Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


3 Comments

Is feminism making us fat?

images

I know that paying any heed to articles on The Rebel is the same as reading Breitbart or repeatedly lighting myself on fire but I just can’t resist responding to this article purporting that feminism has “fuelled the obesity crisis” because come fucking on. And who knows, maybe there is a small segment of the population who reads my blog and that site and maybe, just maybe, I can get them (you?) to reconsider their opposition to feminism.

Perhaps we should begin with a refresher about what feminism is. Feminism is the “the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.” Feminism is the belief that men and women should receive equal pay for work of equal value. Feminism is not the belief that men are inferior to women. Feminists are not a bunch of man-hating female nationalists. We are men and women who do not believe that people should be denied opportunities on the basis of gender. Feminism is not about putting men down but about lifting women up so that we can all attain our goals.

Okay, now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s talk about the connection between feminism and obesity. Supposedly, because women are working at paid jobs more than we did in the glory days of the patriarchy we’re not slaving away in the kitchen to put nourishing meals on the table for our families. Hence, we are reliant on fast food and ready-meals that are making our families fat.

There’s little doubt that we are (as a nation) far too reliant on take-out and highly processed foods. I don’t believe that this is the consequence of feminism though. Nor do I believe that taking away women’s jobs and relegating them to the kitchen is the solution. This suggestion that women are to blame for obesity only serves to make working mums feel guilty and sexists to feel vindicated. Sorry but I’m not buying it. Correlation does not equal causation. Women working more outside the home may correlate with rising obesity rates but so do lots of other things like hydro bill rates, college tuition rates, drug poisoning rates, etc. Just because two things are correlated doesn’t mean that there’s any relationship between the two. Reliance on processed food is likely a factor in developing obesity but it’s not the only factor. Obesity is a complex multi-factoral issue with no single cause.

I might add that men are perfectly capable of cooking as well. You want me to believe that men are superior and yet they can’t manage to boil a pot of water or cut up some vegetables? Come on now. I know I’m only a woman but even I can see the flaw in this logic. Everyone can, and should, get cooking and women should continue to do whatever jobs they damn well please.

Advertisements


5 Comments

My problem with “babes”

vintage-pin-up-girl.jpg

Something that I’ve been thinking about for a little while now is the proliferation of “babes” and why it bothers me so much.

It all started with the Food Babe. Others then capitalized on (subverted?) her moniker by proclaiming themselves “Science Babe”, “Farm Babe”, “Biology Babe” and who knows how many others.

There’s a part of me that feels like I should be supportive of these “babes”. Am I a bad feminist for feeling irritated when I see women dubbing themselves “babes”? Maybe. I hope not though.

After some contemplation, I think I’ve figured out why these pseudonyms bother me so much. Many of these women are doing great work. They’re trying to bring scientific literacy to the populace. But why do they need to be babes in order to do this? We all know that sex sells. I’m left feeling like in order for women to be heard, particularly those in male dominated industries, that they need to be attractive to get attention. Can you imagine a man calling himself “Science Babe” or “Science Stud”? Even with my love of alliteration it sounds ridiculous.

By virtue of dubbing themselves “babes” there’s a certain implication that other women in their fields are not babes. That they are somehow unique and that being attractive is necessary in order to be heard. But being attractive or sexy is not an achievement. It has no bearing on intelligence, knowledge, or skills. How sad is it that we live in a world in which we are more inclined to give credence to women who are considered conventionally attractive? That in order to gain attention for our messages that we need to make people think that we’re physically desirable? That the contents of our minds can only be made appealing by first enticing people with our exteriors.

 


1 Comment

Sexism and snacks

url

Of course I couldn’t resist reading the article Nutrition Bars Are Sexist? Oh, Okay when it came through on my Google nutrition news alert. The author writes rather condescendingly about a blog post: The Stereotype-Driven Business of Selling Nutrition Bars to Women

In the original blog post Stephie Grob Plante writes, more than fairly in my opinion, about the marketing of “nutrition” bars to women. These bars include Luna, thinkThin, and Eat Like a Woman. I’ve only seen the former in Canada. However, based on the packaging and the marketing terms I’m in wholehearted agreement with Plante’s assessment of these nutrition bars appealing to the expectation that women desire to be thin and to lose weight. You can see the same thing in the advertisements for Special K and, let’s be honest, pretty much every product that is targeting women. The notion is that women need portion-controlled grab-and-go bars to avoid uncontrollable over eating and subsequent weight gain.

