Aw, howdy, puddin’!
I am…
…reasonably middle class, which is a miracle for a full-time author.
…equipped of a fridge, a pantry, a chest freezer, and a working kitchen.
…capable of cooking for myself and others.I am also…
…the daughter of a woman who raised three daughters on welfare.
…formerly homeless.
…a fat woman who has to fight not to slip back into disordered eating habits because of items #1 and #2.
…someone who goes to the grocery store multiple times a week.
…regularly furious about food waste in my own home when people refuse to eat their leftovers/help eat communal leftovers.So let’s go.
The specific post I reblogged worked from the base premise that it is easier to eat, where “eat” is defined as “get sufficient calories to not feel hungry,” when you are not making a concerted effort to “eat healthy.” It cited things like “a package of extremely filling oatmeal cookies for a dollar,” and “behold, ramen.” Interestingly, it did not cite anything to support the “false dichotomy” you’re accusing me of supporting: for reference, here’s the link http://seananmcguire.tumblr.com/post/164447064675/heyatleastitsnotcancer-candygirl1997
(There is a cranky comment about non-GMO unicorn poop, but as hipsters don’t actually eat shit, that seems less “dichotomy,” and more “angry.”)
But hey, that seems suspiciously like people wanting other people to stop dictating their food choices and assuming they’re eating that way out of necessity, and not because they’re lazy. That can’t be right! We need someone who’s seen both sides!
And that’s why now, as someone who used to eat out of dumpsters, as someone who was lucky enough to be poor in farming country and hence have access to produce seconds (IE, bruised and ugly fruit that no one else wanted), as someone who is emotionally incapable of looking at meat before checking the discount meat bin at the grocery store, I am going to answer the question of whether it’s cheaper to eat healthy once and for all:
No.
No, it is not.
No, it is fucking not.
I live near an independently owned fruit market. They have, regularly, red and gold potatoes for $.99 a pound. They have big Idaho bakers for $.59 a pound. These are some of the best potato prices I have ever seen. Had we lived here when I was a kid, I would have eaten potatoes until I wept. Assuming that potatoes are now the bulk of our diet, and that we’re only eating the cheap ones, that’s a pound of potatoes per person, per day, for a total of $2.40. Call it $2.50, after tax. We are now spending $75 a month on potatoes. No butter or sour cream, because potatoes are already starchy as hell, and fuck taste, but we have potatoes!
Great. Do we have a kitchen? We didn’t, always. For approximately 1/3rd of my childhood, this plan has us eating raw potatoes. But let’s say sure. We can cook our plain potatoes. Say we cook them every night, and have hot potato for dinner, and then cold potato for breakfast. Can’t eat the school lunch–pretty sure that’s not healthy enough. So I guess we’ll buy and boil eggs. You can boil eggs and potatoes in the same pot.
How many eggs do you give the starving, miserable eight-year-old to fill her up? Ballpark figure? Is it the same number you give her fourteen-year-old sister? Is it the same number you take to your back-breaking physical labor job? We’re ignoring the emotional and social impacts here, and just focusing on the cost. So say three eggs each. Maybe everyone’s hungry, but hey, it’s health food.
A dozen eggs is $2.00. We are now spending $60 a month on eggs. That’s $135 a month for a diet that is probably not making anyone happy, but hey, at least it’s all easy on the digestion, right? And if you’re eating three eggs a day, even if you’re soloing this You Should Be Punished For Poverty diet, your eggs aren’t spoiling. Assuming you have a fridge.
Hope you have a fridge.
Your children have now started going home with friends in hopes of being fed, but that’s okay, because it means you have fewer mouths to feed, and if you don’t want them to be taken away, you need to make sure they don’t get scurvy. So we’re going to add milk ($3.50 a gallon, hope no one’s lactose intolerant, if you water it down and watch them like a hawk, you can survive on two gallons a week, which adds $28 to your grocery costs, good job) and apples. Red delicious, of course, which taste like shame, but they’re cheap when the store has them…assuming you’re not in a food desert, where the only apples are coming from the 7-11 at a dollar apiece.
There are so many things we could be buying to make this feel less like a Dickens novel. There’s baloney, and peanut butter, and generic mac and cheese. But they’re not healthy.
Eating healthy is a privilege. When I made a dedicated effort to change my eating habits, my grocery bills increased by 60%. I have the receipts. Not because I was buying “brand names”: because I was buying chicken breasts instead of whole chickens, because I was buying fresh instead of frozen, because I was learning to fill up on things other than chips. That’s just the way we’ve allowed this country to structure our food.
Yes: allowed. In England–which has its own problems, please don’t take this as me going YAY ENGLAND LAND OF PERFECTION–they have laws setting the prices that can be charged for “staples,” like chicken, and potatoes, and bread, and butter, and eggs, and milk. It’s much easier to eat healthy there than it is here.
But here, it is a privilege.
And it ought to be a right.
“get a fridge”
Jesus, has this person ever had to look at prices for anything?
