The Gospel of Wellness: gyms, gurus, goop, and the false promise of self-care by Rina Raphael
People (and in particular women) are pursuing "wellness" like never before - Peloton bikes, juicing, fasting, meditation and the like have taken off at a fast pace. But, are we really all that unwell? That's what Rina Raphael covers in this book. Her main premise is that women in particular are seeking wellness so hard because it offers what we can never really have - control. And it may seem like all these wellness options are still good for us either way, but as Raphael uncovers many are not good for us and could actually be harmful instead. "The wellness industry has thrived on a very low-health-literate, high-disposable-income consumer." says Sarah Greenidge, the founder of WellSpoken, an organization committed to regulating wellness brands for accurate information. I also think social media has added to this because as I recently read in The Chaos Machine the most controversial stories tend to get pushed the most, so more and more fringe content (regardless of the topic) is pushed on social media and that definitely applies to the wellness industry. I was extremely impressed with this book and Raphael's writing. I also felt like she had a good balance to the book - it wasn't bashing health or good habits - but it did point out some not-good trends that are masquerading as healthy. Overall, I would definitely recommend this book.
There were LOTS of quotes I liked:
"We may have fought the good fight for women's careers, but as [Arlie] Hochschild observed, 'The workplace they go into and the men they come home to have changed less rapidly, or not at all. Nor has the government given them policies that would ease the way, like paid parental leave, paid family medical leave, or subsidized child care - the state-of-the-art child care, that too is stalled.' In essence, women changed, but many men, employers, and the government simply put up their feet." (p. 24-25)
"The wellness industry stepped in to fill a void created by the unreasonable expectations that torment us. Self-care promised salvation, deliverance from the evils of stress. But if it's a toxic workplace, a meditation program isn't going to fix it. A fitness app won't solve the uneven distribution of housework within your marriage; CBD gummies will not enforce better childcare policies; bath salts won't stop late-night work emails. Buy whatever makes you feel good, but realize that these are short-term mental Band-Aids that do not ensure long-term redemption." (p. 36)
"Trust that nature has a plan, brands state, while ignoring the earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, famines, and poisonous mushrooms plaguing this troubled earth. Nature, as science shows, does not signify goodness: nature is brutal, relying on survival of the fittest. And yet it's exalted as a higher power we can put faith in or that can transport us to a more wholesome era." (p. 79-80)
"Goop's supplement line sold $100,000 worth of product on its first day. (Even though you can buy the supplements' equivalents for half the price at your local GNC.) If women feel more understood by Gwyneth Paltrow than their own doctor, there's a problem with medicine." (p. 139)
"'There's a lot of good education online, but don't go hook, line and sinker, especially after someone is making a lot of money from selling products,' [Dr. Lucinda Bateman] says, singling out supplements, for one. 'As soon as people are earning their living by selling these [pills and products], then all credibility goes out the window as far as I'm concerned.'"(p. 146) [I understand why people are drawn to more "natural" supplements because big Pharma is DEFINITELY making a LOT of money off people staying sick.]
