It did not go well.
I appreciate your voice. Beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder, and as you have pointed out, it's useless to try to convince someone to have a different subjective beauty measure.
What I find beautiful is not determined by the opinion of someone else. He isn’t wrong.
As a recovering fatty myself, I couldn't help but agree with this. Add in that most of the healthier food is more expensive because of the cost of eating fresher foods. Then taxes on top of that to the foods we eat and the lower classes end up consuming filler garbage that is loaded with bad crap that prolongs its shelf life. Some of the changes to America's obesity epidemic are individualistic, but some involve eliminating food taxes and working to promote fresh foods. We waste a lot of green space that could grow food locally and serve impoverished communities. We need to make urban and suburban farming viable to help with this one!
A few things...
- You have grand and enviable writing skills. This was a joy to read and flowed, oh so well. Thank you!
- I've not read the follow-up to this post, so forgive me if the comments seem ignorant, of what you may have written there.
- I appreciate your candor, in sharing your personal experience with one of the mechanisms at play here...weight management.
- I'll comment on a few items in your piece, starting with Dr. Peterson first.
Ok, so let me try and explain, what I think Dr. Peterson, was getting at. This in no way, is meant to rephrase or reframe his argument. He doesn't need little old me, for that. However, his choice of words "Authoritarian Tolerance", resonated with me.
I agree with you that we all have the choice, to turn the dial, look the other way or not log in. However, that doesn't mean there's not an undertone of authoritarianism, in scenarios like these, where long standing, influential and beloved (by some) institutions are involved. The danger of this push, by the woke-industrial-complex and the need to call it out, lies in the quiet element of "demand", found in each of these types of actions...and the momentum they give to the larger indoctrination/movement.
You can look back and see how the tools of distraction (entertainment) in popular culture, were used to introduce liberal agendas and ideologies. After the introduction, the push was to mainstream them. After they were mainstreamed (which is where we are now), the final final push for normalcy and full acceptance was made. Underlying all those steps, was a current of demand...an unspoken authoritarian demand, for tolerance/full acceptance of the agenda/ideology.
While Si is indeed an institution to many, it's not going to bring down the Republic. However, it is a brick in the populist wall, that surrounds it up. As these "unimportant bricks are loosened and tumble down, they expose the cornerstones. We rightly would say...well if they went after the cornerstones of the Republic, then we most certainly could not turn away and would have to call out their actions. That would be the case, unless, over decades and generations, you were lulled into ignore the loosened brick, into tolerating the disrepair of the crumbling wall and then accept it's collapse...as normal.
If I wanted to subvert a society, I'd quietly and slowly focus my attack on the long standing, popular institutions and use the enemy's beloved messengers (read actors, sports figures, musicians, and writers) to supplant the existing norms, with my ideologies. As I gained more momentum, it'd be easier to break into the more critical societal bastions of my ideological target(s)...maybe using Sesame street to pushing shots, masks, trans issues and normalize pedophilia???
Now, again I agree, we can still turn the dial, BUTT (that's a big butt) that would not stop the influence, my quiet authoritarian demands for tolerance, would have on the rest of the overall society.
There in lies the danger (in my humble opinion). The same could be said for all the deviant educators, that libs of tik-tok have exposed thus far. Sure, people can opt out and home school, but the large percentage who don't/can't, provide hundreds of thousands of mailable minds, to the indoctrinators. Those masses then become the next 2 to 3 generations, of leftist subversives/destroyers, to be unleashed on what little society, we have left.
It all starts with a demand, to accept the obese chic, on the cover of an innocuous rag, that millions of men have picked and "read" for decades. The demand to normalize the abnormal, is most certainly authoritarian.
As examples like this and others are glamorized, popularized, rewarded and mainstreamed (Lizzo much anyone?), our kids watch and emulate...becoming the ready made customers, for not only big pharma, but the political apparatus that will gather them up like ducklings, to be told your fat equals empowerment, happiness and equity...just stand with us and you can be like Lizzo and the SI model and stand against body shaming, climate change, animal cruelty, trans inequity and of course Trump. One umbrella to cover them all.
Objective vs Subjective: I agree with your explanation, but respectfully point out, that one of the underpinnings of the woke-industrial-complex, is to exchange diametrically opposing premises, with one another. So, people (especially kids) are told that the data says obesity is unhealthy, is subjective. If you believe it, you have been preconditioned to be a hater body-shamer and the oppressive, enslaving data is not truth, it's disinformation meant to hurt and kill beautiful and healthy "women"...dare I use that binary term???
The Subjective then becomes all about preference, freedom, propaganda and messaging. All these "truths" are proof, that the facts support the ideology, the "science" of anti body shaming..."in order to fight body-shaming, we must become shameful".
Sounds crazy right...well talk to any hard line leftist, about minors (preteens) having gender reassignment surgery, without their parents knowledge. The juxtaposition of the Subjective & Objective, will floor you.
Promoting Athletic Standards: Lastly, I think EVERY man (regardless of them ever having picked up an SI issue) understands, that the swimsuit issue has always been about selling copies via pornography...not championing Athletic Standards or healthy female image...it's just coincidence that the models that graced the Si cover, adhered to the Playboy standards to varying degrees. After-all, this the SI swimsuit issue has always been safe, "respectable" proxy, for Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler and their contemporaries.
If they could get away with having two naked obese women or two people (any gender/shape) engaging in softcore sex on the cover, you can bet they would print it. The swimsuit issue has never been about women's health or fitness.
Thank you for a great article. I'll recommend you on my stack and dig through your other writings.