well, it's finally happened. i've resisted change for a long time but i've heard that wordpress is better than blogger since before i started this blog and was still just a number poet over on my original blog, girl in back.
blameful.wordpress.com is my new blog. here's hoping it proves to chronicle a more hopeful period of my life than this one has.
one last thing. i got an anonymous comment on my last anti-mamavision rant that mentioned my links section. the person seemed to misinterpret my links section as being somehow negative. now, i titled my links section "places you can fuck off to" because i was being ornery and attempting humor. all it is is a normal list of links i like, a few blogs of friends, and i linked to twisted sister just because, well, i thought it would be a nice thing to do. so, regardless of the fact that i titled it in a weird way the links themselves are links i like not links to people i hate.
for instance, you'll notice that i've never linked to mamaVISION, even though i talk about her constantly. thats because i don't see any reason to add to her popularity in any way by linking to her. so things i don't like i don't link to, wheras even though the title for the section is bitchy, the links are things i actually like.
i would have thought most people could understand that but apparently the anonymous commenter didn't.
see you all on wordpress.
blameful.wordpress.com bitches. learn to love it.
oh crap now i'll have to explain why i just called everyone reading this "bitches".
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
70 pounds lost
i've been thinking about writing this post all day and finally decided to do it after finding myself saying aloud "stupid fat fucking disgusting FAT piece of shit" after i saw that although my weight tonight was the same as this morning and i will certainly see some additional loss tomorrow it wasn't quite the number i was hoping for, ie, .2 or .4 pounds less than it was in the morning.
i've lost 70 pounds, so far, this time around. when i started i said i had about 60 pounds to lose, and my goal weight was 57 pounds less than my weight at the time. the plan, if you'll remember, was to lose it quick and dirty, then jump back into recovery. but *shocker* here i am, 13 pounds below my original goal and i'm so upset over my percieved "fatness" that i start berating myself OUT LOUD for not losing weight quite fast enough.
this is insanity. people on my forum are congratulating me, they're jealous of me for god's sake... and i just feel like crying. it's never going to be good enough, and i've lost everything in my life to this disease and i honestly wish i'd stayed 220+ pounds and functional, back before the very first time i lost weight, with a job and a girlfriend and a future. no, i wasn't happy, i had low self esteem, i had problems with depression and self injury. but i wasn't as unhappy and hopeless as i have been since my ed took over (with the brief reprise of my wonderful OA recovery experience) either.
but, look, before you say anything- i can't go back to recovery. not today, not this week probably. i wont say beyond that, i don't know what it would take at this point to push me over. sometimes i feel so far away, others i feel right on the edge of being able to try again. i don't know if it will be weeks, months, or never. but i know right now it ain't happening.
i've lost 70 pounds, so far, this time around. when i started i said i had about 60 pounds to lose, and my goal weight was 57 pounds less than my weight at the time. the plan, if you'll remember, was to lose it quick and dirty, then jump back into recovery. but *shocker* here i am, 13 pounds below my original goal and i'm so upset over my percieved "fatness" that i start berating myself OUT LOUD for not losing weight quite fast enough.
this is insanity. people on my forum are congratulating me, they're jealous of me for god's sake... and i just feel like crying. it's never going to be good enough, and i've lost everything in my life to this disease and i honestly wish i'd stayed 220+ pounds and functional, back before the very first time i lost weight, with a job and a girlfriend and a future. no, i wasn't happy, i had low self esteem, i had problems with depression and self injury. but i wasn't as unhappy and hopeless as i have been since my ed took over (with the brief reprise of my wonderful OA recovery experience) either.
but, look, before you say anything- i can't go back to recovery. not today, not this week probably. i wont say beyond that, i don't know what it would take at this point to push me over. sometimes i feel so far away, others i feel right on the edge of being able to try again. i don't know if it will be weeks, months, or never. but i know right now it ain't happening.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
musical chairs
this analogy was partly inspired by rio iriri's lovely fuel efficiency blog where she talked about cars as an analogy for people having different metabolisms.
imagine if you will, a game of musical chairs. at the beginning of the game there is only one chair less than there are children going round in a circle. an adult is playing music, and when the music stops all but one child finds a seat.
the adult berates this one left out child saying "why weren't you faster? why weren't you stronger? why weren't you smarter? you are clearly the stupidest, laziest child of the whole bunch!" while the other children look on.
then the adult has the children stand up again, and plays the music, and takes away another chair, again berating the child who is left over for not being smart/strong/fast enough. and then the music starts again, and this time two or three chairs are taken away. again the children that fail to find a seat are berated for not being as smart and strong and fast as the children in the seats. at the end of the game a very small number of children are seated.
