Here She Goes Again

****Warning, Potentially Triggering Content with Mention of Behaviors, Fad Diets, And Numbers****

Whenever Lindsay Crouse comes up with a new opinion piece for the New York Times, I hold my breath, hoping for the best but not expecting it. I suppose audience members watching a child they know is unprepared walk up to the piano for a recital feel the same way. They want the kid to do well but know it takes practice and commitment in order to hit the right notes. What's surprising is that, unlike an out-of-practice child taking the stage solo and attempting to tackle a challenging song in front of friends and family, Crouse has help from a team. In her case, even with the aid of fact-checkers, she still manages to fuck up details. Worse, with all the attention she puts on women and mental health, she can't seem to wrap her head around what constitutes triggering content, or maybe she just doesn't care. She's not the only one. Erin Strout, after retweeting this bit of sound advice: 

decided it would be great to attempt to get a few laughs a few weeks later by posting this:

I get that she's not promoting the product and is actually agreeing that it's dangerous. She's trying to be cute or funny or relevant. However, I've mentioned it before that it's important to know your audience. A tweet like the above with no warning or caution preceding it is fine for the average person or if you're one of the many in the media who likes to shock others, but both Crouse and Strout have made an effort to gain audience members consisting of feminists, anyone struggling with mental health issues and eating disorders, and athletes. As a reminder, athletes are more at risk for eating disorders than the general public, so I find it incredibly frustrating how careless these two are, especially considering they write for larger publications. Is receiving a few likes, clicks, or views more important than taking the time to think about what might be triggering to someone suffering with a potentially deadly disorder? 

The simple solution for anyone who would rather be acknowledged than think of the greater good or how actions can be detrimental to certain individuals would be to stop pretending to be an advocate for recovery and simply post like anyone else. When you write about the dangers of eating disorders and point your finger at others, expecting them to be more thoughtful about what they post, you assume some responsibility as well. It takes effort to avoid promoting diet culture and unhealthy behaviors, to stop and think, "Am I helping or potentially hurting or triggering those who follow me with this content?" Is it really necessary to risk upsetting someone or worse, giving someone who's ill ideas just to get a few laughs or likes? 

If you don't understand the mindset of someone who struggles, it's OK to stop pretending you do. You don't have to take any pledge to do better and can post links to all the dangerous weight-loss devices and fad diets you want. This is the type of shit that drives me absolutely nuts. Does it mean nothing to these types that eating disorders kill more people annually than all other mental illnesses combined? If you want to target a specific audience, you really should be more aware of the sensitivities of its members.  

I will come back to triggering content later, but more often than not, Crouse's writing comes off as rushed and not well researched, an attempt to quickly get out anything on a popular topic. Hell, some of my blog posts are more researched than the essays she gets published. 

In two of her most recent pieces, she misleads her audience yet again. Some might not notice or care about the little details, but facts matter. They should anyway. In her article addressing Sha'Carri Richardson's suspension, she brings up Suzy Favor Hamilton and a few others in an effort to demonstrate that athletes also suffer from mental health issues, a topic that has been addressed in scholarly articles, books, and in other publications long before the year 2021, though people are more open about it now. Richardson, unlike many of her fans, has handled the situation with as much grace and maturity as humanly possible, especially considering most people in this country don't think marijuana should even be on the banned list. She is definitely someone to be admired in that regard. What Crouse seems to be saying but fails to in any kind of clear way is that there's a difference between actual cheating in order to improve performance and using a banned substance in order to help cope with life events. 

Addressing mental illness in athletes, Crouse writes, "Suzy Favor Hamilton, a nine-time N.C.A.A. champion, suffered from depression after she retired from her athletic career; it led to scandal after the revelation that she was working as an escort." But this is inaccurate. Suzy has said over and over again that she is bipolar. What happened wasn't exactly the result of depression related to an incident or her career coming to an end. It's far more complex than that. She was on medication that exacerbated her manic episodes. This wasn't exactly a situation in which someone was self-medicating, and depression didn't lead to scandal. If you're interested in reading a more accurate account of what Suzy was going through at the time, you can read my interview with her here, but, more importantly, Crouse is giving the wrong impression about both depression and what was happening in Suzy’s life at the time.  

Crouse adds: 

We don’t just expect our Olympians to be incredible athletes. We expect them to be role models and to adhere to impossibly high levels of self-discipline, work ethics, and sportsmanship that have nothing to do with their actual job. Women, especially women of color, face even higher expectations.

