Sexist Eating Disorders Awareness Campaign

A few weeks ago, signs went up in our college's dining center.

They read as following:

For information about or help with an eating disorder, please call CAPS [Counseling and Psychological Services] at [phone number redacted] to arrange for a consultation with a counselor.

Pretty good advice, right?

There's just one problem with this campaign.

These signs were only put in the women's restroom.

As if only women had eating disorders, all women were at increased risk of eating disorders, and only women could be concerned about someone with a possible eating disorder.

While it is true that the majority of people with diagnosed eating disorders are female, even conservative numbers estimate that 5 to 10 percent of patients diagnosed with anorexia and 10 to 15 percent of patients diagnosed with bulimia are male,¹ with one Harvard University study showing that up to 25 percent of patients with these disorders are male.² In addition, males account for 40 percent of individuals with binge eating disorder.³

In other words, even the most conservative numbers estimate that 1 in 20 people diagnosed with eating disorders are male. Not to mention that these numbers only reflect the number of people diagnosed with eating disorders, and the true rate of incidence is probably much higher. Men are less likely to seek help for eating disorders due to the stigma of them being perceived as "women's diseases," and are less likely to be diagnosed with them for similar reasons.⁴

In light of these numbers, why did Psych Services only see fit to put these signs in the women's restroom?

Because no matter what the numbers say, people think that eating disorders only affect women. Because people think that only women are affected by images in the media and only women care about their appearance. Because people think that men who struggle with these issues don't exist.

I'm sick and tired of this kind of thinking. This is going to sound heretical on a feminist blog, but we need to acknowledge that men have problems too. We need to acknowledge that the kyriarchy hurts everyone, women and men alike.

As an aside, one of my female friends hasn't used the women's bathroom in the dining center since these signs went up. I must condemn any action which makes people uncomfortable using the toilet facilities to which they are entitled.

This campaign excludes people who might be affected by eating disorders, reinforces harmful stereotypes, and makes people uncomfortable using the restroom.

Surely there's a better way to go about this.



1. Braun, Devra Lynn. "Eating Disorders in Males." Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health eJournal. 1997;2(2).

2. Hudson, James I. et al. "The Prevalence and Correlates of Eating Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication." Biol Psychiatry. 1 Feb. 2007; 61(3): 348–358.

3. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "Binge Eating Disorder." June 2008. Accessed 19 Apr. 2010. http://www.win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/binge.htm

4. "Men Less Likely to Seek Help for Eating Disorders." Mental Health Weekly 9 Apr. 2001.

From the ACBs

Two threads on the Haverford College ACBS:

Attractive, sweet guys who aren't tremendously self-absorbed
Attractive, cute girls who aren't tremendously self-absorbed

Why are the guys sweet, but the girls cute?

Why are the girls' personalities being erased from the discussion?

I know that one doesn't turn to the ACBs for enlightened discussion, but this just seemed a little strange to me, especially as the "cute girls" thread was created as a response to the "sweet guys" one. Why did the person creating the thread change the qualifications in the title, instead of directly copying over the title and just changing "guys" to "girls"?

I'm assuming no malicious intent, but this just shows the different qualifications society has for girls and guys. Guys have to have a personality, guys have to be nice, guys have to have something going for them other than looks. Girls don't have that "problem." They just have to look nice. Being a whole human being not required.

Gift Guide Fail

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to the following article: Gizmodo's "Gifts for Significant Others Neglected By Tech-Addicted Lovers".

Does anyone see the obvious fail in the article? Hint: what gender is the significant other?

Of course! Even though the article is ostensibly about "significant others" and "lovers," gender non-specific terms, it's really about what guys should get their girlfriends for Christmas (It actually admits this in the url: http://gizmodo.com/5416345/8-gifts-for-girlfriends-neglected-by-tech+addicted-boyfriends). Because of course only guys are tech-obsessed, and of course all girls are intimidated by technology. Thanks for reminding me of that, I had forgotten while I was busy blogging (using the HTML editor, not the WYSIWYG one) on my laptop and trying to figure out the cheapest source for a barcode scanner and a free database with good metadata that I can use to catalogue our library.

Also, some of the specific advice in the article bugs me too:

23andMe: What better way to make up for neglecting your girlfriend than by giving her the most personal gift possible: a detailed analysis of her genetic code. She'll be able to learn about her descendants as well as get clued in on what sorts of diseases she needs to look out for in the future. And as an added bonus, all that data she'll get will require a good amount of time for her to go through. Time you can spend playing video games.

So instead of spending time with your girlfriend, have some website give her a dense packet of all the ways her genes could kill her, so you can have more time to play video games? If you don't want to spend time with her, why are you going out in the first place? Also, where were you planning to get the DNA sample for them to analyze? Were you going to ask her first? This is getting into serious creepy and invasion of privacy and personal autonomy areas.

Classmates.com membership: Nothing will make her appreciate your half-assed brand of boyfriending like a trip down ex-boyfriend lane, especially the high school sections. Look, you might not be able to make it through a dinner without dicking around with your phone, but at least you didn't get fat and never leave your hometown like these schlubs. Here's to being the most palatable of an unpalatable group!

Great, so instead of giving a gift that shows any consideration of what she actually wants, buy her a membership to a website under the assumption that you'll look good in comparison to people from her past. Why bother actually being considerate when you can settle for not-as-bad-as-your-ex-right-honey instead? Ever occur to you that maybe if you're practicing a "half-assed brand of boyfriending" and can't "make it through dinner without dicking around with your phone," that maybe you should shape up and be a decent human being?

Asus O!Play: Getting a gadget for a gadget-wary girl might seem like an obvious blunder, but think about it: with this thing, you can stream downloaded movies and TV shows to your TV that you can watch together! As long as you are well prepared with some of her favorite movies and shows, you'll be able to sneak in some gadget-lust fulfillment in a way that you can enjoy it together instead of by yourself. A novel thought!

Let's all repeat, the purpose of gift-giving is to give something that the recipient will like and enjoy, not something you want for yourself. Purchasing something for yourself and pretending that it's for your girlfriend doesn't count.

Don't get me started on the heteronormativity of the article, how it assumes that in any partnership where one member is tech-obsessed and the other is less so, that it must necessarily be a heterosexual couple. Or actually, that it assumes that all couples are heterosexual.

So in summary, all couples are boy-girl, all girls are intimidated by technology, and all tech-geeks are male, selfish, socially dysfunctional, and terrible boyfriends.

Thank you, Gizmodo, I don't think I'll be taking any more of your advice. Come back and we'll talk when your perceptions of people have caught up to the twenty-first century, not just your gadget recommendations.