are the children seated at the end smarter, stronger, and faster on average than the ones left without chairs? it's possible, to some extent. but the number of children with a seat is clearly dependant on how many seats there are. and if there were no seats at all it wouldn't matter how smart or strong or fast or lucky a child was, they would be unable to find a seat.
the well off conservative is a child in the seats. she says "i don't see the problem, i worked hard and i found a seat. the people without seats are just whiners, they're jealous, they don't deserve a seat. oh, another chair for my feet? thank you soooo much, that's lovely. as i was saying, i don't see why they should have one of my two seats, or the seat i have my laptop resting on, or the seats i've reserved for my children..."
the poor or working class conservative is a child who doesn't have a seat. he says "i just wasn't good enough. oh, a footstool? for me? thank you sooooo much!"
the liberal is generally a child in the seats. she says "um... do you think we might stop taking seats away now? because, well, my seat might be next. and, er, the people who don't have any seats look awfully angry..."
the radical may be seated or unseated. he says "give us back our fucking SEATS! oh, is that too angry? i meant to say, PLEASE give us back our fucking SEATS!!!"
and a communist or anarchist also may be seated or unseated, but is someone who says not only should we have enough seats for everyone, but the table we sit around should be round and no one should have a better seat or position at the table than anyone else.
now, i'm willing to admit there may not be enough seats to have one for absolutely everyone, and maybe it would never be possible to have a completely round table. but i think the government and the corporations should please give us back our fucking seats.
imagine if you will, a game of musical chairs. at the beginning of the game there is only one chair less than there are children going round in a circle. an adult is playing music, and when the music stops all but one child finds a seat.
the adult berates this one left out child saying "why weren't you faster? why weren't you stronger? why weren't you smarter? you are clearly the stupidest, laziest child of the whole bunch!" while the other children look on.
then the adult has the children stand up again, and plays the music, and takes away another chair, again berating the child who is left over for not being smart/strong/fast enough. and then the music starts again, and this time two or three chairs are taken away. again the children that fail to find a seat are berated for not being as smart and strong and fast as the children in the seats. at the end of the game a very small number of children are seated.
are the children seated at the end smarter, stronger, and faster on average than the ones left without chairs? it's possible, to some extent. but the number of children with a seat is clearly dependant on how many seats there are. and if there were no seats at all it wouldn't matter how smart or strong or fast or lucky a child was, they would be unable to find a seat.
the well off conservative is a child in the seats. she says "i don't see the problem, i worked hard and i found a seat. the people without seats are just whiners, they're jealous, they don't deserve a seat. oh, another chair for my feet? thank you soooo much, that's lovely. as i was saying, i don't see why they should have one of my two seats, or the seat i have my laptop resting on, or the seats i've reserved for my children..."
the poor or working class conservative is a child who doesn't have a seat. he says "i just wasn't good enough. oh, a footstool? for me? thank you sooooo much!"
the liberal is generally a child in the seats. she says "um... do you think we might stop taking seats away now? because, well, my seat might be next. and, er, the people who don't have any seats look awfully angry..."
the radical may be seated or unseated. he says "give us back our fucking SEATS! oh, is that too angry? i meant to say, PLEASE give us back our fucking SEATS!!!"
and a communist or anarchist also may be seated or unseated, but is someone who says not only should we have enough seats for everyone, but the table we sit around should be round and no one should have a better seat or position at the table than anyone else.
now, i'm willing to admit there may not be enough seats to have one for absolutely everyone, and maybe it would never be possible to have a completely round table. but i think the government and the corporations should please give us back our fucking seats.
Monday, January 7, 2008
mamaVISION is more pro-ana than i am
dude, i'm once again pissed off at mamavision. if you've read her latest, a 16 year old wrote in saying he'd been picked up by a modelling agency that told him to lose weight from a healthy weight to a much lower and unhealthy one and put him on a 200 calorie a day starvation diet, he had passed out a few times already, and was wondering what to do.
mamaV's caring response? oh, it's your choice, there's good and bad in both ways. far be it from me to tell someone not to model.
what is THAT? i mean, i don't think people should be storming fashion shows prothseletyzing to the models that they leave the business, or kidnapping models to deprogram them. but if someone actually asks your honest opinion is it too much to say "don't do it"???