But those traits, things like self-discipline and work ethic, generally have a lot to do with being a good athlete. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. What she probably means is that in addition to being good on the field or on the track, some people expect athletes to also be exceptional role models and overall good people. Charles Barkley and Tonya Harding shot that unrealistic idea down some time ago, but I suppose not everyone got the message. Expecting athletes to be perfect in all areas is about as wise as expecting all rich people to be smart. Athlete or not, people are people, and those engaging in athletic activities don't always behave in the same ways. Not all athletes feel pressured to set a good example, but others feel compelled, either by internal and/or external forces, to be or appear perfect. It's crazy how often we forget that people, even athletes, are unique individuals. 

Always one to sprinkle more names of athletes appearing in the news cycle into her work, Crouse throws in Gwen Berry by saying:

Gwen Berry, a track and field Olympian who is facing criticism from conservative lawmakers for turning away from the American flag on the medal podium during the national anthem at the Olympic Trials, told me Ms. Richardson was being held to an impossible standard.

Well, at the moment, Berry is facing criticism more because of her past racist tweets and her attempt to joke about rape victims, but, offensive tweets aside for just a second, Richardson wasn't being held to an impossible standard. She was being held to the same standard as any other athlete. Regarding Berry, despite her past tweets and turning away from the flag, she has plenty of support, even from those who strongly and relentlessly condemn anyone who's male and white and looks like he possibly maybe sort of could be a racist. In general, athletes of color probably do face an imbalance in the way they are treated, but the ban Richardson faces is not an example of racial injustice. Banning specific swim caps, on the other hand, is a gross injustice, and hopefully, that issue will be resolved in a new ruling.   

Regarding drug testing, Crouse adds:

It’s becoming increasingly challenging to avoid banned substances and still live in the real world. (I’ve wondered how many of us mortals would pass a doping test if we took one today.)

That might be true in this country where more states have moved to legalize recreational marijuana, but if she's talking about tainted burritos or meat or even if she's only looking at THC, she might want to take a closer look at the levels required to test positive. Additionally, why are so few suspected cheaters caught if everyone is filling up on banned substances? The anti-doping system is failing but not because it's outing those who have drugs in their system. What Crouse probably means is that a few American female athletes were caught this year for actual violations or for skipping out on tests, so it must be the agencies in place that are at fault, not the adored athletes. 

After just implying that Olympians are not like us mere mortals, Crouse goes on to say in a different article published shortly after that Olympians are just like us by using one of the most extraordinary athletes she could find as her case in point, Simone Biles. 

In her opinion piece on Biles, Crouse once again can't help but focus on looks and comparisons, which isn't surprising considering she believes nobody can get past caring what others think, but she completely leaves out the long history of gymnastics and how both it and its athletes have changed over the years. 

Her focus is entirely on American athletes, and she doesn't care to include anyone before the 80s, as if the sport sprang up out of nowhere along with big hair and shoulder pads. As Lorraine Moller suggested in the foreword of my book, the early 80s saw a return to the age of Twiggy. Everyone was striving to be thinner in a cultural shift. At the time, someone like Mary Lou Retton was considered an outlier because, despite being lean, she looked different, more powerful than some of the other teenagers she competed against. 

Additionally, if you look at a chart of medal-winning gymnasts in the all-around event over the years, you see that women and girls competing are actually a lot leaner now than they were in the mid-70s and before. On average, they were also older back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. It should be noted that in the mid-70s, an age limit was put in place that restricted anyone younger than 14 from competing. That changed to 15 in the 80s and lasted until 1997 when it changed to 16. Speaking of age, Oksana Chusovitina is in her 40s and still competing in international meets. How 'bout that? 

From Harvard Sports Analysis

Leaving out the history of the sport isn't the worst offense Crouse commits. As someone who has written about a young woman who struggled with an eating disorder and has admitted to having some issues herself, she should know better than to post the very dangerously low daily calorie content of a competitive athlete. Again, if she knows her audience, she should understand how detrimental it can be for someone struggling to see these kinds of specific numbers without warning. She could have just as easily said that the athlete restricted her calorie intake to the point where it became dangerous. There are countless ways to say something similar without using exact numbers. Or she could have put a warning at the top of the article. It's so fucking easy. 

Crouse also compares an adult Biles to young athletes still in their teens, as if they should also be posting images of themselves with drinks and boyfriends on Instagram. It's absurd to think what someone posts on Instagram accurately represents who she is in real life, but suggesting that posting a picture of pizza means she's completely happy and healthy is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time. Biles might be a great example of a well-rounded athlete and individual, but it's not because she posts images of food on social media. 

In addition to the somewhat bizarre takes she presents, Crouse also fails to get simple facts correct. She claims that Kerri Strug "tore her ankle" and makes it sound like a wild beast ripped the appendage from her body. No, it wasn't a "torn ankle," it was a sprained ankle with damage to the tendon. Why is fact checking so difficult for her and her team? 

