye especially for the woman’s genital area, to help restore that healthy vibrant Rosy color. Until now there has never been a solution for restoring natural pigment. This is a concern with many women and more than you can even imagine, and a frequent question that Physicians are asked. Check out the blogs on the Internet. You are not alone! This is a common problem and we now have a simple and safe solution, restoring sexual confidence to Women everywhere!

[I want to get snarky all over the site for its random use of capital letters (Rosy colour! Women everywhere!), but that’s beside the point.]

I’m sure I don’t even have to point out the problems with this product, but I’ll throw out a few and you can have at it in comments:

• the idea that only very young-looking genitals are appealing
• the acknowledgement that pigment changes are common, but insisting it’s still a problem to be fixed
• the fact that no equivalent “problem” for men is suggested
• the racism inherent in privileging certain skin shades
• um, putting chemical dye on your labia …

I used to be a hardcore New Year’s resolver, and my resolutions always centred around weight loss (with occasional token other resolutions thrown in: “stop biting nails” was a classic). When I was 17, my entire resolution, written on a piece of paper and sealed in an envelope was simply a three-digit number: my goal weight.

For the past two years, I have refused to make any resolutions at all, but I think I’m now far enough removed from my dieting mentality to make a few. I challenge anyone who is the resolution-making type to make a few of your own that focus on what you can do for yourself and others, not what you see in the mirror or on the scale.

Mine?
1. Train to run 10km.
2. Continue to improve my relationship with food and eat joyfully.
3. Re-connect with at least three friends I’ve lost touch with.
4. Read up on a few new social issues.
5. Be gentle with and kind to myself.

(Hi, everyone! Cate has kindly asked me to stay on as a permanent blogger after my guest-blogging stint in November. Pleased to be on board!)

This is an actual question asked by an Pennsylvania medical association in this article, which goes on to calculate Santa’s yearly caloric intake for cookies consumed in the state.

“Thanks to the magic of Christmas, [Santa] can avoid putting on that much weight,” said medical society spokesman Chuck Moran. But most people aren’t so fortunate, and will put on one pound for every 3,500 calories consumed but not burned.

(more inside…)

“On December 17th 2009, sex workers and their allies across Canada will mark the 7th International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. This day draws attention to acts of violence that continue to be committed against sex workers worldwide, and to the stigma and discrimination perpetuated by prohibitionist laws against sex work, which endanger our lives and work.” - Rabble.ca

Check out more information at

Rabble.ca
SWOP (American, but with lots of good information)

and learn more about sex workers and sex workers’ rights in general at

Maggie’s (Toronto)
SWAN (American)

Many thanks to Shameless for inviting me to guest-blog this month. I hope that I’ve helped you to learn a bit more about a new topic, and perhaps inspired you to do a little more thinking about why so many of us believe that fat is bad.

Questioning commonly-held perceptions, and even changing your attitude, is only one step. I’ve found that it’s a lot easier to accept others’ bodies than it is to accept my own. I can look at a fat woman and think she’s beautiful, but look at myself and criticize my flabby stomach. I can understand that my body size is not a direct reflection of my health status, but feel like I “need” to work out more than others to “make up” for my size. I can know that diets don’t work, but be tempted to try again anyway. I can know that I’m actually barely over the size of the average North American woman, but still feel unacceptably fat.

Accepting yourself doesn’t just happen overnight, and it requires constant effort. If you’re able to find a support system, you’re much more likely to have more good days than bad. Whether it be friends who respect that your body is not a topic for discussion, a hobby or activity you love, or a bunch of resources to fall back on when you can’t remember why you’re allowed to trust your body and eat what you like, find something to support you. Some of the resources I turn to regularly include:

The Fat Nutritionist (a Toronto-based nutrition student who studies, practices and teaches intuitive eating and Health at Every Size)
Kate Harding’s Shapely Prose, the blog that introduced me to fat acceptance
Fatshionista, a plus-size fashion and size acceptance community

If you taking nothing else from learning a bit about size acceptance, I hope you’ll be willing to consider that everyone, regardless of their body size, is deserving of respect and autonomy regarding what they do with their bodies. That includes yourself. Cheers!

Something that often gets lost in the “healthy fat person/unhealthy fat person” discussion (see my previous post) is a discussion about who gets to decide what “healthy” behaviours are, and who has and does not have the ability to practice those behaviours.

