Healthy is the new perfect

Recently i saw this image circulating on my Facebook newsfeed and it got me thinking about the unhealthy relationship there seems to be between weight and the media:

As women we are caught in the middle of a battle of two extremes. On the one hand we are faced with an onslaught of campaigns such as this one telling us to love our bodies whilst simultaneously skinny shaming and confusing being curvy with overweight. On the other hand is the campaign telling us that if we are not a perfect, toned size zero then we are failing in life. What society needs to accept however is that both of these extreme media portrayals is not only wrong but damaging to society, and to the self esteem and self image of women and girls in general.

My personal trainer embarked on a particularly bitter rant about  the Yours "love your curves" campaign during our last session asking at what point being curvy became synonymous with being overweight. Clearly there is merit in what the campaign is attempting to do, boosting the idea of self esteem, loving your body and having body confidence. However, if you think of traditionally curvy women, Marilyn Monroe, Beyonce, Kim Kardashian, none of them are above a UK size 8 in dress size. Despite frequent claims that Marilyn Monroe was beautiful at size 16, she never weighed more than 140lb and spent most of her career at around 120lb. By making the word curvy synonymous with being overweight we have not only managed to make it quite an insulting word for many women, but we have trivialised what is a serious issue in this country: obesity.

When images of severely underweight girls are portrayed society, quite rightly,  is very fast to point out the health risks of such a lifestyle and to insist that the girl should put on weight in order to be healthy. Why then is it so taboo to do the same for overweight women? By telling them that they are perfect as they are we are encouraging them to continue with a lifestyle that costs the NHS over $5 billion a year. Obesity increases the risk of cancer, diabetes, depression, heart attacks and numerous other health problems including severe pressure on the joints and bones which can leave an individual  wheelchair bound. Clearly we should be encouraging women to love themselves and feel confident and beautiful no matter what their size. But part of loving yourself should be a desire to take care of yourself, to be healthy, and to live a long life.

Furthermore, the "curvy" campaign is even more damaging when it attempts skinny shaming:


The only merit of the natural beauty campaigns has come from their attempts to build self confidence and self esteem in women. But images such as the one above, which frequently circulate around social media, tell girls that are slim or skinny that they are unattractive and worthless. Not only are these campaigns encouraging people to continue living an unhealthy lifestyle then, but they are outright attempting to drag down the confidence of girls who do not. A true natural beauty campaign should aim to raise the confidence of every women to feel good in her own skin, whilst encouraging her to live a healthy lifestyle which avoids either extreme in weight and dress size.

On the other side of the conflict we have the ever present pressure from the media for girls to not only be slim and perfect, but in many cases severely underweight. This stretches far deeper than the obvious Victoria Secret and other fashion campaigns which come under constant criticism. Indeed, the most worrying influence from the media is far more subtle. In an early episode of The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon asks Penny if she weighs 120lb and she gasps in horror taking huge offence. A quick google of Kaley Cuoco will tell us that she is 5ft 6. Weighing in at 120lb then would give her a BMI of just 18.8, scraping into the Healthy BMI category. To weigh even 5lb less, an easy assumption given by her horror at being accused of weighing 120lb, would give a BMI of 18 putting her as firmly underweight. No one is denying that Kaley is incredibly beautiful, but the suggestion that she would be overweight if she weighed 120lb is damaging to any attempts to get girls to maintain a healthy weight. It implies that 120lb is too much for a girl to weigh when in reality, for a girl of Kayley's height, is dangerously near the low end of perfect.

A more serious example came from an episode of American Dad where Francine, fearing that Stan loves her only for her appearance, decides to stop her beauty routine in order to test if he loves her for her inner beauty. During their later love making Stan is seen staring longingly at a copy of Francine's driving license where it clearly states that she was 109lb. Once again, a quick google reveals that Francine Smith is drawn to be 5ft 6, the same height as Kayley. To weigh 109lb then would give her the dangerously low BMI of 16.9, a BMI of 18 or under is considered underweight and dangerous to the health.

We must not forget that being underweight has as many health implications as being overweight. You are as likely to have a heart attack from being underweight as overweight. Indeed a recent study found that you are 1.8 times more likely to die if your BMI is under 18.5 and 1.2 times more likely to die if your BMI is over 30. This means it is more dangerous to be underweight than overweight, although once the BMI increases further than 34 so does the risk. Being underweight increases the risk of infertility, hair loss, damage to the bones, and organ failure as the body cannot get enough nutrients.

