Connect with us

News

Get ready to check your Thin Privilege

Published

on

In the world of Social Justice Warriors, there are two types of people: victims and oppressors. The victims are incapable of doing wrong. Meanwhile, the oppressors are privileged and responsible for society’s problems, specifically the perceived actions of their ancestors.

This week, Twitter has taken to promoting a new victimhood status: obesity. The oppressors of obese people are thin people, and the tool of the oppressors is Thin Privilege. It’s important to make a distinction between overweight and obese.

Overweight implies being above average. Obese is being above average to the point of health complications. Cora Harrington, a minor feminist figure, went viral during a thread explaining thin privilege. According to her, one does not need to be thin to be privileged, only to be thought of as thin or normal sized. Her background in fashion contributes to a more industry-specific solution to her concept of thin privilege rather than a broader solution to what she believes is a widespread problem.

Thin Privilege Explained

Enter Intersectionality

If one had to guess, being fat isn’t very high on the victimhood status. But being a fat white straight male might just elevate them among their white straight male counterparts. But in most observable applicability, fat victimhood largely applies to women only. In intersectionality, this gives fat white female feminists a bump against their white women counterparts.

Normalizing Obesity?

Feminism is pushing back against fat-shaming likely stereotypical vagina hat wearing woman is not thought to be thin. The effort in removing the stigma against being obese may be producing adverse effects on society’s health. Last month, a study out of the UK pointed to findings that the normalization of obesity is a contributor to the epidemic. The study found that between 1997 and 2015, there was an increase in the self-misperception of overweight and obese people’s weight status.

The study found that “Those underestimating their overweight and obesity status were 85% less likely to try to lose weight compared with people who accurately identified their weight status.” The increase in health consciousness in America is certainly being met with an increased countercultural fat promoting feminist culture. This year colleges have begun to address “fatphobia” in an effort to promote “body positivity and social justice.” It’s very possible the same study if performed in America would yield similar if not more disturbing results.

There is a massive effort by feminist to reshape what society defines as attractive. Feminist believe that what society has found attractive was the spawn of misogyny and the ominous Patriarchy. Body positivity is meant to reinforce the beauty of women of all shapes and sizes.

This, however, denies the biological component of attraction. Boiling it down, what humans find most attractive are features and proportions that are mostly average. The biological component in males takes into account health and childbearing capabilities. In morbid obesity, both of these are reduced. So logically, one would find this less attractive. If there was a culprit for thin-privilege, it isn’t misogyny; it’s biology.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Media

Smear campaigns against Rick Scott start just as he pulls ahead in the polls

Published

on

Smear campaigns against Rick Scott start just as he pulls ahead in the polls

Florida has a penchant for tight races. This year is no different with both the gubernatorial and Senate races polling within the margin of error to be considered a toss up. In the latter race, Governor Rick Scott just pulled ahead of Senator Bill Nelson.

On cue, mainstream media and the leftist blogosphere started rallying for Nelson. First, the New York Times posted a highly biased article claiming Scott’s blind trust was blind in name only. The accusatory headline is damaging but the story itself only reveals that he may have been able to see where his money was going if he jumped through a few hoops. It did not show he took advantage of these hoops and there are no indications that he did.

Then, The Young Turks pieced together a “gotcha’ moment when members of a financial firm donated to a pro-Scott superPAC. Then, the state’s pension system invested using the financial firm. Scott is a trustee. Here’s the thing, though. Scott has no influence on how money is invested.

“Neither the Trustees nor their appointed members to the Investment Advisory Council (IAC) are involved in the selection of investments,” SBA spokesman John Kuczwanki told The Young Turks. “Any suggestion that politics influenced the SBA’s investment decision on the Cerberus FSBA Levered Loan Opportunities Fund is baseless and without merit.”

Despite the honesty of the rebuttals, mainstream media and the leftist blogosphere are operating with the singular goal of stopping as many Republicans from winning on election day as possible. There is no merit to either allegation, but it’s easy for the left to distort and confuse just enough to make an uninformed voter question Scott’s integrity.

Florida is better following Scott’s stint as governor. Florida and America will be better off with Scott over Nelson in the Senate.

Democrats and their media proxies count on a majority of people not understanding how blind trusts and pension investments work. They insinuate corruption where none exists in hopes that most won’t see the truth.

