So, I saw this story on Facebook today. It's actually 2 years old, but it's worth looking at if you're obese and think you shouldn't run for fear of injury. Here's the story. It's about a woman who may have been told she shouldn't run...because she may injure herself. She ignored that advice and shared it on her blog, which at the time seemed to have the same intention as the one you're reading now. It gained attention and now, 2 years later, it's a pretty interesting resource for anyone who's overweight and is interested in running.
I read the article because it recently came to my attention that shin splints aren't the result of a lot of body weight pressing down on a particular part of the body. They are only the result of a weak muscle. The muscle behind your shin bone. I can't say that's the only reason, but body weight isn't really the reason you may get shin splints.
That's what someone told me a few years ago. They lied? Maybe they didn't know. I was foolish enough to listen to them, though. They may have meant what they said in a different way. A year ago, I never thought I'd be running a 5k. Now, once or twice a week or more, even, I run 5k+. But things have changed between last year and now. I've lost several pounds and some inches! With the help of my trainer, I've conditioned my muscles and work on them weekly (if not daily). I've also improved my core and my ability to balance. My body has, and is still, changing.
Does that mean that a year ago I could have started running? Consistently? Without putting myself through agony? No, not necessarily. I don't know, really. But I do know that starting out with intense exercise and not just easing into it hasn't worked for me in the past when I've tried to lose weight and workout more. So, there's that.
Anyway, the point is that I can run. And maybe you can, too. Maybe a little bit of prep work and a little bit of knowledge might help you. Go to the About and Starting Out pages of this site. It's a UK site, so the resources and spellings of words are British, but... at least you can read it and maybe get something out of them. :)
Once you're reading that and all ready to run, you should check out my friend Laura's review of Melissa McCarthy's movies (e.g., The Heat, Bridesmaids, Tammy, etc.) and how they continue to carry the stereotype of fat females as being desperate, foolish, and less deserving of love. She thoroughly sums up why I hated Bridesmaids (hardly funny) very well. I think you might like it, too.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
What's in a name? Everything.
"If women’s last names are consistently absent from history, never passed down, then where is their—our—value?"
That's the most profound question (that shouldn't be profound at all) I've ever read. It's from this essay about a couple who gave their first daughter the wife's last name instead of the husband's. In her essay, the author questions why children taking the husband's last name is always a given in our American society.
This entire idea is something I had never thought about before, even though I've hemmed and hawed over a decision on changing my own last name once I get married. I even assumed that any potential future children may have my soon-husband-to-be's last name. It was never even a question. I had never given it a second thought, even...up until now.
I'm not saying with absolutely certainty anything except that I think this author is right: it shouldn't be assumed that children will take their father's last name always and forever. It should be a decision both parents make together, provided both biological parents continue on to be that child's actual parents.
Furthermore, while reading or just after reading this article, I got to thinking about lineage and how historically, men have held positions of power for centuries upon centuries of time. How did that come to be, that men have always (or at least primarily) been 'on top' and 'in charge'? Why is it that no women are aloud to be priests in the Catholic church, and have just barely been able to hold authoritative positions in government and large corporations? Why has this been the case for so long? How have we as a species made trips to the moon but we haven't managed to level the gender playing field?
Maybe what I'm about to say is completely foolish and fictional, but I thought it earlier and I'm going to put it out into the ether anyway. First, what lead me to this thought was the passage in the essay about "birthing"and how a woman should claim the rights to that process, since it's an active one, not a passive one. If a woman carries a child for 9 months inside her and basically opens herself up to let the child out into the world, how is it that no one considers that maybe the mother's last name should be the child's, too?
I do realize that men have a major role to play in child bearing and the process could not be done without their sperm, at the very least...but seriously... the woman carries the baby for 9 MONTHS. The man spends a maximum of, say, 15 minutes doing his part and the woman spends 394,462 minutes doing hers, and that may not even include the minutes spent in labor! And she doesn't even realize that she can question the child's last name and make a case that the kid share her last name? That's crazy.
Back to the foolish and fictional. I got to thinking that maybe, deep deep down, just maybe men feel threatened because women hold most of the power of procreation. And it's because of that threat that men felt the need centuries ago to overpower and oppress women, starting a deep lasting patriarchal trend of gender inequality.
Anyway, this essay has definitely made me think a bit differently about my own future naming decisions. I haven't favored hyphenation or blended options, but I know that I'll absolutely consider them more and more if and when the need arises.
That's the most profound question (that shouldn't be profound at all) I've ever read. It's from this essay about a couple who gave their first daughter the wife's last name instead of the husband's. In her essay, the author questions why children taking the husband's last name is always a given in our American society.
This entire idea is something I had never thought about before, even though I've hemmed and hawed over a decision on changing my own last name once I get married. I even assumed that any potential future children may have my soon-husband-to-be's last name. It was never even a question. I had never given it a second thought, even...up until now.
I'm not saying with absolutely certainty anything except that I think this author is right: it shouldn't be assumed that children will take their father's last name always and forever. It should be a decision both parents make together, provided both biological parents continue on to be that child's actual parents.
Furthermore, while reading or just after reading this article, I got to thinking about lineage and how historically, men have held positions of power for centuries upon centuries of time. How did that come to be, that men have always (or at least primarily) been 'on top' and 'in charge'? Why is it that no women are aloud to be priests in the Catholic church, and have just barely been able to hold authoritative positions in government and large corporations? Why has this been the case for so long? How have we as a species made trips to the moon but we haven't managed to level the gender playing field?
Maybe what I'm about to say is completely foolish and fictional, but I thought it earlier and I'm going to put it out into the ether anyway. First, what lead me to this thought was the passage in the essay about "birthing"and how a woman should claim the rights to that process, since it's an active one, not a passive one. If a woman carries a child for 9 months inside her and basically opens herself up to let the child out into the world, how is it that no one considers that maybe the mother's last name should be the child's, too?
I do realize that men have a major role to play in child bearing and the process could not be done without their sperm, at the very least...but seriously... the woman carries the baby for 9 MONTHS. The man spends a maximum of, say, 15 minutes doing his part and the woman spends 394,462 minutes doing hers, and that may not even include the minutes spent in labor! And she doesn't even realize that she can question the child's last name and make a case that the kid share her last name? That's crazy.
Back to the foolish and fictional. I got to thinking that maybe, deep deep down, just maybe men feel threatened because women hold most of the power of procreation. And it's because of that threat that men felt the need centuries ago to overpower and oppress women, starting a deep lasting patriarchal trend of gender inequality.
Anyway, this essay has definitely made me think a bit differently about my own future naming decisions. I haven't favored hyphenation or blended options, but I know that I'll absolutely consider them more and more if and when the need arises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)