What both the media, and society, needs to take more account of then is that weight and dress size is not simply a matter of self confidence. It is a serious health issue which should be treated as such. In order to have a healthy society, and reduce the pressure on the NHS and individuals in general, we need to demand an end of both sides of the extreme campaign. No more pretending that its ok for a women to be overweight, no more skinny shaming but equally, no more telling a woman that if her BMI is over 18 she is fat. The true love your body campaigns should be encouraging women to love themselves by looking after their bodies. By eating healthily and exercising, not to be skinny, but to be strong and healthy.

And the perfect image to end on:

Sources

Danny Doggett-Short (2014) http://ddsfitness.co.uk/
http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/the-body-of-marilyn-monroe/
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-obesity-and-improving-diet
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140328103037.htm

#selfie

Over the last few weeks we have seen the "no makeup selfie" flood social media in a cancer research campaign. I must admit that i was initially one of the cynics questioning how taking a selfie could possibly benefit cancer research. Moreover, the countless photographs taking over my facebook news feed was starting to hugely irritate me! Of course there are many girls out there who have posted the selfie just to demonstrate how good they look without makeup with very little consideration to the cause. However, the benefits that this craze has had for creating publicity and raising donations cannot be ignored.

The campaign has raised over £2 million for cancer research; a huge achievement! What's most impressive is that this craze was not organized by anyone involved in the charity or media but grew naturally from ordinary women. It demonstrates how in the connected world we live in, individuals have the power to do incredible things!

Gibson, a lecturer at Nottingham Trent, commented, "This campaign has captured the imagination. Very rapid communication like this has never been faster in human history, but you have to be careful". She warned of the dangers of the campaign that the message might be lost in transit. However, surely in a campaign like this the message doesn't always have to be clear? Half of the success of the campaign has been in getting people talking about it; about the selfie, the cause, and the donation. The questioning and communication is what has raised the profile and made this craze quite so successful.

Moreover, there are successes of this campaign on a more personal level which must be considered. Many girls have commented on how difficult it was to take a natural picture, without makeup and countless filters. My friend and i ourselves joked that we only deem a picture of us fit for public consumption after we have covered it with 2 filters. It is therefore refreshing to see so many young women daring to bare their faces and risk criticism in the name of cancer research. Perhaps it will spark a new trend of women loving themselves rather than feeling the need to hide behind photo shop and inches of makeup. Natural beauty.

Sources: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26683817

Jon Richardson: Nidiot?

Nidiot: noun a person who is or should be happy and deliberately screws it up.

I spent the evening at the opening night of Jon Richardson's new Nidiot tour. He was obviously nervous and who can blame him? Kings Lynn presented him with a tough crowd· it was a small theatre and the people who filled it were, on the most part, quieter and less interactive than Richardson would probably have liked. Attempting to banter with the front row was a painful experienc which Richardson succeeded in making the best out of:

Richardson: what did you do today?
Audience member: went for a walk
Richardson: where did you walk?
Audience member: general area

And later after hearing the audience member had been for a pint:

Richardson: what beer did you drink?
Audience member: just ordinary beer

Richardson styled it out with a rant about the guys depressing nature and some jokes about the general fen accent but one has to wonder why such a boring guy chose to sit on the front row to begin with!

Then there was the incredibly annoying woman on the balcony who clearly fancied herself a comedian in her own right shouting advice and providing "sound effects". Richardson would that she was trying to be helpful but they weren't really getting on. If he hates people nearly as much as i do, and he professes to, there was more truth than comedy in that statement.

The act in general was a bit unpolished and scrabbled together in places; Richardson himself admitted that he had sworn too much. However, both of these are forgivable considering it being the first night of the tour. Despite the slight roughness around the edges Richardson's natural charm and wit shone through to make it a clever and very funny routine.

A particularly successful section of the routine came when Richardson read letters from K ins Lynn's local paper. This may not work so well in more "average" venues but in Kings Lynn, where the letters included a eulogy to a beloved spade and a letter of complaint about an uneven wall, it provided a comical look at local life and revealed just how accurate fen stereotypes are! 

The second half of the act was largely devoted to his new relationship and girlfriend. Although part of my heart breaks that his girlfriend is not me, it was lovely to see him be so obviously happy. However, he joked that this happiness may prove career ending and it must be observed that he has become seemingly less bitter, cynical and generally less angry than when he was single. Clearly love has softened him up! My only hope is that he doesn't completely stop hating people as a result of his new found love because some of Richardsons best material has sprung from the disgruntled old man within.

It is Richardson's quirky individualism and quick witted responses to slip ups and events which stole the show more than the  rehearsed jokes. He is a naturally likeable man and his awkward laughter and occasional nervousness gives you the urge to hug him. He has also developed into a very skilled comedian and once the wrinkles of the first show have been ironed out Nidiot will be a truly brilliant tour.