i mean, i never talk about the fashion industry because it's never really interested me. i tend to comment less when mamaV talks about fashion for the same reason (hint to heather: want to get rid of me? talk about nothing but the eeeevil fashion industry and what they've done lately). but when it comes to a young man who is at a crossroads asking, should i do what they tell me and starve and risk all my health and happiness or should i pull out now? it just seems so abundantly obvious to me that you say "don't do it!" or if you must you could add the redundant "its your decision, but" obviously it's his decision, he asked your advice, give him some!
so, i've come to the conclusion that mamaV is way way more pro-ana than i am. look at the facts! she won't tell someone asking for advice not to starve themselves, despite their having passed out a bunch of times. me? happily tell them starving isn't a smart idea, don't do it. she posts pictures of "thinsperation" on her site practically once a week and is many people's only exposure to thinspo, while i don't like it, look for it, or see it apart from on her site. and in her desire to expose the eeevils of pro-ana she will inevitably end up adding to its strength.
mamaV? she's a proana. definitely. even fits her own criteria since she never had a real eating disorder, just was looking for attention by modelling.
(edit: "zoe" who i assumed to be a she, turned out to be the male "zach". doesn't change anything about my opinion, but i did go back and change my gender pronouns from hers to hims)
mamaV's caring response? oh, it's your choice, there's good and bad in both ways. far be it from me to tell someone not to model.
what is THAT? i mean, i don't think people should be storming fashion shows prothseletyzing to the models that they leave the business, or kidnapping models to deprogram them. but if someone actually asks your honest opinion is it too much to say "don't do it"???
i mean, i never talk about the fashion industry because it's never really interested me. i tend to comment less when mamaV talks about fashion for the same reason (hint to heather: want to get rid of me? talk about nothing but the eeeevil fashion industry and what they've done lately). but when it comes to a young man who is at a crossroads asking, should i do what they tell me and starve and risk all my health and happiness or should i pull out now? it just seems so abundantly obvious to me that you say "don't do it!" or if you must you could add the redundant "its your decision, but" obviously it's his decision, he asked your advice, give him some!
so, i've come to the conclusion that mamaV is way way more pro-ana than i am. look at the facts! she won't tell someone asking for advice not to starve themselves, despite their having passed out a bunch of times. me? happily tell them starving isn't a smart idea, don't do it. she posts pictures of "thinsperation" on her site practically once a week and is many people's only exposure to thinspo, while i don't like it, look for it, or see it apart from on her site. and in her desire to expose the eeevils of pro-ana she will inevitably end up adding to its strength.
mamaV? she's a proana. definitely. even fits her own criteria since she never had a real eating disorder, just was looking for attention by modelling.
(edit: "zoe" who i assumed to be a she, turned out to be the male "zach". doesn't change anything about my opinion, but i did go back and change my gender pronouns from hers to hims)
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
irrational greeks
chapter one, so far so good. i'm able to follow Euclid, at least, and understand the proof of the pythagorean theorem.
when i was in high school we were definitely taught the pythagorean theorem, but i don't think we were taught the proof of that theorem. i wish we had been! i had the problem too often in math class that i wanted to understand why something was true, to really understand how it worked and why it applied as a rule to all situations not just the example in the texbook, but i was only taught what the rule was and how to apply it. as an adult i think, no wonder i hated math! they didn't actually teach me mathematics, they just taught how to solve certain problems and pass their tests.
i think the most interesting story in the chapter was about pythagoras and hippasus. the story goes like this:
pythagoras is at the head of a school of philosophy that holds that all things in the universe can be expressed through integers. this is something that seems beautiful and right to them, a proper ordering of the universe. but then hippasus discovers that the square root of 2 cannot be expressed by any ratio of two integers- it is what's called an irrational number. the pythagoreans can't accept that their religious views are wrong, so they react by throwing hippasus off a boat.
now, before you go and scoff at those greeks for this behavior, think about your own life. for instance, with my eating disorder i have often had the experience of having had something proven to me conclusively (for instance, how my perceptions are distorted causing me to think i'm fatter than i really am) that i couldn't or wouldn't accept. sometimes i even get angry at the person bringing these things to my attention. and don't think eating disorders are a special case! everyone has beliefs that they hold so dear that it is only with great difficulty that they can give them up, regardless of the level of proof that is offered.
what beliefs do you cling to even after seeing evidence against them?
when i was in high school we were definitely taught the pythagorean theorem, but i don't think we were taught the proof of that theorem. i wish we had been! i had the problem too often in math class that i wanted to understand why something was true, to really understand how it worked and why it applied as a rule to all situations not just the example in the texbook, but i was only taught what the rule was and how to apply it. as an adult i think, no wonder i hated math! they didn't actually teach me mathematics, they just taught how to solve certain problems and pass their tests.
