Take a Look

http://hobbitdragon.tumblr.com/post/18583663825/gender-by-proxy

Revaluing Women’s Culture: Magic, Miracles, and Logic

    In The Second Sex, Simone De Beauvoir makes many judgments on women in an effort to give women the motivation to change their situation and social status. My concern is that Beauvoir is playing into the stereotype that women’s work, women’s culture, and women in general are less valuable than men. It is a mistake to assume that components of generalized women’s culture are naturally inferior to men’s. Beauvoir, like Betty Friedan, argues that in order to gain transcendence, women must become more like men. It is my argument, that  to encourage one to assimilate into masculinity or femininity is to promote the falsehood that one is innately more valuable than another. To illustrate my argument, I will discuss Beauvoir’s point about women’s belief in magic and men’s belief in miracles as a demonstration of the irrationality of women. I assert that magic is itself an act of assertiveness whilst miracles are a sign of passivity. Then I will discuss Betty Friedan’s solution for women who are locked within the constraints of housewife suburbia as the acquisition of an education in fields that will earn them a career that is typical of male culture.

    Beauvoir writes that women are locked into the monotony of their days. Instead of seeing past their daily routine, and breaking free of repetition that continues to keep them immanent, women believe their routines to be a kind of magic:

    She feels that she is surrounded by waves, radiations, mystic fluids…her religion is full of primitive superstition: wax candles, answered prayers, she believes the saints incarnate the ancient spirits of nature: this one protects travelers, that one women in labor, this other finds lost articles; and, of course, no prodigy can surprise her…she will perform well-tested rites…She is not familiar with the masculine use of logic…masculine reasoning is quite inadequate to the reality with which she deals. (Beauvoir, 599-600)

What I find most interesting about this passage is Beauvoir’s statement about masculine reasoning being inapplicable to women’s reality. Women’s belief in magic and superstition is not, as Beauvoir claims, a testament to their lack of reasoning, but rather a signifier of the different worlds in which men and women inhabit. Magic is an active process. It takes one’s self-determination and a degree of finesse to complete the incantations and rites that are part of magic. One must be meticulous in their actions and clear in their intent in order for magic to achieve the desired effect.

    Beauvoir explains that men believe in miracles rather than magic. By definition, a miracle is something one waits for to happen, something one may hope for, ask for, but it is not something that is achieved through one’s own actions. Magic is an active process that requires one to take an active role in its process. When Beauvoir writes of the rationality of men in their ability to evolve, to separate from old Gods, as opposed to women who cling to old religions, she also implies that women are making a logical decision. Men may seem to adapt to change rationally in creating new gods that fit the contemporary time, but women, maintain their belief in a tangible deity, the Earth. Beauvoir also writes that one cannot honestly bow before a god that they themselves have created. Yet, irrationally, men are seen as the leaders in religious communities who encourage men and women to bow down to a god that they have created. Women’s worshipping of the earth and the elements does not involve worshipping a god that women created, but rather it is about worshipping creation. On some basic level, if Christianity and similar religions is about worshipping a set of morals centered around respecting life, (thou shall not kill, steal, covet another, etc.,) is it not more logical to worship life?

    I agree with Beauvoir’s point about women living outside of the realm of male logic. Women’s domain, as outlined by western society, separates women’s lives from men’s. Each half of this dichotomous system is associated with different traits that ultimately mean men and women play different roles in a community. It makes sense that these roles having little crossover in western society, would have different kinds of logical reasoning associated with them. A woman’s role as a caregiver is more likely to follow logic with a caring, nurturing aim. Men’s logic may be more based in materialistic gain, due to men’s role as provider. Beauvoir’s argument that women are less rational than men because their logic does not fit into the male model only supports the idea that maleness is the standard and that everything outside of masculinity and male achievement is other and less valuable.

    Betty Friedan places similar judgments on women’s culture in her Feminist Manifesto. In the conclusion of her work, Friedan suggests that housewives reestablish themselves as individuals in order to move past the “problem with no name”. Friedan says that the key to their success is to get an education in a field that will provide them a career so that they may become self-sufficient and not have to rely on a man or a family. Where Friedan’s argument loses momentum is where she outlines the sort of studies that a women should involve herself in to achieve her elevation from housewife status. Friedan says that women should move past relying on men for support, yet at the same time, she tells women to rely on male definitions of success and male ideals of what constitutes and education in order to overcome their station in subservience.

