"Nothing but the rain"

Unless you've been living in Gollum's Cave for the last few weeks, I assume you will have come across the news that Tess Munster, creator of #effyourbeautystandards has been given a modelling contract. As with anything else on the internet, nothing out of the ordinary can happen without extremes of opinion flying out of the woodwork faster than you can utter "I didn't see that coming".

Tess is 5'4" and a dress size 22 - as such she's far from the traditional size and shape found in the fashion industry. Whilst plenty of people have celebrated this as a victory over the stranglehold of the incredibly narrow vision of beauty perpetuated in the media, plenty more have waved their pitchforks in impotent rage and shouted into the void about what a terrible thing this is.

(Image from http://tessmunster.com/effyourbeautystandards.html)

Various arguments are being thrown about as to why that is. "The fashion industry shouldn't promote poor health" is the first. No, strictly speaking, it shouldn't and it has a responsibility for the media and imagery it produces. However, given that for years we have been discussing the trend of models who are underweight or suffer from eating disorders, this is hardly a new idea. We should also be considering the fact that the primary thing being promoted by the fashion industry is the fashion industry, because it needs to remain relevant on a massive scale.

Second among them is the typical "Oh my God, how is that person a model?!" I'm not even going to dignify that. If you're one of those people, take a fanned long look at yourself and consider your choices.

The one that particularly interested me in terms of this post though is more inextricably tied up with what #effyourbeautystandards is all about. I've seen many variations on the theme of "People that shape should not be comfortable with themselves."

To which I ask, who the hell do you think you are?

There is a difference between being comfortable with yourself and "promoting obesity" or however we wish to phrase it. How comfortable another person is with themselves has nothing to do with anyone else at all - it just simply isn't any of your business.

Why is it that when, just possibly, a small baby step has been made towards a wider representation of shapes and sizes in fashion (which is surely to the good of all), that people are so put out?

I suspect I can answer that. It's because it's something different.

There are a lot of people who don't like anything outside of the norm. It challenges the status quo, and that makes them uncomfortable. Things they don't understand frighten them.

Because they can't understand why a person at a particular end of the weight spectrum would feel happy and secure in their size, they try to impose their view. Anyone outside of the norm has " no right" to feel the comfort and security associated with that norm.

Something else to consider - there appears to be a (completely misplaced) sense that anyone outside the norm is immediately open to public consumption. Everyone else "owns" the right to have an opinion on them and to express it to them regardless of any hurt caused. In revealing I'm a fibromyalgia patient I'm frequently bombarded with everyone and their aunt's opinion on my "attitude" and various things I "should" be doing in order to feel better (because everyone's a doctor). In the same way, it appears anyone carrying extra weight is subject to the fact everyone feels they have the right to tell them what they should be doing with their own body.

Tess Munster is indeed overweight. However, it's her body, and I for one am behind everyone feeling as good as possible about themselves. I'm lucky in many ways that as a petite slim woman I don't have to try very hard to seek representation of someone my size and shape. However, I've still suffered through body hangups and feelings of inadequacy. Having done so, I would not wish them on anyone. The idea then that those outside of the average should be forbidden from feeling good is nothing short of disgusting.

(Even early 90's Disney got their head around the fact people are rubbish at dealing with "different".

Image from quotesandmovies.com)

The same logic can be applied to many things. To take the stereotype of "lazy" chronic illness patients, this sort of thinking would dictate these patients have " no right" to fulfilment and happiness because they are outside someone's box of understanding. They are yet again outside of the "norm".

I quoted Steven Erikson's thought on lifestyle fascists in this post. Humorous as it is, there's a serious point there. When you begin to dictate the parameters and ostracise those outside of them in terms of size, shape and weight, a lifestyle fascist is exactly what you're  becoming.

To further the alternative example of patients with chronic illnesses, to the narrow minded, anyone not out of the house in an average nine-to-five job is "lazy", so patients who are forced to remain at home much of the time are definitely squarely in their firing line. However, they can be doing plenty within their limits to help themsleves and to hopefully improve their situation - negative and ill-informed attitudes do not help. In the same way that attacking Miss Munster stands in the way of the very movement she has thrown herself into supporting, so attacking "lazy" patients can hamper their own efforts to effect change in their lives.

Also, here's an interesting idea to stick in your pipe until you choke - not everyone "can" get better. Not everything is curable. Do you really think you imposing your vicious inability to think outside the box is going to do anything except damage the person you've set your sights on?