Month: August 2017
People horrifically fucking up facts about evolution and genetics too support their stupid beliefs or to seem smart and “rational” is probably one of my big pet peeves
Yeah. An enormous number of racists, misogynists, homophobes and transphobes I’ve met eventually whip out something about evolutionary biology and they never, ever, ever, ever have the slightest shadow of even a half-right idea what any of it means or ever cite a claim ever actually made by a scientific study.
Here’s a quick handy reference list or anyone who isn’t sure:
- Homosexuality does exist in almost all social species.
- “Alpha males” are not a real phenomenon and in fact the most aggressive males tend to be the least reproductively successful.
- “Survival of the fittest” simply means that the success of a species hinges on how well it “fits” its environment. It does not mean that stronger or smarter individuals are supposed to succeed. Those things can even be a detriment in nature by wasting too many resources.
- “Race” is not a biological concept. Someone who looks different from you has the same human genes, just a different grab-bag of dominant traits.
- Evolution is not a march towards higher complexity, more intelligence or even more adaptability. It’s just a fluctuation of characteristics dictated by environmental pressures and mutation. A slime mold isn’t “less evolved” than a hawk, just adapted for success under different parameters.
- People didn’t evolve “from apes.” It’s more complicated than that. We are a category of ape, sharing a common ancestor with the other apes.
- No human on Earth is “closer” to an evolutionary ancestor than any other. We all descended from the same one.
- Neanderthals were also a “sibling” species of ours. We didn’t evolve from them.
- Some of us did, however, cross-breed with Neandethal man. It is exclusively non-African races, such as white people, who still carry hybrid human/Neanderthal genes. Whoops, sorry “white purity” skinheads, you’re actually mixed with a whole other species.
Don Featherstone, Creator of the Plastic Lawn Flamingos, 1957
He looks exactly as you would picture the creator of plastic lawn flamingos to look.
I’ve seen a few people say on occasion that the fact aces feel “relieved” when they realize they’re ace is “telling” and imply it means being ace isn’t so bad.
let me tell you a thing.
I went years without one of my worst chronic illnesses being properly diagnossed. the day I got a formal diagnosis I felt relieved.
I felt relieved even tho I knew it still meant even with good insurance to help pay for the best treatment of it I’d still be dealing with debilitating levels of pain and fatigue. knowing that with my shitty insurance I would not be able to get the proper treatment to minimize it as much as possible. knowing that doctors don’t even know enough about what causes it let alone know how to fix it. knowing they know so little about it compared to something better studied that they’re still finding stuff out about the symptoms of it. knowing that some doctors and nurses still claim it’s a psychological condition. knowing I am going to live my whole life in moderate to severe pain and exhausted and never be able to live a normal life.
I felt relieved because I had a name for it, because that gave me a source of support. I could use the internet to communicate with other people who had it and get support and knowledge of their experiences with it from them. because it made me feel less alone.
that relief didn’t make what I deal with any better, it was because it gave me a frame of reference, made me feel less alone, and helped me find support from other people who experience the same thing.
I implore you people who think the fact asexuals feel relieved when they realize they’re asexual to think on this.
since this has started happening again I think it fair to reblog this and remind people this same “the fact aces feel relieved when they realize they’re ace means they’re not LGBT+” BS was already pulled over a year ago and they’re just recycling an old tune.
I felt relieved when I realized that I was actually trans. I felt relieved when I realized that I had BPD, ADHD, autism.
We felt relieved when we realized that we are a system.
Relief happens ebcause “holy shit there’s a name for this and people like me and I’m not alone!” It has literally nothing to do with oppression.
Also just remembering one conversation not that long after I moved here, where some of the odd looks I got made much more sense after I found out later on that generic “beans” generally refers to the canned baked kind here. As in, pork and beans minus the weird fat chunks on the US market, not the more seasoned kind. (As compared to “pulses”, which I was vaguely aware did refer to beans/lentils, but had never encountered in common use before.)
Yes, I suppose very bland canned baked beans could serve as a cheapish source of vegetarian nutrition. No, I have never relied as heavily on that option as the person I was talking to probably assumed based on the strange looks.
I haven’t yet managed to pick up that trash scattered around by our foxy visitor, and rebag the one they ripped into.
That is indeed probably one of those “Wait! Don’t do that, you’re going to hurt yourself!!!” things these days. But, I still feel pretty bad that it hasn’t gotten done yet.