    This solution, which continues to devalue woman culture, only elevates women on the surface. In reality, Friedan’s solution is a call for a “if you can’t beat them, join them,” movement. This cop out of a solution does not change the station of women, but rather continues to perpetuate social stereotypes of men’s culture as the more valuable. Assimilation of women into maleness is not a solution for women to gain transcendence in Beauvoir’s terminology. This solution only places women further into immanence because women are not finding their own ground. They are not fighting oppressive systems that devalue them, and they are not provided agency to make decisions about who they are truly if who that is falls into the realm of womanhood rather than masculinity.

    Friedan further contradicts herself in her suggestion that women leave the home in pursuit of their education in “serious”, (and male-dominated) fields and hire a cleaning lady to cover for them in their households. This idea is curious not only in its obvious hypocrisy and likely racist connotations, but also because it acknowledges that the household is still solely a woman’s responsibility. Friedan is essentially encouraging women to take a double shift and to educate themselves, but still attend to their domiciles. If the strain of an education and household chores becomes overwhelming, the answer is not to ask one’s husband to pitch in, but rather to further the subservience of another women to get the job done. Note that Friedan has called women to assimilate into male culture by choosing fields of study that are reflective of male ideals of success, but she refrains from asking the same of men. Here, again, we see a devaluation of women’s culture. It is within reason for a woman to elevate herself by participating in male culture, but clearly it is crossing the line to ask a man to lower himself to the standards of female culture.

    To Friedan’s credit, her solution does showcase the importance of the role of the housewife to a certain extent. By offering a suggestion for how to keep on top of the household while entering the workplace, Friedan implies that women’s culture fills a need in society. However, the importance of that social need is demeaned by Friedan’s suggestion that it can be passed onto another if need be, or that it is not so important as to require one’s full attention. To solely be a housewife is not enough, rather if one chooses to not give their housewife duties to another, then they should be responsible for them and also work towards an education.

    Beauvoir is more blatantly hard on women in The Second Sex than Friedan is in the Feminine Mystique, but they both say a lot that devalues women’s culture. I realize that I have been discussing this topic through a gender dichotomous lens. I have done so because I feel that not only is this reflective of Beauvoir and Friedan’s approaches, but also because it highlights the distinction between socially constructed women’s and men’s culture in western culture. What both of these women do in their work is to raise men’s culture above women’s. In fact, Beauvoir and Friedan shame women for being complicit in their own oppression. While I agree that achieving transcendence is a matter of individual motivation, I believe that these two women do themselves a disservice in devaluing many aspects of women’s culture.

    Faith in magic is not as Beauvoir insists, a sign of irrationality, or passivity. Rather, magic is transcendent in its foundation. Performing magic is about taking action to change something. Further, it represents worship for life and a respect for change. Miracles, attributed to men’s culture, are more about passivity, about waiting for another to decide that change should occur. In effect, belief in miracles makes one immanent because one chooses to give decision-making power to another rather than to effect change themselves. Miracles and modern religion is not an example of the rationality of man, but rather a sign of his irrationality for believing in deities he himself or his culture has created. Faith in the earth and the elements is more logical because it shows an understanding of the fluidity of religion and is a choice to put one’s faith in a constant.

    Friedan and Beauvoir both suggest that women and men live in different realities, and Beauvoir says that they follow different logic systems. This split is reflective of the different roles that women and men play in western society. The devaluation of either of these sets of roles is detrimental. Further, it is not a solution for the oppression of women to suggest that women become more like men. If women are told that to be on equal terms with men they must adopt male behavior, then women have not reached transcendence, they are not liberated, and oppression for women is only shown to have deepened. Rather than calling for assimilation, we should be questioning our beliefs about the value of women’s and men’s culture. Women should be allowed to free themselves on an individual level, to become transcendent, through their own standards without those standards being compared to male ideals of success and logic. 

Dance Like Nobodies Watching: Flailing, Colliding, and Offbeat

I’m not an impressive dancer. I flail around without any sort of rhythm or understanding of tempo. I step off beat. People near me find themselves being driven further towards the edge of the floor as the music picks up. I’ve been known to step on toes and I have a collision record that makes car insurance difficult to come by. I never know what to do with my hands and I spend a lot of time being careful to avoid obscene gestures. My favorite move, and really the only move I know is to combine my rudimentary knowledge of Salsa, Jitterbug, and Belly Dancing into a sort of frankensteinian creation that I like to think of as an octopus who’s lost control of itself.

