Many thanks to everyone who's been commenting on our thought provoking bras/no bras posts this week! I love a lively discussion. When it comes to aesthetics vs ability, I think there's two different things going on and two very different mindsets I'm seeing; on one hand, for those with bodies that are not working as they should, and by that I mean without pain, illness, disability, etc, it's ok and normal to not be OK with that 100% of the time. I don't think it's healthist or abelist to say that the human body isn't meant to be damaged or broken in some way. Think of a newborn; except for special circumstances, every baby is born unique and wonderful and healthy. The vast majority of the time you have babies who are whole, without birth defects, illness, etc. This is how we're meant to be, and I'm not just saying that because I've recently been gifted with such a wee baby myself. However, some babies are born with challenges, some big, some small, and all of us will develop things throughout our lives that will challenge us and our bodies. Some things are permanent, like losing a hand or foot; others are not, like a cold or a flu. It's OK to not be OK with these things as they happen. It's definitely OK to challenge the thinking that because something is wrong with the body, something must be wrong with the mind, and to challenge places, people and other ideas that are disrespectful to people who are sick or hurt in some way. To me, the trick is to find a way to be OK with your own body for as much of the time as possible, and on days when you can't, accept that too.
When it comes to aesthetics, like boobs and body fat, hair colour and clothing, I think Fox was right on the money when she said it's likely my dislike of my new boobs comes from them not being socially acceptable anymore. They *were* awesome, according to the arbitrary standards set by society, but now they're not, and I feel that change keenly. I've been imagining going out to La Senza to get myself some nice push-up bras for when I'm not breast-feeding anymore, something that makes me feel sexy and desirable, not a dairy cow. My challenge now is to work on deconstructing these feelings and thoughts and constructing something better.
And now for Katherine in an adorable hat! Have a great weekend!
And
Most the time I can proudly stand behind your blog, but this post is offensive on several levels.
You start out by saying that "for those with bodies that are not working as they should, and by that I mean without pain, illness, disability, etc..."
My body is working as it should. It's because of my body's amazing adaptive abilities that I am alive. My body's job is to make the best out of any situation, and to keep on living. It's offensive to be told that my body is behaving wrongly.
Next, you say that " I don't think it's healthist or abelist to say that the human body isn't meant to be damaged or broken in some way. "
The truth is that not only is your belief ableist, but it's incorrect. The human body is designed with the expectation of damage and brokenness. We're designed to survive, overcome, and adapt to an ever-changing body. These changes range from childbirth and weightgain, to illness and loss of limb.
You follow this with " The vast majority of the time you have babies who are whole, without birth defects, illness, etc. "
I'm not sure what group of babies you're looking at, but the statistics of babies worldwide suggest a huge portion of them are born premature (1 in 8, at least), more are born with HIV/AIDS, an abundance of different diseases and birth defects, even more are damaged in the birthing process, and millions of children and babies die annually. Saying that "most" babies are born "whole" is not only ableist, but classist as well. It's a questionable statement in the first place, but when you consider non-middle/upper class Canadian babies, it's just wrong.
Lastly, you wrote "When it comes to aesthetics, like boobs and body fat, hair colour and clothing..."
Really? Comparing my fat to my clothes isn't fair at all. My fat is not my aesthetic, it's who I am. It isn't something I toss on in the morning to face the day, it's part of my body. I've spent years growing and nurturing this body, and I refuse to treat any part of it as if it were disposable.
I'm surprised to read such callous and (hopefully) unintentionally cruel statements on a blog I've enjoyed reading for so long. No one's perfect, I understand, but I was completely taken aback by the casual privilege you've displayed in this post.
Edit: TL;DR- WTF? *look of horror*
My own privilege, I am swimming in it. Thanks for your thoughtful and well said response,Elli. Lots to digest here, and I will take the time to do so!
I can honestly say that I was not offended by either of your posts, as a not-entirely-able-bodied woman. I can see why others thought your post was problematic, but it's not a feeling that I share. To me, what you meant to say was that it's not always possible to love a body that fails you and that it's okay to feel that your body has failed you sometimes.
I understand, and agree, that "failed" is very subjective, and that to some degree, we were designed to fail because we have the ability to adapt for failure. However, there is a big difference between the "failure" to have supersonic dolphin hearing (which is something no human has)and the failure to walk or hear. Walking and hearing to a certain level of ability is something that humans were designed to have and NOT having them constitutes a disadvantage, in the evolutionary sense and otherwise. Just because we can adapt to those failures does not change the fact that they pose a disadvantage to you that can't be remedied simply by having a different attitude. There is nothing inherently disadvantageous to having a bisexual orientation. If people just treated me like a person, my problems would disappear. Thinking differently will not, however, fix my inability to walk in a walking world.
In the future, I would just watch the language and make it clear that you are coming from a personal place, that you are describing feelings that aren't sorted yet. It was clear to me, but it wasn't totally clear to others. I think you will have better luck that way. Good luck on sorting through post-partum ickiness and coming to terms with your new self. And if you decide that your new self could use a little help (like a new bra) then my all means, treat yourself. No one's perfect.
JoannaDeadWinter - I thought you had a very articulate response. I also live in a body with disabilities. I would like to comment on one part of your comment:
"Thinking differently will not, however, fix my inability to walk in a walking world."
I would like to say that you are, at face value, correct in this sentence. However, I would say that thinking differently is exactly what we need. By thinking differently, you may not fix your inability to walk, but we can fix the "walking world" we live in and expand it to be more than a "walking world". That is the very nature of ableism: To reinforce the idea that walking is better than not walking. seeing is better than not seeing. hearing is better than not hearing. etc etc. The problem isn't your ability to walk or not walk. The problem is the judgement that walking is better, and therefore the world should be suited to those of us who can do it, without regard to those who can not.
I'm late to the discussion, but I guess I'll jump in anyway.
"I don't think it's healthist or abelist to say that the human body isn't meant to be damaged or broken in some way."
The more I think about it, the more weird this sentence seems to me. Meant to by whom? I think I get what you're trying to say, but "meant to" can be anything from "functions best" to "the way things ought to be, and if they're not that way, it's BAD" or even "God thinks anything else is an abomination".
Re: aesthetic, I think that Elli is reading it as definition #4, but I read it as definition #1.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aesthetic?s=t
Certainly, I don't think boobs or hair color, which are also on the list, are something that you can just take off at the end of the day or dispose of if you wish. Even hair color takes repeated work to change, and you can't change too often if you don't want your hair to break off, and sometimes your hair just can't take a big change at all without breaking off (e.g. a lot of people cannot have platinum blond hair unless they want to wear it in a buzz cut). And you can't intentionally change your boobs without surgery or changing your fat, and changing your fat isn't any easier than changing your fat because A=A. (And even changing your fat may not change your boobs in the way you hope.)
Speaking of fat and hair...
"But my waistline is not a behavior any more than my height is a behavior. That can also be altered temporarily if I choose, should I take up the behavior of wearing heels, but it is not in and of itself a behavior.
"My eyesight is not a behavior, though some of my habits can affect it on a temporary or a permanent basis, such as if I spend many hours on the computer. Still, my eyesight is not a behavior.
"My hair is not a behavior, though my behavior can affect it dramatically. I can choose how often to wash it, what products to use on it, how to style it, whether or not to change its color with dye… but all of that does not change the fact that my hair is not a behavior."
EDIT: html tags didn't work, but the quote is from http://manolobig.com/2012/10/13/actually-no-its-not-a-behavior/