i think the most interesting story in the chapter was about pythagoras and hippasus. the story goes like this:
pythagoras is at the head of a school of philosophy that holds that all things in the universe can be expressed through integers. this is something that seems beautiful and right to them, a proper ordering of the universe. but then hippasus discovers that the square root of 2 cannot be expressed by any ratio of two integers- it is what's called an irrational number. the pythagoreans can't accept that their religious views are wrong, so they react by throwing hippasus off a boat.
now, before you go and scoff at those greeks for this behavior, think about your own life. for instance, with my eating disorder i have often had the experience of having had something proven to me conclusively (for instance, how my perceptions are distorted causing me to think i'm fatter than i really am) that i couldn't or wouldn't accept. sometimes i even get angry at the person bringing these things to my attention. and don't think eating disorders are a special case! everyone has beliefs that they hold so dear that it is only with great difficulty that they can give them up, regardless of the level of proof that is offered.
what beliefs do you cling to even after seeing evidence against them?
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
new year, new book
One of my favorite christmas gifts this year was a book, edited by Stephen Hawking, entitled God Created the Integers. This book is about the big ideas in mathematics that enabled our current understanding of the world, and it collects excerpts from important works in the history of mathematics.
I never got as far as calculus in high school and in college my math requirement was satisfied by a statistics course I found quite unchallenging (although I probably don't remember a thing from it). Since leaving school I've often wished to have more of an understanding of mathematics, particularly where it applies to physics. I'm fascinated by quantum physics, relativity, and cosmology, and I read everything i can get my hands on that is written with the lay person in mind, but when it comes to the actual mathematics I'm left completely behind. So for me this book will hopefully provide the kind of window into mathematical thought I feel I've been missing out on.
I think I'll try posting my thoughts as I read, since one of the things I find most helpful in understanding something is to try and explain it to other people. It's a really big, long, equation heavy book and I don't really do "resolutions" but I figured that reading it is the type of overly ambitious project people choose to make resolutions about and while I hope I won't fail at reading it I thought it fit the whole spirit of the new year to declare my intentions vis a vis this uite intimidating book on the first day of the year, 2008.
happy new year, everyone.
I never got as far as calculus in high school and in college my math requirement was satisfied by a statistics course I found quite unchallenging (although I probably don't remember a thing from it). Since leaving school I've often wished to have more of an understanding of mathematics, particularly where it applies to physics. I'm fascinated by quantum physics, relativity, and cosmology, and I read everything i can get my hands on that is written with the lay person in mind, but when it comes to the actual mathematics I'm left completely behind. So for me this book will hopefully provide the kind of window into mathematical thought I feel I've been missing out on.
I think I'll try posting my thoughts as I read, since one of the things I find most helpful in understanding something is to try and explain it to other people. It's a really big, long, equation heavy book and I don't really do "resolutions" but I figured that reading it is the type of overly ambitious project people choose to make resolutions about and while I hope I won't fail at reading it I thought it fit the whole spirit of the new year to declare my intentions vis a vis this uite intimidating book on the first day of the year, 2008.
happy new year, everyone.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
don't blame me, i voted for kodos!
The Iowa caucuses are this Thursday! Since i am a total politics-nerd (among other areas of my nerdiness) I am totally excited. I can't wait to find out what happens- it feels like this really long novel I've been reading for the past year or so is finally getting to the exciting final chapters. So even though my readers don't seem to be as excited by politics as I am, I'm still subjecting you to another political post.
I'm hoping that on the republican side the eeeeevil Mitt Romney will somehow be stopped in time. It's such a nail biter! This guy used to be the governor of my home state so you can trust me when I say he is totally awful. He's such a manipulator- he doesn't seem to have a single actual belief that he holds dear, just a series of calculated political positions. In MA you can't be pro-life and get elected, so he was pro-choice. Now that the situation is reversed and he couldn't get elected as pro-choice, he's magically converted to pro-lifedom. Now, it was bad enough when he was our governor that he used every action he took as governor as part of his future presidential campaign. He didn't care about the state at all, just how things would look to the republican primary voters when it was time for the presidential run he'd been planning all along. But now that presidential run looks like it actually has a chance of succeeding! Why voters reward politicians for this type of behavior is beyond me. what on earth would he do if he actually became president??? No one knows. I have a theory that he is actually Kang and Hillary Clinton is Kodos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