            In reality, I probably do not look as bad as I think I do when I dance. However, it doesn’t really matter to me. Dancing is something that I can lose myself in. Initially, I know I look silly and possibly dangerous, but after a few minutes, the music takes hold of me and my body carries itself without care in whatever awkward direction it feels like. I highly doubt that when Lynn Hill rock climbs, she is anything but a picture of grace and strength. Through her muscle memory her body is able to flow over the rock and in my mind I see her ascend up the rock face like a river filmed and played backwards to a crowd whose jaws can hardly handle the force of their owner’s awe. After seeing a video of her actually climbing, I saw that she was much more slow and deliberate than I had pictured. I found it interesting that for me athletics have always been about speed and though Lynn Hill is impressively fast, it is not as though she sprints up the mountain with total abandon. What I did notice, was that she obviously loses herself in her climb. I could see in her expression that the cameras trained on her were nothing but an after thought. In fact, I doubt she cared about her television spot at all in the moment. Rather she is there, body and mind and earth as one, moving together. I often think of rock as unmoving, resilient, and stubborn. Watching Lynn Hill reminds me of the dynamic nature of the whole process. She herself is dynamic in her adaptability to the rock face as she climbs. Her body shifts according to holds and different amounts of pressure are used for less stable rock. The rock itself is dynamic in perhaps a more subtle way. The rock shift ever so slightly beneath her weight and she must be extra careful not to put weight on loose rock. The face itself is dynamic due to years of erosion. I am not sure why this struck me so other than to relate it to the interconnected nature of all things.

            When I dance, I have little care for onlookers. The action is completely about playing with the way my body can move to the playfulness of the music. I would not go as far as to say that the music and become one. However, I would say that my muscle memory takes over and I am able to repeat the same steps without thinking about it. Further, I am able to improvise as the music changes without a whole lot of conscious intent. I do not mean to say that kinesthetic actions are better off completely without mindful guidance. I would agree with Chrisholm’s article, “Climbing Like a Girl: An Exemplary Adventure in Feminist Phenomenology”, though that our psychological assumptions can get in the way of our true physical capabilities. If I accepted my own bias that I was an abhorrent dancer then I doubt I would have the courage to dance. I would be denying myself something that I truly love. Dance like nobody’s watching. Something like that, or maybe it should be, Dance for yourself because the opinion of those watching should never deter you from expressing yourself.

The Magic Flute

I'm taking a women's folklore class and was assigned an oral storytelling with gender implications. I decided to loosely base my story off of Yoshitaka Amano's, Mateki: The Magic Flute, which is based off of Mozart's opera.

The Magic Flute

By: Megan Fowler

In the beginning lay the void.

The void gave birth to twins- a daughter of darkness and a son of light.

The two grow up together in the void, and their happiness fueled their creativity.

The two of them loved one another so much that they never wanted to be separated. They each created something so that they could always find the other.

The son created fire to shine through the void and spread warmth and happiness.

The daughter created a flute whose song was pure joy. As the daughter played the flute, the fire danced and the twins were happy. Whenever they went to explore the void, they could always find the other.

A creature sat above the void and watched the twins. It saw the fire dance and listened to the flute’s haunting tune. The creature decided that the flute was the more valuable of the two. The music of the flute could be heard from much farther away than the flames could be seen. Further, it was saw that the flute must be the more powerful because of how the fire obeyed its song. The creature was filled with desire.

The creature entered the void, and as it did, the crack widened.

The creature waited for the twins to separate and then went after the son.

The son wondered through the void and until he found a creature floating in front of him.

“Greetings, Son,” called the creature.

“Who are you?”

“A friend with a warning. Your sister means to conquer you.”

The son does not know what to make of this. “What lies are these that you speak?”

There came then the sound of the flute.

“My sister is calling me, I should go to her,” The son turned to leave.

“See how she strives to outdo your creation? Her song pierces the void in a way that your fire cannot. Further, it is her song that makes your fire dance. She is already your master.”

The son weighed the creature’s words and new them to be true.

“Sister means to kill you and to plunge the void into eternal darkness,” whispered the creature as he felt his desire pulse within him.

“What should I do?”

“Give me your fire, I will take it lead your sister away. You can escape.”

The boy gave the creature his fire. The creature laughed and jumped upon the son. Without his fire, the boy was helpless and the creature swallowed him whole.

Picking his teeth clean, the creature settled down to wait.

The flames danced higher as the haunting music of the flute grew louder. The Daughter of Darkness stopped playing when she saw the creature holding the dancing flames.