Both because ugly unsanitary mess, and because I don’t want him to have to come in from work and take up that slack before the bags can go our for collection in the morning. Especially with the litterbox to wrestle already.
some time in my first month of living in england i was making myself some chicken for dinner and my flatmate walked in and said “oh, you’re making tea?” and i don’t remember ever being so fucking confused in my entire life i just stared at her and said “no, it’s chicken” because back then i didn’t know that the english can apparently substitute every single god damn word with “tea” and for a second i thought my flatmate considered chicken a fucking beverage
when i first moved to australia the first thing i notice, as a kid who is fresh off the plane, is that all of the candy is different, there is a chocolate bar called Flake that i found pretty dang good. i adjust pretty quickly because hey, simple enough right?
so then one day my friend suggests we go to a fish and chips shop, and since i have never been to one before, i was like yeah sure ok you just order because i don’t know what im doing. the closest thing to a fish you get in wisconsin is the “mystery fish” on a fish fry friday. so anyway, half way through ordering he is like do you want flake? and i see the box of candy bars on the counter and im like hell yeah i do that is some good shit.
so our number comes up and he goes and collects this parcel of white paper which is smoking hot and which i assume has our chips and as we are leaving i realize there was not a candy bar in sight. so i asked him about the flake and he was like “what? oh, its in with the chips”. to which i reply, aghast, “wont it melt??”
he then proceeds to give me the strangest look i have ever seen and just says “no?????” so we get back home and open up the parcel and im ready to see the grossest chocolate-covered french fried mess and lo and behold, there are two MASSIVE pieces of what appears to be fried fish, like the size of my forearm??? so now im even more flipping confused like WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT??
turns out Flake is chocolate but it is also some kind of shark?? go figure
long story short: for a moment there he thought i was the most bat-shit insane person he had ever met who thought fish melted when exposed to minor heat sources and i thought people in australia liked chocolate shavings on their fries.
Yeah, I’ve gotten a lot grouchier about some of this stuff after too many run-ins with willfully ignorant assholes who have tried to score political points with their buddies by turning me into some kind of straw racist. Based on some atrociously bad (and, yes, frequently xenophobic) assumptions about who they were even dealing with.
Better focus on cleaning your own house first.
The history of British slavery has been buried. The thousands of British families who grew rich on the slave trade, or from the sale of slave-produced sugar, in the 17th and 18th centuries, brushed those uncomfortable chapters of their dynastic stories under the carpet. Today, across the country, heritage plaques on Georgian townhouses describe former slave traders as “West India merchants”, while slave owners are hidden behind the equally euphemistic term “West India planter”. Thousands of biographies written in celebration of notable 17th and 18th-century Britons have reduced their ownership of human beings to the footnotes, or else expunged such unpleasant details altogether. The Dictionary of National Biography has been especially culpable in this respect. Few acts of collective forgetting have been as thorough and as successful as the erasing of slavery from the Britain’s “island story”.
The history of British slave ownership has been buried: now its scale can be revealed
(via
)
an interesting article. this tidbit though: “About 40% of the slave owners living in the colonies were women” – this is why I don’t trust white feminist analyses. Even in a time considered to be highly oppressive to “women” (note how that term is never racially designated), white women could and did hold the power of owning Black human lives, at a rate almost equal to white men.
(via sofriel)
Whereas the cotton plantations of the American south were established on the soil of the continental United States, British slavery took place 3,000 miles away in the Caribbean.
That is also very disingenuous. British slavery started in the 17th century in North American colonies, over 150 years before there was a “continental United States”. Virginia was the first permanent English colony in the “New World”, as they kept bragging about when I was in school there. Though, there they initially concentrated on tobacco and some other cash crops which were in high demand back home, rather than on cotton.
Unsurprisingly, there was tons of trade and movement back and forth between the Caribbean, the Chesapeake, and other convenient colonial ports like Charleston and Savannah. Including trade in slaves.
A settler revolt just created a new government entity, and changed who was in control on paper. (I.e., disgruntled wealthy British people starting out, who already had some political power–many of whom ran plantations.) They took over the systems set up under British colonial governance, and just went from there.
The same goes for genocidal policies toward indigenous peoples, after the attempts at “just” using them for slave labor didn’t work out so well. The new US government just took over existing inhumane systems, and ran with them.
The distinction is not that useful. There is no distinction to be made until about 1780. But, this is a popular separation in the UK. And it’s part of a larger pattern of denial.
As Robin Bunce and Paul Field point out:
They add that Britain is consistently portrayed by politicians as being “on the side of the angels” in race relations, and point to the 2007 celebrations of the abolition of the slave trade as an example of how Britain prefers to propagate a myth of itself as “the utopia of civilized fair play”.
I’m glad that the number of (often still-existing) British fortunes made through colonial exploitation and slavery is getting a little more attention recently. But, that didn’t just happen in the Caribbean colonies, and it’s very intellectually dishonest to act like that was the case. It’s frustrating when someone writing more honestly about some of this ugly history prefers to keep up the largely false distinction there.
(via clatterbane)
Reminded of this again, partly because there was indeed no honest distinction until about 1780. The abusive colonial systems that Jefferson and the others used to their benefit–and then took over to run for themselves–were already up and running for over 150 years at that point.
Chattel slavery in British North America went on for more years before the settler revolt than afterwards. That doesn’t get mentioned much anywhere.
(via clatterbane)
You must be logged in to post a comment.