But wait, everyone and everything should match your opinion, right? Nothing else is acceptable in your hopelessly narrow existence, is it?

And very neatly, we're back to those people who claim people the size of Miss Munster "have no right to be comfortable with themselves".

You do not get to dictate who can and cannot feel good about themselves, and neither does anybody else. You have no right to take that away from another person.

For me, I tip my hat to Tess Munster. If having just one single representation of themselves makes a group of people who usually cannot see themselves in the fashion industry feel better, then I refuse to accept that is a bad thing. It could well be the first step on the road to all shapes and sizes finding a space in fashion media.

Everyone has the right to self worth and to make peace with themselves - whether they match the ideals of what you wish to do with your own body or not.

If you do not accept that, I suggest you should have some long and hard self-examination ahead of you.


I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this - even though I'm not in the group this is most relevant to, I still think the abuse and narrow-mindedness says a lot of damning things about people, and that needs discussion.

Wishing you all many spoons xxx

Like Light to the Flies

This is a little away from my usual topics of choice, but given this is a blog on the internet and I always ask that people are considerate and polite when they comment and discuss on here, I think the commentary has its place on TRB.

I'm sure most of you will have seen in the wake of the death of Robin Williams that his daughter Zelda has ceased to use Twitter and Instagram following attacks on those websites about the death of her father. I could take up a whole post talking about how disgusting it is that anyone in the wake of such a tragedy would tell her that she is the reason her father committed suicide, or worse still send her mocked up photoshop images of his body in a morgue. Reading about this over this week has really left me feeling disapppointed with the world as a whole. The most disappointing factor is that idealistic as I am even I'm not surprised to hear things like this any more.

What prompted this post however was the chorus of responses calling this behaviour "the dark side of the internet", claiming that "this is the way the internet makes people behave".

John Gabriel simplified this apparent phenomenon down into the Greater Internet Douchebag Theory which is illustrated in the image below:

(Image from escapistmagasine.com)

I can see where this idea comes from, I really can. If you go on any internet forum you will probably see examples which appear to back this up - the cliquier the forum, the more likely you are to encounter this because moral censure is eradicated by the need to be "of the group". So yes, I can appreciate where this theory comes from.

However, let me stop you there and point out that it is in fact howling bullshit.

Put that pitchfork down, I'm not done yet.

The issue I have with this theory and those comments I illustrated above is that they imply that the internet is a sentient being. It's the internet that produces this behaviour, and by extension the behaviour is the internet's fault. This would suggest that the people engaging in this behaviour are all lost little puppies who would never dream of behaving in this way if it wasn't for the depth of depravity that is the sentient brainwashing internet.

Why does this anger me so much? Because it implies the people themselves are not responsible for their behaviour.

Regardless of the idea (which I agree with) that the combination of anonymity and an audience can bring out the worst in people, you are still ultimately in control. Whether you feel entirely safe in your anonymity and however big an audience you may feel is hanging on your response, you still have the final decision in what you choose to say and how you choose to behave in an online environment. Nobody *makes* you do anything.

This also gives rise to another oft-quoted argument - "You can't/shouldn't judge people by how they behave on the internet - it's not a reflection of who they are in real life."

Oh, I think you'll find I can. The internet in this day and age is a part of real life - it's not a pretend environment. You don't get a new clean slate each time you close your browser. Everything you say is visible to potentially millions of people - even if you delete or amend it later, nobody can "un-see" the original comment.

If you're a horrible person on the internet you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that's not the sort of person you are. Again we're implying with that train of thought that the internet can create behaviours, and I don't believe that is so. Exaggerate? Yes, but you still have the agency to prevent that. Create of its own accord? Absolutely not.

That's the same sort of attitude that leads to "It's just the internet" being offered as an excuse for bullying - and that is equally ridiculous. Bullying is bullying wherever it occurs, and if you engage in bullying behaviour then you are a bully. No ifs, no buts. The internet didn't make you that way - your own actions did.

(It really is that simple. Image from cafepress.com)

So, how about we put our big girl pants on and stop making ridiculous excuses for ourselves? It's called owning and taking responsibility for your behaviour - and too many people hide behind the internet as an excuse not to do so.

The horrid behaviour Zelda Williams (and countless others before her) was subjected to was not the "darkness of the internet". It was the darkness of people.



I am off to stick my head in a fantasy book until the disappointment is assuaged with dragons. This is a topic I'm very passionate about, and I would really like to hear people's views on it.

Wishing you all many spoons xxx