"As the clergy saw it, the only reasonable way to account for women healers was as testaments of malicious magic. Their herbal concoctions and childbirth techniques became proof of consorting with the devil (as if Satan were, of all things, a doula). A high percentage of women who practiced what we would call medicine were accused and subsequently burned for 'practicing witchcraft,' though undeniably because they circumvented (and threatened) the Church's authority. Fueled by religious dogma, those in charge successfully pushed women out of care, thereby restricting their role in society." (p. 152)
"In 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives doubled funding for endometriosis research, which amounted to just $26 million per year. Kim Kardashian's home is worth more than double that. All in all, that comes out to about $4 per U.S. woman afflicted with endometriosis." (p. 155)
"The United States saw a 600 percent increase in veganism between 2014 to 2017, and 30 percent of all Americans now avoid gluten, though only a small percentage actually have Celiac disease or a gluten sensitivity." (p. 169)
"There are no Manifesters Without Borders. Followers, mostly women, are drawn to the idea that whatever good energy you put out into the world inevitably comes back to you. When I ask, however, whether the Jews in the Holocaust lacked the right energy to escape Nazi Germany, some seem legitimately stumped. 'Huh, I didn't think about that,' one college-aged manifester replied." (p. 201)
[On egg freezing and IVF] "The chances of a single frozen egg resulting in a live birth for a woman under the age of thirty-eight is between 2 and 12 percent, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. One stat you won't see on a peppy social media post: of the approximately 2.5 million IVF cycles performed annually, a staggering 2 million do not succeed, which puts the global IVF cycle failure rate at nearly 80 percent. A lot of confusion exists as to what constitutes 'success' in this sector. Are we discussing the success of retrieving and storing eggs, of getting pregnant, or of actually having a baby at the end of the process? A lot of accurate but misleading numbers are floating around." (p. 267-68)
"Other industry experts agree that wellness is indeed a global trend, but what's going on with American women is something else. It is a mania not replicated in certain European countries where they have better work-life balance, more communal societies, and a more attentive (or socialized) medical healthcare system. Some have policies in place that support self-care. Sweden, for example, set up a 24/7 open hotline for registered nurses to respond to citizens' non-urgent health issues. One Italian academic told me, 'We take two-hour lunches with friends or coworkers to eat fresh food an we receive four weeks mandated vacation. I'm not sure my country needs all this wellness.'" (p. 284)
Small Things Like These by Claire Keegan (Evening Edition book club)
Bill Furlong is living a quiet, unremarkable life in Ireland in 1985. While times are tough with factories and businesses closing down, Furlong is still doing fine delivering coal and wood to locals. Winter is his busiest time and while delivering coal to the local Catholic church Furlong uncovers a distressing "open secret" relating to the local Magdalene laundry. This discovery causes Furlong to think about his own origins more and just how good his own family has things now. But, instead of minding his own business, Furlong decides to do something that will definitely have repercussions for his family and the troubled young woman he helps.
This novella is beautifully written in a quiet, sparse way. Bill Furlong is a wonderful character and I'd love to see a follow up novel set a few years after this one to see what happens to everyone. I felt like it was kind of a twist or remake of the Nativity story in some ways. I had heard of the Magdalene laundries, but after reading this book I read more about it and it is certainly appalling. I appreciate the way the author drew attention to this issue is a unique way through this novel. While not a traditional "happy" Christmas book definitely a good book to read around the holidays. Hopefully my book club will enjoy it as our holiday read this year.
The Call of the Wild by Jack London (Books & Banter book club)
Buck is a pet dog in Northern California when he is stolen by an employee of his owner and sold to go to Canada for the Klondike gold rush and pull sleds. After Buck is sold he quickly learns that not all humans are like his benevolent original owner. He also learns that not all dogs are like him - many are vicious and just looking for the opportunity or weakness in another dog to attack or kill them. And the Canadian wilderness is brutally cold as well. So on almost every front Buck encounters hardship and yet somehow he thrives. As his time in the North goes on Buck's true nature begins to emerge. He becomes the lead dog in his pack and eventually he meets his final and best owner - John Thornton. This is where Buck really shines as the best of both worlds - his wild dog ancestry and as a pet/companion for Thornton. But while he's with Thornton the Call of the Wild gets stronger for Buck and he must decide whether he will give into that call or stay on the pet side.
Somehow I had never read this book before and it was not what I expected in a good way. I was surprised that it was from Buck's perspective and I really like that and thought London did a great job of that. There was a LOT of violence but it felt normal for that time/place and not gratuitous. There were a few offensive/not politically correct terms/language, but honestly not as much as you would think for the time period the book was set in and written in. My only complaints were there were a few very unrealistic moments for Buck - namely killing the Moose alone and joining the wolf pack at the end. I've read a lot about wolves and I don't think it would be likely that a large, established pack would bring in an outside dog. But it did make for a good ending to the book. Overall, I liked it more than I thought I would and I really enjoyed London's writing.