If you have not yet purchased tickets for Nidiot, grab them while you can, it is selling out fast. Its a laugh packed show, from one of the most talented comedians currently around,  which would be a serious error to miss.

Dont be a Nidiot, make sure you're in one of the audiences.

Ukraine: Is World War 3 looming?

I'll be the first to admit that the chaos in Ukraine is far from easy to understand. Comedian Adam Hills quipped that the news stories on Ukraine should begin like the t.v show 24 with "previously in the Ukraine" in order to provide some sort of summary. In the Last Leg he offered a 'simplified guide' to events in Ukraine:

"Here's a simplified guide to what's going on in the Ukraine: The people of the Ukraine staged an uprising against President Viktor Yanukovych, now he disappeared leaving the way for jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko to come out of jail and stake her claim for the top job. Meanwhile, former boxer Vitali Klitschko announced he would run for President, and Yanukovych finally surfaced in Crimea. Even that's still confusing. Now lets put the whole thing in British terms. Imagine David Cameron was jailed for doing a dodgy gas deal and Ed Miliband became Prime Minister. Then in a few weeks time there was rioting in the streets because Miliband signed his own dodgy deal with France so he disappears in a helicopter, Cameron is released from jail and Miliband finally shows up in Aberystwyth . Then just as things couldn't get any weirder Frank Bruno throws his hat into the ring. That's basically what has gone on in the Ukraine!"



So where does Russia come into this? Yanukovych has close ties to Russia and was attempting to improve Ukraine's relationship with it at the expense of membership with the EU. Therefore, after being evicted from government, he issued a statement via Russian media insisting his right to the position. Meanwhile, Putin claims that he has a right to protect the interests of the Russian minority in Ukraine.

We have now seen "a slow-motion invasion on the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians and 'normalizing' the situation that western nations so recklessly fueled in Kiev" (Yuhas).

Ukraine has now mobilized its forces and Putin is sending more troops over; Crimea is now under complete Russian control. Yesterday, we witnessed Russia issue Ukraine with an ultimatum: surrender or face an assault.

So what has the West done? Obama has had a "90 minute" phone call with Putin warning that he has broken international law. All military cooperation between Russia and the US has been suspended and it appears that Russia is now in direct opposition with the US and the EU. Meanwhile, Cameron is planning sanctions against Russia to ensure it "pays significant costs for violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine, after Mosko assumed control of Crimea." Currently, both America and Britain are denying that military action is an option. However, that is something which is highly likely to change if Putin extends his forces further out of Crimea into Ukraine.

In 1994, both Britain and the US signed the Budapest Memorandum treaty which technically means that if Russia invades Ukraine, Britain and the US have no choice but to go to war. Moreover, Russia's actions over Crimea has been widely compared to the Nazi's actions concerning Austria which sparked World War 2. If therefore, Russia did invade Ukraine, it is not a stretch of the imagination to imagine  large scale war erupting.

What would this war look like?

It is difficult to imagine whether or not World War 3 would look like World War 2 for example would there be another blitz? The biggest concern is that World War 3 would be a nuclear war which would leave casualties far and wide and for many years to come. I would like to believe that even given the eruption of World War 3, nuclear weapons would not be used. However, it is likely that were Russia or America to believe that they were drastically losing the war, they would resort to the use of their nuclear arsenals to finish it once and for all. Moreover, if the powers that be concluded that the use of a nuclear weapon would end the war fast and with less casualties than a drawn out bloody war, the temptation to use such weapons would certainly grow. This is a particularly terrifying thought as a nuclear war would, realistically, be the final war. Very few would survive.



However, we must remember that it was only a few months ago that WW3 over Syria appeared inevitable. Currently, Putin is insisting that military force against Ukraine will be a last resort and the West is very keen to use diplomatic means rather than force to resolve the situation. As it stands, there is every chance that the whole situation will blow over, as it has with Syria, and we can once again continue our peaceful, secure lives.

Unfortunately, the future of our security rests in the hands of a man like Putin.



Sources:

The Last Leg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26248275
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/ukraine-crisis-russia-crimea-commentary-analysis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10672417/Ukraine-crisis-as-it-happened-US-puts-military-cooperation-with-Russia-on-hold.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/crimea-crisis-david-cameron-sanctions-russia-ukraine

The Book Thief: Will it steal your heart?

