Yes! I was so infuriated I almost wrote Virginia a thank you/my sympathies note. (To be clear, we’ve never met.) i was rolling my eyes so hard at the subheading “an argument about butter.” And the Penelope gotcha at the end was predictably disappointing. The whole piece was an argument for why this space is needed—it didn’t take seriousl…
Yes! I was so infuriated I almost wrote Virginia a thank you/my sympathies note. (To be clear, we’ve never met.) i was rolling my eyes so hard at the subheading “an argument about butter.” And the Penelope gotcha at the end was predictably disappointing. The whole piece was an argument for why this space is needed—it didn’t take seriously that an anti-diet framework is also feminist and anti-racist. I’ll never read an nyt profile with credulity again.
100% agree. So frustrating. I was scratching my chin when I read this quote: "Sole-Smith does not dispute that in some cases, excess fat may contribute to disease..." Um, actually Virginia wrote a whole best-selling book questioning that premise? Also, this: "Still, decades of research demonstrates a strong association between excess fat and increased risk of five of the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States..." Just drop that there and leave completely unexamined the reasons why that research is biased, problematic, and often shoddy? Ugh. Shaking my head. Unfortunately this is what I've come to expect from the NY Times.
Yes! I was so infuriated I almost wrote Virginia a thank you/my sympathies note. (To be clear, we’ve never met.) i was rolling my eyes so hard at the subheading “an argument about butter.” And the Penelope gotcha at the end was predictably disappointing. The whole piece was an argument for why this space is needed—it didn’t take seriously that an anti-diet framework is also feminist and anti-racist. I’ll never read an nyt profile with credulity again.
100% agree. So frustrating. I was scratching my chin when I read this quote: "Sole-Smith does not dispute that in some cases, excess fat may contribute to disease..." Um, actually Virginia wrote a whole best-selling book questioning that premise? Also, this: "Still, decades of research demonstrates a strong association between excess fat and increased risk of five of the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States..." Just drop that there and leave completely unexamined the reasons why that research is biased, problematic, and often shoddy? Ugh. Shaking my head. Unfortunately this is what I've come to expect from the NY Times.