“Where is my brother?”

“Your brother was so consumed by your song that he became the dancing fire.”

The daughter was shocked. Her body shook with grief. The daughter new that the creature was lying, but there was nothing she could do. After a moment she reached out her hand, in it she bore the flute.

“Please, take this, in exchange for my brother.”

The creature snatched up his prize and disappeared.

The daughter picked up the flame and held it near her heart. The fire had begun to die in the absence of the music. She felt the loss of her brother drain her as the flame shrunk. Overcome with the pain, she was desperate to cry, however she knew that any tears would put out the tiny flame cupped in her hands. So instead of crying, she opened her mouth and filled the void with her sorrow. The sound of the flute played through the daughter with a new kind of song, a song of grief.

As she sang, the fire in her hand grew until it became a pillar of flame. The void caught on fire. The song burst out from the daughter, the fire burst out from the son.

The fire danced to the music, the music played to the dance.

The creature was destroyed by their power and his body fell into the void, becoming the earth. His blood rained down upon the earth and eroded away rivers, it pooled into oceans. The turmoil from the twins hung above in the sky and the fire became the sun and the song became the moon. Together they watched over creation and their balance pushed the earth and pulled the water.

Queer: An Evolving Definition

Like all identities, queer is something that is multi-faceted and complex. It is also something that holds different meanings to different people. A queer identity has been claimed by those with gender expressions that vary from the male and female dichotomy, those who proclaim a pansexual orientation, or by those who use the word queer as a launching point into a community of political and social radicalism. It is my argument that there are at least two classifications of the word queer as it relates to personal identity. There is debate surrounding the usage of queer as a verb or as a noun. It is my argument that queer can be used distinctly in both of these forms with validity.

            I have grappled with my own frustration in trying to pin down what it means to be queer. I have stubbornly demanded that the term queer remain undefined. I have personally embraced and vehemently advocated for a queer identity that is understood on an individual basis. For me that identity represents fluidity both in gender identity and sexual identity. I acknowledge that my trepidation surrounding the act of solidifying queer into something that represents an immediately recognizable stereotype is caused by my own insecurities. I feel that it is important that it is known as I discuss my viewpoints on queer where my biases lie. I have a home in a queer identity. For the first time I have found a community that I can relate to. I finally feel privileged in being able to experience the sense of protection and strength that comes with numbers. I who have so often rejected community have begun to see things differently now that I feel that I have found one.

             However, the queer community is tremulous. There seems little stability in this community without a definition. Perhaps this is why within nonacademic circles the precision of the term queer is in the background. It is my assumption that the reason that the issue of what it means to identify as queer is skirted is because we each know that our thoughts on the matter are likely in disagreement with each other. I for one am hesitant to state a clear definition of queer because I know what it feels like to be without a community and would never wish to put my hand in removing a community with all of its comforts from another person. With this acknowledged, there are benefits to a concrete identity that the queer community seems to lose out on. The more defined an identity the more stable that community seems to be. Not to say that a community with clear definition is not without its drawbacks, however having key components of one’s identity agreed upon offers a strength and unity that an identity that is totally fluid forfeits.

            Fluidity is possibly the one consistent aspect of the current definitions of what a queer identity is and should not be entirely disregarded. Instead I would like to suggest a possible compromise. There is debate over whether or not queer should be used in the form of a verb or a noun. This discussion seems contradictory to the nature of queer. Instead of seeking a solution within a dichotomy, a societal norm which is at the basis of what is so often rejected by a queer identity, why not concede that queer can not only be either a noun or a verb, but something in between or outside of such typical linguistic devices. The language of queer is atypical and therefore the language used to define it should reflect that reality.

            It is my assertion that queer be allowed two primary classifications with room for crossover between the two. The first class of queer is specifically relevant to those individuals who are both intergender and pansexual identified. The second class of queer relates to sexual practices that are socially against/radical for the society of the individual practicing them. Included in this second classification are those who identify as queer because of political motivations for such sexual practices. Note that one identifying as asexual could still fall within this category if their actions are considered atypical of social standards. Considering the significance within queer theory of the understanding that there is a difference between sex and gender, a fact that is often ignored within American culture, it is also important to promote a clear understanding of the differences between sexual orientation and sexual identity. Further it should be reminded that gender identity and presentation are not indicative of sexual orientation or identity. I clarify this because it is vital to these two classifications of queer that the crossover between them be perhaps more emphasized than the dichotomy they may appear to pose. It is not a matter of a choice to be made. There is no rule that one who is queer must see themselves as only falling within Class A or only in Class B. Instead, wherever one should fall is a valid part of a queer identity.