Some quotes I liked:
"There was imperative need to be constantly alert, for these dogs and men were not town dogs and men. They were savages, all of them, who knew no law but the law of club and fang." (p. 26)
"Deep in the forest a call was sounding, and as often as he heard this call, mysteriously thrilling and luring, he felt compelled to turn his back upon the fire and the beaten earth around it, and to plunge into the forest, and on and on, he knew not where or why; nor did he wonder where or why, the call sounding imperiously, deep in the forest." (p. 124)
Daffodil Hill: uprooting my life, buying a farm, and learning to bloom by Jake Keiser
Jake Keiser looked like she had a great life in Tampa, FL. She ran her own PR firm, had a stunning wardrobe, and knew all the hotspots. But, beneath the surface she struggled with anxiety and feeling unfulfilled. She also struggled with wanting to be a mother, but had just ended another unhealthy relationship and had had several miscarriages. She secretly dreamed of owning a farm and even had a future farm spreadsheet of all the animals she hoped to buy one day. After her last failed relationship her stepmother called about a 5 acre property in Mississippi and on a whim Jake decides to drive out and see it. Something about the property feels right to her and she decides to buy it. Daffodil Hill is her account of going from city girl to farm girl.
While normally I love a good farm memoir I didn't love this one. Jake was not super likable and while no one knows fully what you're getting into with farming/gardening/animals it's frustrating to see someone jump in to getting LOTS of animals with zero knowledge. This can mean the animals suffer because of your ignorance. Never having had a farm dog, I wasn't sure if her experience with her dog Luca was accurate but it seemed like some of the damage he did as a puppy could have been prevented. There were several things that happened in the book that she never explained either - like why did her tomatoes taste bad? I really wanted to know because that seemed super odd. While Jake is on her farm she starts to really deal with some of the traumas in her life, namely being molested as a child and her many failed relationships and miscarriages. But, those parts are inserted in odd ways throughout the book. I think it makes sense that being alone and more in nature would force her to deal with those things, but it could have been added to the book in a better way in my opinion. And her on-again-off-again relationship with Paul was painful to read about because I think everyone but her could see what a douchebag he was. Overall, it was OK but I didn't love it. A better city girl to farm girl book is The Rural Diaries by Hilarie Burton Morgan.
What Your Food Ate: how to heal our land and reclaim our health by David R. Montgomery and Anne Bikle
What Your Food Ate is a comprehensive book about the importance of soil health because almost every living thing eats something that comes out of the ground. The book is divided into 4 sections - soil, plant, animal, people. It covers in each section how soil health impacts each of these areas. While I was aware of the importance of soil health Montgomery REALLY goes into detail about a lot of things I wasn't as aware of. Most importantly to any nay-sayers, there are TONS of studies from the past and present that detail how food grown in quality soil has more nutrients, is better able to fend off pests and disease, and tastes better - and this applies to animals who eat better quality grass/hay/feed and then goes on to us as humans. If we eat food either directly from quality soil (vegetables, fruit, grains, etc.) and also animals who are eating these better quality foods, then we will also take in more nutrients and be able to resist disease and/or heal more quickly. Anyone interested in regenerative food already knows this, but Montgomery does a really good job of really showing the data to support this claim. He also makes a point to say this is not a book about conventional farming vs. organic farming - this goes beyond both. What continued to be highlighted to me throughout the book was how when humans think we're smarter than nature or can bend nature to our will (which is usually about making money) it does not go well. I hope that more people wake up and see that the answers to food and environmental issues is not plant-based (but still industrially made) "meat," but regenerative farming that heals the land and produces high quality, nutrient-dense, and better tasting food. Industrial agriculture literally does the exact opposite of that to the land, to the animals, and to the people involved. My only complaint about the book is that it is VERY science/data heavy and somewhat repetitive. But, I would still recommend it for anyone who is interested in food/farming/regenerative food.