In the preface to his novel The Stand, Stephen King wrote:

"Movies, after all, are only an illusion of motion comprised of thousands of still photographs. The imagination, however, moves with its own tidal flow. Films, even the best of them, freeze fiction- anyone who has ever seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and then reads Ken Kesey's novel will find it hard or impossible not to see Jack Nicholson's face on Randle Patrick McMurphy. That is not necessarily bad... but it is limiting. The glory of a good tale is that it is limitless and fluid; a good tale belongs to each reader in its own particular way."

If you have not read The Book Thief by Markus Zusak then the first thing you should do is put this down and pick it up. Like on most occasions when a beautiful piece of literature is produced for the big screen, Percival's adaption of The Book Thief does not do it justice. There is much that is missed out, which is necessary in order to fit into the 130 minute running time, but leaves a lot of the tale untold. The character of Max in particular is hugely underdeveloped in this movie, we see little of his thoughts, dreams and complexities. Anyone who wishes to truly understand the magic and intricacy of the story, and to live the events along with the characters,  should take a leaf out of Liesel's book and read it.



Accepting then, for the moment, that a film adaptation will never successfully portray the wonder of the story in written form, I shall attempt to review this movie as independently as possible.

Geoffrey Rush was perfectly cast as Hans and, as always, did a fantastic job. He was warm, and likable, with twinkling eyes, the perfect portrayal of a friendly step father to an abandoned child. His performance of despair after realizing he had put his family in danger was incredibly heart wrenching and powerful and definitely deserving of awards. Sophie Nelisse too should gain credit for her strong performance as Liesel. Her German accent however, like with many of the characters, is rough and almost painful to the ear. The accents in general in this movie sound like an amateur drama group at a secondary school rather than a Hollywood blockbuster!



To begin with, Rosa (Emily Watson) and Hans are almost one dimensional, and Rosa verges on the pantomime. However, it is possible that Percival was attempting to show us them through Liesel's eyes, as a scared child in an unfamiliar environment. As the movie goes on, and Liesel becomes closer with Rosa, she becomes far more likable and the depth to both her and Hans grows. This is important because the ending would have nowhere near as much impact without the characters finally receiving that dash of reality.

The touches of wartime Germany were powerful and touching, portraying the people as just the same as the British, seeking protection in Bomb Shelters, singing and telling stories to keep morale up. The film deliberately avoids too much focus on the Nazi movement itself, focussing on the war time struggles of the every day people. This has been criticized by many such as Bradshaw who writes, "It's a worryingly lenient and obtuse approach to history and historical evil, which are smothered in feel good tragi-sentimental slush." Yet, in there scarcity, the scenes which do zone in on the Nazi's then, stand out as far more dramatic. We, along with characters, are jolted out of a focus on the small everyday,  and reminded of the worse horrors occurring outside of the street. The book burning scene in particular serves as a grim reminder of the Nazi regime, as books such as H G Wells The Invisible Man are piled on a bonfire while the crowd sings about destroying communists and Jews. The arrest of a German man after his birth certificate revealed he had Jewish heritage also served as a reminder of the brutal, no tolerance attitude of the regime and the march of the Jews through the street with their yellow starts pinned dismally to their chest, gives the first real mention of the holocaust in the film.

The film therefore makes some way to answering the question, how did ordinary people in Germany allow the holocaust to occur and the Nazis to control? Fear obviously is one factor. But the film demonstrates how easy it was for ordinary people to focus on the problems in their own bubble of life, their own streets, only faced with the real severity of the outside situation on rare occasions.

The handling of death in the movie was so nearly done well. The biggest issue of it was the way the cameras fell through the clouds during his opening narration, giving the appearance of Peter Pan or some other Disney movie. However, Death's narration at the end of the movie was hauntingly perfect and there is little criticism I can make there.



This adaptation has been criticized for being too soft to deal with the hard issues in the novel. Indeed, it might have benefited from being a certificate 15 to allow a more real portrayal of the material. Writing for the Guardian, Macnab argues "The swirling John Williams score and unabashed sentimentality don't help a film that would have benefited from taking a tougher approach." However, what the film does do is create a beautiful tale of strength and heroism in small acts and every day people, which is "swirling" and "sentimental" enough for children, yet dark and hard enough for adults to enjoy too.

Few viewers will regret watching this movie, it is heartwarming with a touch of the tragic. However, to really fall in love with this tale, please, please, pick up the book.

Sources

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/the-book-thief-film-review-dark-material-but-this-film-plays-like-a-typical-comingofage-story-9158494.html
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/feb/28/book-thief-review-film-markus-zusak
King, Stephen (2011) 'Preface' in The Stand USA: Anchor

Land of Milk and Honey

During the summer i had the pleasure of travelling around Israel. It's an incredibly beautiful country and one of those rare places of living history, where you're surrounded by streets and buildings which are thousands of years old. I have to say that it is the nicest, friendliest, and most inspiring country i have had the luck of visiting. We even ventured into the borders of Syria and Lebanon during our travels, at one point parking next to a sign warning of "military fire" and climbing an abandoned, bombed mosque.