            It is my hope that rather than divide the community, these definitions can help strengthen it. What may seem a concrete definition is in fact a roundabout way to describe the fluidity of queer in terms that are able to be explained without a lot of difficulty. I believe that these classifications do not undermine the complexity of a queer identity while at the same time making queer seem more attainable to those outside seeking to better understand what it means for someone to say that they are queer. This is taking into account that personal identity is not so simple as to be summarized into a catch phrase or stereotype, but instead makes an introduction to basic understanding accessible.

            With two classifications of queer being understood, I am going to emphasize the crossover between them. In many ways, queer is about challenging the system. Whether consciously or unconsciously, being queer in American society goes against the grain of heterosexist norms. Queer challenges dichotomies of gender, sex, and sexual orientation. To be queer is to deny the poles of masculine and feminine, male and female, or straight and gay. All three of these facets of identity have in common that that they are male-centric. In terms of gender masculine qualities outweighing feminine ones. In terms of sex, male-bodied individuals are seen as stronger, more independent, and more capable of leadership. Finally, in terms of sexual orientation, straight is still considered synonymous with male dominance in that it is the male’s role to proposition the female for sex and his job to penetrate the female. The commonly used term “gay” is one that specifically refers to homosexual men. This term like many other male-centric words and phrases in American English has been repurposed as the commonly accepted term to refer to a group that may also include female-identified and or gender-queer identifies individuals. Queer challenges male-centrism, male-dominance, and dichotomy.

            This further bleeds into the second classification of queer through the radical political/social aspects of one’s sexual practices. Lesbian feminist movements that reject the act of penetration whether only inclusive of vaginal penetration or penetration at all with their partners is a form of the second classification of queer. However, this practice in some ways also reinforces gender stereotypes. Penetration is seen as a heterosexist act that is instigated by male-bodied individuals. This description makes it impossible to healthily replicate such acts in a safe environment. It further eliminates the possibility of penetrative sex between male-bodied and female-bodied individuals being healthy.  This line of thinking gives weight to the argument that there is a dichotomy between the male and female sexes, wherein male-bodied individuals are socially dominant and female-bodied individuals are submissive. While these roles defined as they are are not without evidence the movement away from partnerships with male-bodied individuals is counterproductive to a queer identity that suggests that sex should not matter in the scheme of things. What is further problematic is that this sexual practice plays into the cultural ignorance towards trans and intersex people and instead places everyone in competing roles as strictly male or female. This refusal to acknowledge a trans identity as a gender that is in opposition to one’s birth sex is in clear opposition of primary components of the first queer classification discussed which emphasized dismissing the sex/gender dichotomy. This example illustrates that queer as a verb is not necessarily indicative of queer also as a noun. One can have sexual actions that are queer without having a queer identity.

            As an example of a broad group of sexual practices that fit within the realm of a description of queer as a verb are fetishes. This is an important group of people to include because fetishists are often thrown into a queer identity by default. It is my assertion that fetishism is a component of queer as a verb, but not necessarily as queer as a noun. Once again, a little to a lot of crossover can be seen between classifications of queer within fetishism. The DSM includes multiple types of fetishes that go into the realm of paraphilias. Paraphilias are distinct within stages of fetishes because they rank in the fourth stage of Gebhard’s model of fetishism which is based off the work of Freud. The fourth stage represents fetishism that involves a total replacement of a human for sexual arousal. Instead, an object or act becomes the sole focus of individual’s sexual encounter. On the other end of the model, the first stage suggests a slight preference for an object and is hardly considered a fetish by Gebhard. It is notable that Freud’s work on fetishism did not cover women as fetishists. He considered women to be fetishists only in terms of making themselves more appealing to the men they sought to have sex with.

            Queer as a verb and as a noun can be two distinct categories, but under the definition of queer these categories have room to merge and crossover so as to not offer a dichotomous definition for an identity which rejects dichotomies. Under this definition, a heterosexual person can be queer as a fetishist, or one who participates in socially abnormal sexual practices. A queer identity can also mean a person identifies as intergender and pansexual, but does not necessarily have sexual practices that go against the grain of society. However, it is arguable that if a person is intergender and pansexual that their sexual practices would also be queer because they do not fit into the narrow category of male dominant, female submissive.