Continue Reading

Economy

Trump’s best fiscal move yet: Telling his cabinet to shave 5% off their budgets

Published

on

Trumps best fiscal move yet Telling his cabinet to shave 5 off their budgets

I’ve been harsh towards the President when it comes to budgets and deficits. At times he has seemed more like President Obama, albeit reluctantly, with outrageous budgets signed and deficits that would make Democrats blush. His latest move is one that I can support wholeheartedly.

He just told his cabinet to shave off 5% from their 2020 budgets.

Trump asked members of his cabinet to figure out how to cut 5 percent of their budgets

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/10/17/trump-asked-members-of-his-cabinet-to-figure-out-how-to-cut-5-percent-of-their-budgetsI’m going to be ask each of you to come back with a 5 percent budget cut from your various departments, whether it’s a secretary or administrator, whatever. I’m going to ask everybody to come back with a 5 percent cut for our next meeting. I think you’ll all be able to do it. There may be a special exemption, perhaps. I don’t know who that exemption would be. If you can do more than five, some of you will say ‘hey, I can do much more than 5.’

Most conservatives would point to last year’s tax cuts as his best fiscal move, but it was really an action by Congress. The White House gave input and helped sell it to the people, of course, but it wasn’t really a “move” made by Trump. We’ll give him some credit for it, but most of the heavy lifting was done on Capitol Hill.

Telling his cabinet to cut 5% across the board is a Presidential move and by far his best fiscal decision to date. The key to this will be follow-up; if he doesn’t hold his team accountable, then it was simply a soundbite. If he holds their feet to the fire and dishes out repercussions to those who don’t comply, then this will represent a seismic shift in the way the White House operates.

It’s a business move made by a businessman who has had to make this move many times in the past. He brought several things to the table shifting from the boardroom to the Oval Office. Second only to his deal-making skills are his skills in operating a sound financial operation. This is indicative of his experience.

To be fair, this is more of a campaign move than an expression of conservative fiscal values, but we’ll take it no matter what motivated the move. 2020, the target for these cuts, is his reelection year. Hitting the stump and talking about how he forced every agency and department to cut their budgets by 5% will go a long way towards wooing conservatives.

One of the biggest reasons Americans put Donald Trump in the White House is because of his business acumen. This move exemplifies why millions trusted him to sit in the Oval Office. With budgets where they are, DC must cut, cut, and cut some more.

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Don’t tease us, Mitch. McConnell puts Obamacare repeal back on table.

Published

on

Dont tease us Mitch McConnell puts Obamacare repeal back on table

If Republicans can win enough Senate seats in the midterm elections, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he may take another stab at repealing and replacing Obamacare. Three separate attempts last year were thwarted by unified opposition by Democrats and some defections among Republicans.

McConnell says Senate Republicans might revisit Obamacare repeal

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-mcconnell-policy/mcconnell-says-senate-republicans-might-revisit-obamacare-repeal-idUSKCN1MR2QEDespite their dominance of Congress and the White House, Republicans dramatically failed last year to overturn former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, known as Obamacare. McConnell called it “the one disappointment of this Congress from a Republican point of view.”

He said, “If we had the votes to completely start over, we’d do it. But that depends on what happens in a couple weeks… We’re not satisfied with the way Obamacare is working.”

His words were tempered so as not to unsettle voters ahead of the midterm elections. In past years, Republicans were bold about proclaiming the need to rid the nation of Obamacare. This helped them get control of the House, Senate, and White House. Now, public sentiment towards Obamacare has softened and so has rhetoric from Republicans in an election year.

My Take

What is really needed is a full but staggered repeal of Obamacare followed by a systematic revamping of the healthcare system with minimal government control. Most of that control should belong to the states, not DC. To make the ideal situation happen, we’d need to replace 80% of House Republicans and 90% of Senate Republicans with true limited-government conservatives and Federalists.

That’s not happening any time soon, so we’re stuck with a repeal and replace. Based on what has been proposed in the past, a repeal and replace would be incrementally better than what we have, but it may not be worth supporting. A little better than awful is still awful.

If Republicans can keep control of the House and Senate and are still unable to repeal and replace Obamacare before 2020, it will be a sad testament to the state of the party.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report