I was desperate to go back this summer but unfortunately, the political situation in Israel means it is not currently an ideal holiday destination. The Government website warns that "there is a general threat of terrorism", and to stay away from Gaza, the border of Lebanon, and the entire West Bank. Most disconcertingly for a would be tourist it is warning to be incredibly vigilant in the Old City of Jerusalem, a city which i loved during my visit, due to the recent unrest.

It is not suprising that there are currently Government warnings on travel to Israel, with the unrest on temple mount, and most recently Israeli air strikes into Lebanon, it is not difficult to foresee the situation getting worse in the very near future.

Moreover, on Monday Israel signed into law a Bill which legally distinguishes between Christians and Arabs. This demonstrates, the continued religious and cultural tension in the country. This Bill is particularly troubling for a human rights activist as it suggests that your religion can de-certify you from being a race. Why is an Arab only allowed to be a part of the culture if they are a Muslim and not a Christian? It is the start of a slippery slope if we can start picking and choosing the members of our race as a result of their religion; is that not how the holocaust started?

Surprisingly, it was Christians who largely supported this bill believing it would increase their employment opportunities and wanting to be "recognized without being lumped together with any Arab party".  The Bill was interestingly opposed by the majority of Muslims in Israel who argued that it undermined the Arab culture within Israel. Regardless of which group was advocating this bill, it is still another form of segregation to divide the country rather than uniting the cultural groups.

Israel is currently a country with ever increasing cultural strife and the growing threat of war with Lebanon. Moreover, there is a general danger of terrorism which means that no part of the country is currently safe. However, one should not discount future travel to Israel when it is safer. It is a country that you cannot help but fall in love with. Furthermore, the people there, both Palestinian and Israel, are some of the friendliest and most accommodating people in the world, to tourists that is.

My thoughts and prayers are with the country that things might settle back down to security again in the near future.

Sources:

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24463/Default.aspx?hp=article_title
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26332089

"Eating Disorders can be Fatal"

I am amazed by how far behind public knowledge the media appears to be in recent days. Previously we saw the shockingly outdated articles discussing the "new phenomenon" of prinking, an activity which has been around long before our generation took it up. Most recently, the BBC published an article entitled "eating disorders can be fatal".

No shit Sherlock.

It is not unreasonable to assume that it is public knowledge that routinely starving yourself can have serious health implications on the body. I would hazard a guess that the majority, if not all, people suffering from an eating disorder know full well that there is the potential it can be fatal. They are told it on a frequent basis by doctors, psychiatrists, family and friends.

A quick glance at any of the pro-ana and thinspiration websites online, and there are many, shows numerous references to the fact that the disorder is fatal. People suffering from ana, mia or any other eating disorder, don't continue out of ignorance, out of some misguided belief that their behavior is healthy or cannot kill them. They know that the disorder can be fatal. Instead, they continue restricting, calorie counting, binging and purging because they have a psychological illness which, on the most part, they cannot choose to stop.

Moreover, when the BBC says "eating disorder" it is merely referring to anorexia and bulimia. However, binge eating and obesity can surely be included as eating disorders as well. The compulsion to keep on putting food in your mouth long beyond the point of being full, as a result of emotional or psychological desires. This can just as easily be fatal. It is just as harmful to your body to over eat as it is to under eat.

Shows such as Supersize vs Superskinny have made great steps into demonstrating the health implications of both over eating and under eating. I learnt many new things from there that i had not previously been aware of, the dangers of not eating enough fiber, the risk of scurvy from being deficient in vitamin c, the myth that only fat people have heart attacks. However, one thing that the show did not need to tell me is that both conditions can be fatal.

Sufferers of eating disorders know full well their condition can be fatal, how could they not in contemporary society where the knowledge is widely available. Maybe the BBC, and other media outlets, need to spend a bit more time in reality to understand what is really going on with eating disorders, rather than naively proclaiming that it is down to ignorance over the dangers.

Lets just continue to remind ourselves that both over eating and under eating is extremely dangerous for our health. The only way to be healthy is to have a balanced diet and to exercise.



Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-26227243
http://www.myproana.com/
http://www.pro-thinspo.com/proanatipsandtricksindexpage.html
http://www.2medusa.com/2008/09/pro-ana-mia-nothing-tastes-as-good-as.html