            

A Body Positive Sort of Day

I'm at work in the GLBT Student Services office at my college. Since it is break, I am spending my lax day intermittently working on an event I'm working to plan and browsing the internet. I have found myself in a low body image rut over the past few weeks. It seems that years of being bashed for my body have all welled up and combined into a spewing froth that I can't damn up lately. Part of me thinks it is healthy to get rid of so much negativity. I've started talking about my internal battle with self-image more openly with people I trust. Today is not like the past several though. Today is a body positive sort of day. The kind of "nothing can get me down,sunshine despite the snow" sort of day. I got a haircut- short like I like it, partly in defiance of anyone who has ever told me that short hair would accentuate my round face in all the wrong ways. Honestly, I've never felt better than with short hair, which is why I keep it short, despite what people may think. To sum up and elaborate on things in a way which I neither have the time, nor the articulation for, I wanted to leave you with some boy positive articles, photos and more in the hope that you have the same sort of body positive day that I am.

Margaret Cho talks about growing up bullied and what that means for her now

Plus size model magazine on the state of the modeling industry

http://www.adipositivity.com/

Photographic height/weight chart

http://heatherbarron.blogspot.com/

thebustytraveler.blogspot.com
 

Please share the positivity. I am always interested to see what others find interesting in this subject. Comments are my favorite part of blogging. I'd much rather hear what others have to say than listen to myself talk. :D

Tank Girl

I haven't written for a while, you may have noticed. Just now I was looking at an old friend of mine's blog. Every time I see it, I smile. I remember last winter after a long day at the office we braved a snowstorm in my Infiniti, a car that has been through a lot more than it should have for it's age, to high off of excitement to care about the slippy ice below bald tires. I met her sisters and her mother and we played dress up as even adults do. Steampunked and ready after quick looks in the mirror we carefully braved the treacherous interstate in search of a good time. we listened to Bjork and talked about Tank Girl. I thought about how much I would love to have the take-no-prisoners attitude of the comics' feisty heroine. We took turns talking about how beautiful we all looked. I couldn't help thinking that I was lucky to know such a strong person. I looked up to her for her swift intelligence and social grace, but also for her adamant size positivity. She made me question things like an office movement for weight loss, which at first I was behind, thinking that maybe it was for health reasons. She raised a point that hadn't occurred to me. What's wrong with being fat? According to her, nothing.

That is a hard thing to accept. I was told all my life that my issue was that I was fat. Somehow I interpreted these messages as fat being the root of all of my problems. Whenever I felt inadequate, I thought it was because I was fat. I have struggled for a very long time to not be fat, doing things I'm not proud of to achieve a goal that I barely understood. After leaving home I began to become more comfortable with my body on the surface, however internally I still carried and carry self loathing because of my appearance. Every time I start to feel comfortable with myself, something small tears me down again. It is hard for me to admit that I am so fragile.

I look back on my friend and think how beautiful she was to me. I find strength in those memories. I think how strange it is that I find curvy, busty, (dare I say it, fat?) women attractive. Why can't I accept this as a part of myself? Everyday I make a conscious effort to think of myself differently. Some days it is a little easier. The bottom line is that in reality I do not want to change myself to meet societal standards. I want to like myself. I just don't want to convince other people that I am allowed to. That I should not be ashamed to like myself for being fat.

I was recently diagnosed with poly cystic ovary syndrome. Apparently it is not uncommon. Honestly, I am happy that I finally have an answer to some medical issues I've been dealing with for a while now. The hardest part of the diagnosis and why this information is relevant to my rant above is that one of the best ways to deal with PCOS is to lower simple carbohydrates intake and to try and lose weight. There is a certain finality unlike any other when a doctor looks at you and tells you that you need to lose weight. It hurts in a stingy sort of tear jerking way to think that my internal battle over fat and skinny can be for naught. At the end of the day someone can still tear your self-esteem apart. Someone can give you a reason that you can't argue against, no matter how much you want to, for you to change yourself. When I heard the diagnosis it was a crushing defeat. I felt like a  betrayer to my fat positive allies. I felt like I had turned my back on all of those people who have told me that I am beautiful and fat, just by having a medical problem that I did not cause. That shame for letting people down shifts to feeling like I caused my illness. This is my punishment for not loving myself without condition. My ultimatum: either lose weight or get sicker.

I wish I could speak to my friend again, but we have lost contact. I could use Tank Girl right about now.