Community chat: Ozempic b*tches and "male drift"

Let's pause to share some discerning thoughts, you know, like the olden days

Today’s post is something of a “collecting of one’s thoughts”. There is so much going on, so many Big Topics landing hourly, and I feel I’m not pausing to discern them properly. So that’s what I’m going to try do here with you. This collection of items don’t represent the full gamut and they register at varying points on my outrage meter. Feel free to add your own in the comments - themes or news items that you’d like to flesh out with the crew here.

The Ozempic divide, where do you sit?

The new weight-loss drug initially developed for diabetes patients is suddenly a phenomenon already doing the rounds in suburban circles that I’m privy to. Like, People I Know, Know People Who Are Taking It. And much judgment thus ensues. Is she Ozempic’ing? I can’t believe he gave into it, too?

This kinda stuns me. And I apply the question of our times: Guys, have we thought this through enough yet??

Of course we haven’t.

And I wonder if this is why the phenomenon has become yet another issue that is dividing us. Helen Lewis from

The Bluestocking

wrote an essay this week for The Atlantic about “the real story” behind Ozempic, that goes beyond whether it works and possible side effects, and what she in fact calls The Ozempic Divide.

There are multiple divides at play. There’s the one between folk who are using it for insta-slim purposes who are clearing the shelves and denying access for legit diabetes patients. There’s another interesting and understandable one already raging in body-positivity communities, between Ozempic users and those who refuse to give into the anti-fat imperative of the drug. Those who abstain report feeling doubly judged, Helen writes, “by the thin people who always looked down on them, and by their former comrades who have now abandoned them”.

Then there’s the divide created between what Helen calls, “The Republic of Thinness” and “The Republic of Fat”. The quandary here is, by my summation, But isn’t it cheating? And what are the moral, psychological, “world order” implications of this?

Helen writes:

“Most residents of the Republic of Thinness want to attribute their size to willpower and personal responsibility, rather than wealth or genetic luck. And if thinness is available to everyone, their social capital is devalued.”

Yep, that’s not far off the ugly, competitive internal response I have. But there are probably a few more layers to it, if I’m to be fair. I imagine there would be many out there feeling that they are unlikely to afford it or justify using it, but are wondering if that means they will now be left behind, now deemed of problematic weight (and moral fibre?). Will the bar shift for us all? And what are the trickle down effects of this “new normal” being imposed on us? Guys, have we thought this through enough???

I also have this concern: Ozempic, I feel, is another instance of humans f*cking with the natural order of things, imposed on us by yet another multinational. Helen makes a very valid point to this effect:

I do not believe that Americans simply lost their willpower 40 years ago, when obesity rates began to climb. It seems more likely that our bodies, which evolved to navigate constant scarcity, are struggling to deal with the abundant calories and deliciously engineered food of the modern world. Our appetites push us toward sugar and fat, even if we have sedentary jobs. [Ozempic] silences that mechanism.

So, yes, it’s an unnatural solution for the unnatural problem we created. But it all begs, as it so often does, should we not address the original issues better? Should we keep fixing the problems we’ve created with the same consciousness that caused them in the first place? It’s a naive set of questions, I know. But if we sat and asked them for longer, maybe we’d come up with some answers that could be applied simultaneously, like fixing the food system, ending Big Food’s monopoly, making Ozempic free and strictly controlling the mounting vested interests. The company that developed the drug just overtook the luxury-goods retailer LVMH to become Europe’s most valuable company. Its market capitalization—an estimated $US450 billion — is higher than Denmark’s annual GDP. Is anyone regulating this? Have we not learned from Covid? From the AI race?

We are increasingly hit with complexities that should demand slower, deeper consideration. But I feel “society” now uses this very complexity as an excuse to not ask these kind of questions. And then to vilify anyone who dares suggest that we need to. Witness the “pick a side” social media imperative that’s emerged from the Middle East conflict. I will keep harping on this: Asking hard questions, highlighting the importance of staying in nuance and not folding into bifurfaction is paramount at this juncture in history.

It reminds me of a Mary Oliver poem:

I did think, let’s go about this slowly.
This is important. This should take
some really deep thought. We should take
small thoughtful steps.

But, bless us, we didn’t.