Some quotes I liked:
"There is no shortage of opinions about what we should eat. People argue endlessly, for example, over whether we should eat less meat, more meat, no meat, or meat that isn't meat. What's typically missing from the framing of dietary choices is how we grow what we eat. The way we raise our crops and livestock proves as important as what we choose to eat." (p. xii)
"Proponents of GM [genetically modified] crops also claimed that they would reduce pesticide use. Widespread adoption of crops genetically modified to resist glyphosate did indeed reduce reliance on some much nastier herbicides. But it took just five years after glyphosate came into common use for resistant weeds to begin appearing and spreading across American farms. A 2012 survey of farmers found that almost half reported glyphosate-resistant weeds on their farms. Now the growing problem of herbicide-resistant weeds is spurring new efforts to market even more toxic multiple-herbicide cocktails. That's not progress. It's digging the hole you're in deeper." (p. 59)
"Testing of 1,000 adults living in the United States found pesticide residues in all but 20, with 6 pesticide metabolites occurring in more than half of those tested, indicating widespread exposure of the general public to pesticides or their residues. Dietary intake is the most likely pathway for such widespread exposure among the nonfarm population. Little is known about human metabolism of the dozens of most commonly identified pesticide residues...A study of more than 4,000 U.S. adults found substantially lower urinary organophosphate pesticide levels in frequent consumers of organic produce." (p. 169)
"Glyphosate occurs in food, though at low concentrations relative to its reported direct (acute) toxicity. USDA testing in 2011 found glyphosate residue in more than 90 percent of several hundred soybean samples. Did this trigger wider testing? Nope. The agency already considered glyphosate safe...So until recently, hardly anyone, let alone the USDA or the Food and Drug Administration, tested for glyphosate or its primary decay product in food. Yet now that it has been found in food, blood, mothers' milk, and wine, researchers are starting to ask what it might do when it gets in us. A 2020 review found that more than half the species making up the core human gut microbiome may be susceptible to disruption by glyphosate." (p. 173-74)
"When [Jonathan] Lundgren worked out the typical per-acre costs in South Dakota for Bt corn seed, herbicide, and fungicide, his estimated total bill came to $167 per acre. For a 400-acre farm this translated into about $67,000 a year on pesticides, $10,000 more than the state's median household income. He sees South Dakota farmers throwing away the equivalent of a second income that could bring kids back to the farm." (p. 191)
"Diet-related chronic diseases were surging in wealthy countries, and obesity rates were climbing by the closing decade of the twentieth century. In 1980, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that just under half of Americans were obese or overweight. By 2010 that figured rose to nearly three-quarters." (p. 288)
"COVID-19 laid bare the vulnerabilities of those with chronic diseases in the midst of a pandemic. Another sort of vulnerability came to light when America's meat-packing plants had to shut down, exposing the fragility of industrialized animal husbandry. But the pandemic also showed how resilient - and adaptable - diversified, smaller-scale supply chains can prove. When the closure of restaurants eliminated wholesale accounts for small farms, many shifted to direct-to-consumer sales and e-commerce. That's not to say it was easy or that everyone succeeded. Still, the lesson matters. Distributed systems of smaller, interconnected pieces can react quickly, making them more resilient than centralized industrial systems too rigid to rapidly respond to crises." (p. 362)
Jesus and John Wayne: how white evangelicals corrupted a faith and fractured a nation by Kristin Kobes Du Mez
When Trump first announced he was running for President I thought it was somewhat of a joke. But then as his popularity soared, especially with Christians, I was stunned and terrified. As Du Mez says in the description of this book "How did a libertine who lacks even the most basic knowledge of the Christian faith win 81 percent of the white evangelical vote in 2016?" And even worse and more terrifying was how many Christians defended him over the "grab 'em by the pussy" recording. I also happened to read the Eric Metaxas biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer the summer of 2016 and was terrified to see the parallels between Hitler's rise to power and Donald Trump's (and come to find out in this book that Metaxas is a huge Trump supporter too - ugh.) I've been waiting awhile to read this book and while it is DEFINITELY worth reading, it is a hard read - especially if you consider yourself an evangelical Christian.