In this article, as opposed to the previous one, Crouse seems to be pushing the idea that you can be a regular 'ole person and reach some kind of elite status. That's not typically the case, but that doesn't mean an athlete can't have balance. 

I remember talking to Suzy Favor about being an elite athlete. It would be nearly impossible to get to a top level without having the drive and desire to push yourself. It's often a balancing act trying to figure out how to not go too far, but being an athlete takes a lot of hard work and dedication. You almost have to be a little nutty and on the over-driven side to achieve success, and the most successful athletes tend to be those who are able to avoid going too far over the edge while still working hard. 

The one thing that Crouse left out that might have made someone as phenomenal as Biles more relatable is that she has ADHD and has had to take Ritalin since she was young. It's little details like that, not her posting pizza images, that let others know she's human and has the same kinds of struggles as others. 

Here. Now I'm all balanced and happy and shit. 

An Unwelcome Distraction

It has only been recently that I've started standing up to bullies. In general, I try to be fair, turn the other cheek, or take the high road, but that doesn't always work. It certainly didn't with Kim Duclos. My tolerance for people who go out of their way to be mean is at an all-time low. I'm simply not going to sit back and do nothing when someone threatens me or attempts to push me around. I'm three weeks out from a major surgery and this isn't exactly how I want to be spending my time, but I also feel the need to address this situation.

I'm going to make this post as brief as possible because it's mostly a waste of time to pay any attention to people who create conflict and drama and make issues out of minor disputes, but since Steve McConkey, a self-proclaimed Christian who spends his time asking for donations for his "Ministry" so he can continue to "work" on interfering with and condemning athletes in the LGBTQ community, threatened to sue me a while back and continues to violate my right to privacy, I wanted to address the situation. Social media is so strange in the way it gives some people a distorted sense of esteem and accomplishment. Writing everything out, it seems silly that an adult would spend the kind of time, money, and energy he does in order to get revenge on people who dare voice an opinion online.

What would warrant such anger toward me, you might ask. My big mistake? In response to some online bickering that was going on between a friend and Steve, I had the nerve to post a Bible quote as a comment on Steve's public Facebook page. THE NERVE OF ME! Apparently, it was a passage he didn't like because this resulted in the comment being deleted within minutes and me being blocked from viewing his page while logged in. My friend was also blocked. Almost immediately after, Steve decided to post a picture of my friend on his page that is or at least was set so that anyone not logged in can view it, and pretty much invited his friends to join him in a mocking session. Steve seems fond of mocking others and has done the same with Hillary Clinton, several trans and gay athletes, Democrats, and others he doesn't like. That's not all he did, though. He also contacted my friend's employer and, well, I won't go into the gory details since you can read about everything here:  https://chimprefuge.com/2018/07/20/steve-mcconkeys-funniest-lies-also-introducing-mcconkoids/#more-8163

I find it funny, in a creepy weird way, that Steve calls others stalkers given his actions. He's the type who likes to point his finger while three are pointing back at him. For example, he's quick to point out other people's past mistakes even though he has made plenty. In fact, he admits to doing hard drugs at one point in his life, an illegal activity that could potentially land a person in prison, not just jail. Just because he didn't get caught, it doesn't mean he's innocent, but the way he rips on others makes it seem like he thinks he's some kind of angel. He's not. Far from it.

After being blocked, I mostly stayed out of things except to occasionally like a comment or voice an opinion relating to something several friends posted on Twitter or Facebook, so I was surprised when a friend pointed out that Steve dragged me into the fray with a public threat to sue me and called me an accomplice, implying I had committed some kind of crime, something that could easily be considered defamation of character. When I noted this on Twitter, he deleted the post, which means he's obviously looking at what I do online.

That's not the only thing Steve has done, though. Instead of getting into everything here, I'd rather point my readers to other writers who have addressed Steve's antics. Since he's so fond of public postings about others, I'll leave it up to readers to decide what they think. Unlike many of Steve's postings, though, the following two by people remarking on his behaviors do not include lies.

This post is by Hemant Mehta. It goes into detail about Steve's desire to ban trans athletes and more:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/04/15/leader-of-christian-athlete-group-condemns-marathons-allowing-transgender-runners/

This one is also interesting:

 http://whatwouldjackdo.net/2015/11/greetings-from-the-atheist-gestapo-world-headquarters-all-your-bibles-are-belong-to-us11111.html


I really hope his attempts to damage my reputation and interfere with my and others' professional lives and standing don't continue. I'm not going to stand by and watch him lie, though. He even lied about a legal document that's public (but not newsworthy or relevant - more right to privacy violations).  Pertaining to that, the last time I owned a dog, I was in grade school, so his claims about someone abusing my dog aren't accurate, nor are several other claims. It's tempting to make assumptions when looking at certain brief statements, but, unless you were there, you really don't know what happened and shouldn't speculate, especially publicly which could be considered libel.

