Wreath Wrath (Updated)

November 27, 2006 at 10:27 PM (Idiocy)

Only in Colorado. Apparently a condominum board leader wanted a tenant to take this evil symbol down as an “antiwar protest” or face a 25 dollar a day fine.
All the other board members must have known this symbol was a peace sign, and said “C’mon fellah. It’s the holidays. Peace is what we’re celebrating here.”
He fired them.
Update: apparently the fired folk have been ‘rehired’ and the condo owner has recieved an apology from the board and been advised she can keep her wreath without wrath.

Permalink 4 Comments

What’s in a name?

November 27, 2006 at 8:45 PM (inquiry, Sizism)

The decision maker at the NYT has muddied the waters so much on this I don’t know whether to be glad or pissed off. First, why in all the many circles of hell did it end up in the Fashion and Style department? I watch Bravo, so I *know* fat isn’t the new thin.

(Oh, and BTW Bravo? ‘Braveheart’ was a great flick, but can you show *anything* else? Just because Gibson’s getting wacky doesn’t mean I have to watch him sixteen times a month.)

Glad, because the subject of the article says “I’m fat. So what,” which will be my newest response to those that can’t see my low and even cholesterol and blood pressure numbers as a sign of improved health. I’m doomed because I take up too much space and damn the test results.

Do I want the study of people’s attitude and response to fat people to become an integrated part of an existing studies program at a university? Yes, absolutely past time. Because attitude towards heavyset persons contributes in a major way to stresses and economic shortfalls they face. But is the name “fat studies” generating more ha ha point and laugh than I should have to read through in an hour of blog searching? Yes, and Ann Althouse and her commenters can kiss my…well you know.

I’m not shying away from claiming the word “fat” I figure that’s a good idea. But, is it more important to claim that word, or be taken seriously as an area for academic inquiry?

Who has it better, who has it worse, who has been most oppressed, who has been least…or those who act as if since prejudice shouldn’t exist, it doesn’t.

The troubling phenomenon of one ostracized group unable to recognize themselves doing the *very same thing,* to another group, all in the name, it seems of either denying ostracism happens at all, from a lofty perch of privilege, or in the name of hanging on to a higher rung in the ladder than the ones beneath them.

When did seeing commonalities become an insult? (for example: sexism, versus ableism, versus racism, versus homophobia, versus sizism) It’s not about “who has it worse…” or “Thank God I’m not part of [name of scorned group of persons].

I want the next degree program to recognize the commonality in all of the above and not move people forward until they’ve done some heavy research into why and how these ostracisms are connected and *how to fix it withought screwing another group of opressed persons. A little practicality along with ‘publish or perish.’ * Programs that fracture are good for the fact of getting certain issues into the public eye…but afterwards if the sound work isn’t done connecting new avenues of inquiry into what’s gone before…it opens up the field, whatever it is, for some pretty shrill and nasty criticism.

Then move forward in the old way: Don’t bend the primary source material to fit the facts, and by the same token don’t ignore the bias in primary and secondary sources.

Permalink 8 Comments