Mewsings from Lowecat (aka Indianacat)

My rants, ravings, and overall 'mewsings' on life, the universe, and everything.

Saturday, February 01, 2014

Oh, So You Had to Go BACK in Time to Remember?

The infamous Dr. Oz recently put on a fat suit, sweats, and a disguise to walk the streets and see what kind of reaction he would get.  All y'all can read the story here, along with some of the comments about it.

What the fuck kind of reception did he think he was goin' to get?  Especially lookin' like the stereotypical fat slob like he did?  Even the morbidly obese person can and does try to look as attractive as possible - difficult given the lack of fashionable apparrel out there for the heavier person.  Men and women alike will wear somethin' more appealin' than SWEATS!. 

So in one way, I'm not surprised that Dr. Oz was treated to some semblance of ostracism in his walk in the fat suit.  In another, however, I'm not so shocked, because even now, despite the 200 pounds I lost through bariatric surgery nearly 10 years ago, I still get treated to some of the same discrimination! 

Just think about it, though I wash daily, use deoderant, and a light touch of scent that is NOT overpowering, people will wrinkle their nose at me as if I just crawled out of the trash can.  If I'm walkin' down an aisle at work, co workers will inch forward to give me space, even though there is plenty of room for me to pass.  People will look in my grocery cart to see what I'm buying and make comments on it if they find anything they think they shouldn't.  I've bought treats for the husband and had clerks make fun of what I purchase.  Need I continue?

Frankly, I don't feel much sympathy for Dr. Oz.  HE can take off the fat suit and feel 'normal' again.  Lots of people wish it were that easy.  Sure, I had the surgery 10 years ago, and it helped me lose a full person, but I'm still large sized, and still get treated as a second class citizen because of it.  I work daily on the weight, the surgery was a tool, and if I stray, I get sick.  Good incentive not to stray.

Disrespectin' the overweight person, whether they are 'pleasantly plump' or morbidly obese is the one remainin' acceptible form of discrimination. People think nothing about makin' fat jokes, shyin' away from a person because of their size, and outright makin' comments about them to their face, knowin' that no one is goin' to scream "racist!" at them. Too bad that a former weight struggler like Dr. Oz. had to take a walk down memory lane to gain a little more compassion.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Why Does This Need to Be in the State Constitution?

My name is Lowecat and I'm straight, conservative in some areas and liberal in others, which is why I call myself conserbial (or wishy - washy, take your pick).

No, I'm not makin' fun of any of the 12 step programs.  I'm just puttin' this out there as a fact. 

And I'm a little confused as to why the state of Indiana feels it is necessary to put an amendment in our constitution that defines marriage as a union between man and woman only. 

Yes, I'm aware that there is a growin' hue and cry out there to allow for 'gay marriage'.  And I support the reason behind recoginition of such.  My understandin' is that gay marriage provisions will allow same sex couples to have the same protections and rights under the law as traditional married couples have. 

Those rights include right to make health decisions, to be present when their loved one is sick and hospitalized, to make financial decisions, to have the right to be covered as a dependent on health insurance/taxes/etc.  To be a beneficiary.  To adopt children (and frankly, one Hell of a lot of same sex unions are more stable than many traiditional ones!). 

I'm not against that at all.  And I don't think it's necessary to have an amendment in the state constitution to bar it. 

Yet, the Indiana legislature is giving a lot of time and attention to this matter, which is known as HJR 3.  It originally banned civil unions was taken out of the amendment, but there are some out there who want it added back in.

Here's the link which will explain it better than I can:

As a traditional married person who has a belief in a high power, I am NOT offended nor scared of the idea of same sex unions.  I DO still agree that church ministers, including ordained United Methodist ministers, should not officiate religious unions of people of the same sex.  That's how I was raised by my Daddy, a United Methodist minister. 

Again, let me reiterate that I am NOT threatened by the idea of same sex civil unions.  If they want to have a ceremony that unites them in a married state, that's fine by me.  I just am not comfortable with the religious element of it.  That's just me.

And I don't feel it is necessary for the state of Indiana - or any other state for that matter - to put a protection for traditional marriage into law.   If this measure gets approved by the two legislative branches here, it is apparently goin' to go to the voters for approval.  My plan is to vote against it. 

Frankly, it's my opinion that there are more important things that the Indiana Legislature - or any other law making body - should be lookin' at than bannin' same sex unions.  What the Hell are we livin' in, for cripe's sake, the Dark Ages?