On the other hand, you see energy and protein bars targeting men and athletes. These products focus on packing as many calories and as much protein as possible into a single bar. As Plante points out, the marketing suggests that men are more inclined to forget to eat and need something that they can grab and scarf down.

The responding article, written by Katherine Timpf states that Plante seems to have forgotten that “marketing is about stereotyping”. Oh, okay. Because marketing is rooted in sexist stereotypes that makes it logical that nutrition bars employ said stereotypes to market their products to women. Just because sexism is insidious doesn’t make it okay.

Timpf asserts:

The advertisements are targeted at women who want to lose weight because the bars are intended to appeal to women who want to lose weight. How could this possibly be considered controversial?

Um… It can be considered controversial because the stereotypes employed to market these bars to women are offensive. To tell me, as a woman, that I should eat a bar because it will make me thin is presumptuous. It also goes beyond the implication that I chose my foods to stay or become skinny. It implies that thin is ideal. That I will be more successful in life, and more desirable to men, if only I eat their specially formulated snack bar. Good grief.

Timpf also states that somehow this is an issue to take-up with God(??!!!) because he created men and women differently and therefore, we have different nutrient needs. Yes, okay, on average, men need more calories than women. However, nutrient needs vary more among individuals than between sexes. And one little bar is not going to have a huge impact on your nutrient consumption for the day anyhow.

There is one good point made by Timpf at the very end of her article. That’s the fact that most of these “nutrition” bars aren’t particularly nutritious to begin with and they’re full of highly processed suspect ingredients.

Obviously, making your own snacks is ideal. However, we’re all busy and sometimes a snack bar does come in handy. There are plenty of decent options available that don’t employ sexist marketing messages. You don’t have to support the continued use of sexist marketing tactics. Choose snack bars that focus on the ingredients, nutrition, and flavour rather than telling you that you need to lose weight.


6 Comments

Don’t blame Bittman, family meals are important

url-1

I heard a piece on the CBC recently that rubbed me the wrong way. Then my friend sent me a link to this interview with the author of the study being discussed on the CBC. The study looked at the alleged negative effect that proponents of home-cooked meals (such as Mark Bittman, Jamie Oliver, and other celebrity chefs) have on over-worked mums. This bothered me for a number of reasons.

First of all, it’s not just out-of-touch celebrity chefs advocating for eating home-cooked meals together as a family most evenings. Most dietitians are on-board and probably quite a few other health professions. There are so many good reasons to eat together as a family: home-cooked meals tend to be healthier than restaurant, fast food, take-away, and packaged meals; there is also the important social aspect involved with sitting down and sharing a meal with others; also, if you’re sitting eating at a table you’re less likely to overeat and mindlessly eat than you are if you’re eating in front of the tv or in the car.

Apparently these celebrity chefs are making working mums feel badly because they don’t have the time (and sometimes the money) to prepare elaborate home-cooked meals for their families every night. I get it, we’re all busy but home-cooked meals need not take exorbitant quantities of time or money to prepare. We also need to get our priorities straight. Cooking meals should not be taking time away from quality family time. Cooking meals should be quality family time. Kids can help in the kitchen from quite a young age and can become increasingly involved as they get older. Bonus: children are more likely to eat and enjoy food that they had a hand in preparing. Also, what’s with the burden being placed on mums? I know that the bulk of housework and cooking often falls on women (sorry, not sorry anti-feminists). Men, get in the kitchen! Everyone in the family can be involved in cooking.

Finally, just because a home-cooked family meal seven nights a week might be an unattainable goal, doesn’t mean that we should just throw in the kitchen towel and order a pizza. It’s like the watered down physical activity guidelines that were created because most people won’t meet the minimums that we should truly be meeting. Or dumbing down the grade school curriculum because children might not be able to achieve the desired outcomes. This lowering of the bar is doing us a disservice as a society. Maybe nightly home-cooked meals are not realistic immediate goals. Set a smaller goal to start but keep that end goal in sight. A home-cooked meal doesn’t have to be complicated. It’s okay to have grilled cheese and tomato soup. Planning ahead and prepping ingredients in advance can make nightly family meals achievable. There is no problem with home-cooked meals. There is a problem with our society that doesn’t value home-cooked meals.