I hate taking up space on this blog to post things like this, but as long as he keeps up his lies about me and keeps pointing to his posts that reveal the address of one of my friends, I will keep Tweeting and exposing his lies, as will my friends. In reality, the more Steve keeps up what he's doing, the more he exposes his unchristian-like behavior, to say the least. Meanwhile, my true Christian friends are working in Uganda helping refugees, serving others, practicing kindness, and being the beautiful human beings that they are.


ETA:

Keep in mind that this is the first blog post I have written addressing this issue. It's almost laughable Steve's response to me defending myself. His "friends" are now calling me disgusting because of the lies he spews about me, and for someone who's almost scary in his quest to find out information about me and others, him calling anyone else a stalker has to be breaking every irony meter in the universe.


"The Colorado Stalker and his sidekick Lize Brittin are writing volumes (Um, no that would be you about us, but since you won't let up on the lies, I'll gladly continue writing.) on me that nobody reads (Not accoring to my stat counter, but OK), however, they come up on google search (Wait, you're not the stalker but you're Googling us?) as you go down. She lectures me on ethics (Nope, I wrote a blog post describing what happened.), but she promotes the killing of babies (Liar. This is a complete lie. I don't even really "support" abortion, but I stand by a woman's right to choose. I've never had an abortion and never will.) and endorses the Stalker (I don't think he understands the meaning of the word endorse. Agreeing with someone doesn't necessarily mean supporting someone.) . Kevin lies continually (Nope. He has some strong opinions, but he has not lied about Steve.) about me and makes up fake news (Again, he doesn't make stuff up about Steve, and blog posts and tweets are not news, real or fake). He says he coaches Olympic runners, but never has (Yes, he has, actually. You should ask his athletes about it.). His criminal record is long (Steve's would probably be at least as long -- crashing a car drunk, doing hard drugs, etc. -- he just never got caught, and Kevin has already publicly addressed his past)."

I don't think this needs a caption.

ETA Dec 2019:

I briefly took this down but decided to repost it when Steve just couldn't stop lying and dragging me into his online spat with Kevin. One thing I really can't stand is people behaving in terrible ways and then hiding behind the title of Christian. 

Similar to my comment below:

I recently talked to my brother, Alex, and sister-in-law, Lisa, (both lawyers) about all of this and got some good advice, but it's strange that someone who keeps violating the terms of service on websites like Twitter and keeps lying to the point where these websites are forced to remove content, insists on calling himself a Christian. If a God saw this kind of unethical behavior, all because some guy got mad and wanted to get revenge on someone who called him out on his questionable statements and actions, there's no doubt "he" wouldn't be happy. 

The whole thing is a sham, this POOR ME! I'M BEING ATTACKED AND STALKED bullshit by people who, in reality, are bullies and too immature to have any kind of civil conversation. That's why they resort to shitty tactics like lying online and expanding the scope of conflict by dragging as many people into it as possible.

I am grateful to those who took my personal information down and am glad they can see through this guy's act of being a good Christian. If that's being a good Christian, send me to Hell knowing I made an effort to be a better person than that and at least did my best to be honest. I mean really. Starting online battles, intentionally and improperly posting personally identifiable information online, and outright lying are not honorable qualities. How do people like this sleep at night? I really want to know. I do my best to be a decent person, and I have all kinds of lingering worries about my actions, putting way too much pressure on myself to do the right thing and questioning all the time what the best action is. And then there's this guy who boasts about being in line with God, yet stoops to such incredibly, incredibly low levels. Just yuck. 

ETA 2020
Apparently, he liked what Kim was doing by mocking me about my job and telling people I want my mom to die, so he posted something similar. These two are disgusting. I am so lucky to have decent people in my life. I can’t imagine what goes on in someone’s messed up head to do these kinds of things to another human being. 