The cost of “healthy living” is prohibitive for a great many people. A diet rich in fresh produce, whole grains, lean meats or alternatives, etc., is quite expensive. For many, the choice between a box of white pasta or a package of brown rice isn’t based on nutrition value, but on cost. Fresh fruits and vegetables, particularly out of season, when prices skyrocket? Forget it. Cheap and filling are the important factors. For someone who can’t afford to buy “healthier” foods, I’d argue that the decision to buy what they can to feed themselves to the best of their ability is the healthy choice.

As for the recommended levels of exercise: a gym membership? Not accessible to all. But you don’t need a gym membership to work out – you can run around the block. Sure, if you don’t have to go home after working overtime in order to care for your child. You get the picture. It’s not a coincidence that obesity is often associated with poverty, and thinness with affluence. It is a privilege to have the time and money to invest in practicing “healthy” behaviours.

Another issue that is often overlooked in the “healthy living” paradigm is disability, whether visible or invisible, physical or mental. It isn’t possible for everyone to run several miles per week. While those with visible physical disabilities might sometimes (but by no means always) be given a free pass against judgment for not performing the prescribed behaviours, those with invisible disabilities like fibromyalgia, chronic diseases, or metal disabilities that mean their healthy behaviours are different are often ignored. Chronic pain might make jogging or weight lifting impossible. Depression might mean that different activities are more or less pleasurable. For those with visible physical disabilities, prescribed activities might take on a clinical angle and be boring or unsatisfying.

Why not allow everyone, regardless of ability, to choose to (or choose not to) participate in activities that are enjoyable? When particular behaviours are lauded as “good” – and who hasn’t met someone who hates going to the gym, but does it because they’re being “good”? – then other behaviours automatically lower in value, even if they’re very enjoyable, beneficial, and accessible. Personally, I think that keeping an eye on your mental health is just as valuable, if not more valuable, than paying attention to the physical. Skipping a run to push a child on a swing and then read a book together isn’t going to burn too many calories, but who says it’s worth less? If you are unable to perform high-intensity cardio at all, should that mean you are worth less? If you also happen to be fat, some people might think so.

Thanks to a comment from Steve on my last post, I was inspired to write some posts on some of the intersections between size acceptance/fat acceptance and race/culture, class and (dis)ability.

First, I want to acknowledge my position of privilege as an educated, able-bodied middle-class, white woman, born in Canada, of white, upper-middle-class parents also born in Canada. I can discuss these issues from the position of an ally trying to inform herself as much as possible, but I cannot and will not try to speak for people in groups of which I’m not a part. I also acknowledge that I can’t come close to understanding all the issues, and would love to hear from others who’d like to add their perspectives.

Something almost guaranteed to get my back up when discussing size and body image is an assertion that it’s “easier” or “harder” for someone of a certain race to have a larger or smaller body size. As an example, there’s a notion that refuses to die that says black women are exempt from worrying about their weight and that fatness is more accepted among black people, because black men prefer women larger. I have three major issues with this:

1) How can anyone know what all black men prefer in terms of body shape and size, and who says they prefer women at all?
2) Even if it were true: what, black women exist purely as attractive objects for black men? If black men like them “bigger,” they have nothing to worry about? Who says that what black men think about their bodies is black women’s primary concern? The inherent racism (not to mention sexism) in assuming that black men have the only valid opinion about black women’s bodies is appalling.
3) It’s just not true.

See, to look “acceptable” in our society is to look as close to the ideal as possible, and that ideal is not only thin; it is white, tall, perhaps blonde-haired (straight or just wavy, of course) and blue-eyed. Whether some or even many black men prefer larger women is completely irrelevant; white-dominated society at large is telling black women that they must look as close to the white ideal as possible in order to be considered attractive. This applies to all women of colour; black women are just an example.

While individual cultures may have particular body size stereotypes (Asian women are thinner, Hispanic women have larger hips, etc.), it’s important to recognize that these are not universal ideals within cultural groups, and that women of colour are under enormous pressure by virtue of their colour to strive to look as white as possible. Women of colour don’t get a free pass on the body ideal thing. In fact, pressure to conform to an ideal body type only increases, the further from the “ideal” you are. A really great rundown on this topic from a woman of colour (another Julia, not me) can be found at Fatshionista here.

Class and (dis)ability next time.