Journalists’ paid trips to Israel: know this

I’m glad (maybe not the right word) this issue has surfaced. I have been wondering when it would. I’ve been aware for many years that various Israeli interest groups fund Australian senior journalists and politicians to visit the country. I was once asked to join one of these trips. And refused¹.

Last week, however, almost 300 Australian journalists signed a public letter (which I recommend you read through) calling for better coverage of the conflict. The document called for a bunch of things, including that these “all-expenses paid trips to Israel” are disclosed by journalists and politicians when they comment on the subject. I agree, the should.

The letter has since resulted in Nine banning journalists who signed the letter from reporting on the conflict in their papers. Crikey has drawn attention to an uncomfortable fact: that three of the four editorial executives at Nine who imposed the ban participated in trips to Israel sponsored by pro-Israeli groups. This Conversation rundown is helpful for the context and it also provides a critique of the letter, which is worth reflecting on, too. I think it’s all valid, not all of it “right”.

The Middle East requires a Kaleidoscope

Someone here in the comments recommended reading Thomas Freidman’s op-ed about the conflict. His presentation of things as “requiring a kaleidoscope” encapsulates things as complicated, and beautifully so. Do read it.

"If you only look at one group or the other under a microscope, you want to cry — the brutal massacre of Jews, the harsh treatment of Palestinians by Jewish supremacist settlers. The list is endless. But if you look at their stories through a kaleidoscope, observing the complexity of their interactions, you can see hope. If you want to report accurately about Israelis and Palestinians, always bring a kaleidoscope."

Can we talk the role of the rich?

I have touched on this in a number of contexts: Where are the rich with everything going on? Why aren’t they pulling their weight in the world? How can they live with themselves as the chasm between the haves and have nots widens? I’ve touched on the “mindset” here in a Wild episode with cyberpunk Douglas Rushkoff (one of my favourites, TBH). And discussed the French approach a few times. But my argument has generally lacked enough context, ie. have the rich previously done more? Is this problem particular to our neoliberal predicament?

Created with Bing Image Creator

An economics history professor at Bocconi University in Milan has just filled in the gaps with this piece for the The New York Times. He asks, via the subhead of his article: What Happens When the Super Rich Are This Selfish? (It Isn’t Pretty.)

Throughout much of the Western world’s history, the wealthiest have been viewed in their communities as a potentially harmful presence, and they have attempted to allay this sentiment by using their riches to support their societies in times of crises like plagues, famines or wars.

This symbiotic relationship no longer exists. 

As it happens one of the key markers of civilisational collapse, as per our ongoing conversation here, is when “elites” separate themselves from the rest of us.

Male drift: why women are not getting married

Further to (another) ongoing conversation that we have been having here about male-female dynamics, and following on from my AMA post a few weeks back about how old white men like to argue that women should marry to create a happier society for all (slightly more complex than this, but it is certainly the gist), a writer in the US has chimed in on the topic with another valid take. She argues that the reason women aren’t marrying is that the standard of male partner has dropped. She also raises the worrying correlation between the experts concerned about men’s welfare and those pushing women to marry…

What was once dismissed as the complaint of picky women is now supported by a raft of data. The same pundits plugging marriage also bemoan the crisis among men and boys, what has come to be known as male drift — men turning away from college, dropping out of the work force or failing to look after their health.

Here’s my chat with Connor Beaton, which forms part of an ongoing and upcoming series of chats on gender dynamics. Please do share any speakers or perspectives you’d like raised.

And the whole damn lot makes me think of this parable:

A guy stands by a river. A woman on the opposite shore shouts, “How do I get to the other side of the river?” 

The guy bellows back, “You are on the other side of the river!”

I’m actually in the process of packing up my apartment in Paris into my two suitcases and moving it all to a storage cupboard on the other side of town. I’m heading back to Australia for three months on Friday and have three big podcast interviews between now and then. It all feels a bit topsy-turvy. I’m in a surreal liminality. Excuse me if I’m not as present in the comments thread this week.

Sarah xx

1. Full disclosure again: I did join a trip to Israel and Palestine last year with Small Giants, which is owned by a family of Jewish heritage. The trip worked to a “dual narrative” program. We spent half the time in Palestine and had an Arab guide (as well as a Jewish one). It was not all-expenses paid.