Supposedly, this is how he thinks good Christians should behave, by lying and mocking people, which is bad enough, but the people liking it and feeling sorry for him are equally bad. Imagine thinking you're morally better than someone by resorting to this:

You may not want to read through this entire exchange, but it's interesting to see someone who provoked a guy turn around and play the victim. Kim and Steve are the same that way. They continue to poke the bees and then whine when they get stung:  http://www.kemibe.com/stevemcconkeythreat.htm

And both Steve and Kim are fond of dragging me into this mess. For a long time, I kept quiet, but that did nothing but cause them to include me more. In the email exchange between Kevin and Steve, Steve boasts about being able to post records online, but there are limits to doing that. See, I have talked to lawyers, too, and while I think it's ridiculous to sue someone over online bullying, unless it gets bad enough, there are some limits to what people can legally post. For example, yes, you can post someone's records online, but if it's done with malicious intent and is not newsworthy and also gives out otherwise private information, like an address (considered doxxing), then it can be considered a violation of someone's right to privacy. But who wants to go to court over that, especially when Kevin has said over and over that he doesn't care? Maybe a cease and desist letter would be enough, but I doubt it with these types. Both Steve and Kim are so dead set on "getting" Kevin that they don't give a shit whom they hurt in the process. In fact, they think that by hurting people associated with him, it will somehow be a "win". But it's so fucking pathetic. The whole thing started because of them. Neither one has the courage to have a conversation either online or otherwise, so they take stupid little jabs and then retreat, hide and pretend they are being attacked. 

The funniest thing in all of those email exchanges is Steve suggesting Kevin offer Kim an apology. Dear Kevin, please offer one of the biggest bullies I have ever encountered -- someone who lied from the start just to fuck with people and made up shit about me waiting for my mom to die -- an apology. Jesus Christ, people are fucked up.

Fuck Weight Watchers

Tabitha Farrar recently wrote an insightful blog post about Weight Watchers and the potential harmful effects that can result when dieting starts at a young age. This was in response to Weight Watchers' announcement offering free memberships to teens. Obviously, this company isn't considering the potential harm introducing dieting behavior at a young age can cause, so let me make one thing very clear: Weight Watchers doesn't give a fuck about you. It's a predatory agency that wants to target the vulnerable. I feel like I should insert George Carlin's "The American Dream" here. Big businesses don't give a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about me, and they want to control where you put your money. They want your money, period. This new idea to lure kids into a weight loss program is called a recruitment plan, which implies that those running the business are looking for people to jump in early and stay for the long haul, not briefly test the waters.

I have addressed the business aspect before in a blog post focusing on Oprah Winfrey. Weight Watchers is a huge corporation owned by H. J. Heinz Company with branches all over the world, a corporation that wants people to believe it has the key to your happiness. The company's survival and the way it makes money is by supporting unrealistic beauty aesthetics, promoting diet culture, and pushing their "magic formula" of success for a price. Remember, if you fail at losing weight, it's because you're not following their program. The idea is that if you just buy their products, pay for their secret systems and plans, and keep coming back, you gotta KEEP COMING BACK (that's why it's great to start 'em young), you can be thin, which translates to happy, healthy, successful, perfect, and beautiful. But it's a fucking lie. Whatever Weight Watcher's is selling is not much better than snake oil.

Why do you think commercials for weight loss products and systems are strategically aired late at night and more heavily after the holidays? Again, weight-loss companies target what they view as vulnerable audiences, and now they are after your kids. 

If you take a look at their products, filled with excess sugar, artificial ingredients, and almost no actual valuable nutrition, you will see that the ingredients do not support health or weight loss for that matter. No sensible diet plan is based on the consumption of highly processed foods containing a lot of refined sugars and almost no quality protein. Look at the statistics on weight loss and dieting and ask yourself if the unspecified "studies" Weight Watchers often cites are credible and accurate. Does a short-term study focusing on adults who lost a tiny bit more weight on a diet plan than those who did absolutely nothing really mean that this company has the answers? Did these people in the so-called study keep the weight off for an extended period of time? Were they truly healthier, happier, and better off?

A healthy relationship with food can be taught, but it doesn’t include obsessively “watching” weight. It includes a focus shift away from beauty aesthetics and toward Heath and feeling good while trusting your body, not trying to have absolute control over it. Teaching people how to discipline themselves and restrict what they eat, stopping at one serving even if the body needs more, is diet behavior, not mindfulness and not intuitive eating, and these behaviors don't encourage health, physical or mental. 

I believe the founder of Weight Watchers, Jean Nidetch, had good intentions when she started her small support group in her apartment. Since she had success on the diet she created for herself, she wanted to share that with others. However, the focus was entirely on weight loss, how to stop eating cookies and slim down. I'm sure some of the advice the organization gives now is sensible, but there's no doubt that this is a business with a primary focus on aesthetics and making money. Though some claim Weight Watchers is an advocate for health, what it promotes and sells is the fantasy of looking a certain way and losing weight, and don't those who own stock in the company know that EVERYONE wants to lose weight?

Yeah, fuck that, Weight Watchers.