Du Mez explores how the previous 75 years of Church history led to exactly where we are now with so many evangelicals borderline worshipping Donald Trump. The basic gist of it is that the evangelical movement started pushing back on social change (civil rights movement, feminism, etc.) by doubling down on patriarchal interpretations of scripture in order to try to hold onto their position and power as white men. They are looking for a strong man to fight for America as a Christian Nation (which we never were or will be). The two main things that were highlighted over and over and over in this book that drive me insane are 1) how many Christians choose politics as their savior instead of Jesus and 2) how many Christian leaders when confronted with obvious wrongs just double down on their wrongs instead of admitting they failed or apologizing for not doing better (or even better making changes that would create true accountability). I honestly don't know what Bible these people claim to be reading?! As a Christian, it is terrifying to read how wildly these people are misinterpreting the Bible to suit their views.
In reading through some of the reviews after I read this I noticed two main things - 1) people who agree with Du Mez love the book even if they find it a hard read and 2) people that don't agree say it's blasphemy. There was also a LOT of complaining about how much she talks about toxic masculinity. That is a real issue and patriarchy/misogyny is the root of that issue. And sadly a lot of churches are so rooted in that patriarchy as their identity that they can't even see how bad and unbiblical it is. As Beth Allison Barr put it "Just because patriarchy is in the Bible doesn't make it Biblical."
This book is a hard pill to swallow for me. I do think of myself as an evangelical Christian, but I never identified with people like Jerry Falwell or John MacArthur or Mark Driscoll. I thought those people were anomalies not the standard. So how do you reconcile that? I don't know. I've REALLY struggled with church since Trump was elected because it's so hard for me to see people I thought were sincere Christians worship Trump as some kind of secondary savior. I think all of this grieves God's heart and it makes me sad too. A hard, but important read.
There were a LOT of quotes I liked - get ready:
"The civil rights movement, Vietnam, and feminism would all challenge reigning dogmas, and for evangelicals who had found a sense of security and significance in an America that affirmed 'traditional' gender roles, a strong national defense, and confidence in American power, the sense of loss would be acute...In the 1960s and 1970s, then, conservative evangelicals would be drawn to a nostalgic, rugged masculinity as they looked to reestablish white patriarchal authority in its many guises. Over time, the defense of patriarchy and a growing embrace of militant masculinity would come to define both substance and symbol of evangelical culture and political values." (p. 36-37)
"Many evangelicals, too, found it hard to accept that the sin of racism ran deep through the nation's history. To concede this seemed unpatriotic. Having embraced the idea of America as a 'Christian nation,' it was hard to accept a critique of the nation as fundamental as that advanced by the civil rights movement." (p. 38)
"The Vietnam War was pivotal to the formation of an emerging evangelical identity. For many Americans who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s, Vietnam demolished myths of American greatness and goodness. American power came to be viewed with suspicion, if not revulsion, and a pervasive antimilitarism took hold. Evangelicals, however, drew the opposite lesson: it was the absence of American power that led to catastrophe. Evangelical support for the war seemed to grow in direct relation to escalating doubts among the rest of the public." (p. 50)
"For many housewives, the new opportunities feminism promised were not opportunities at all. To those who had few employable skills and no means or desire to escape the confines of their homes, feminism seemed to denigrate their very identity and threaten their already precarious existence. It was better to play the cards they were dealt. Women who chose 'traditional womanhood' didn't always do so because they wanted an easier path, however; many believed it to be the better path." (p. 64)
"As late as 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution urging states to expand access to abortion. But with liberalization of abortion laws, and as abortion proponents began to frame the issue in terms of women controlling their reproduction, evangelicals started to reconsider their position. In 1973, Roe v. Wade - and the rising popularity of abortion in its wake - helped force the issue, but even then, evangelical mobilization was not immediate. Only in time, as abortion became more closely linked to feminism and the sexual revolution, did evangelicals begin to frame it not as a difficult moral choice, but rather an assault on women's God-given role, on the family, and on Christian America itself." (p. 68-69)
"It's hard to overstate Schlafly's significance in marshalling the forces of the Religious Right. Years before James Dobson or Jerry Falwell entered the political fray, Phyllis Schlafly helped unify white Christians around a rigid and deeply conservative vision of family and nation. Although her star faded by the end of the century, it wasn't because her influence had waned. By that time, her ideas had come to define the Republican Party, and much of American evangelicalism." (p. 73)
"Together with conservatives in the SBC [Southern Baptist Convention], CBMW [Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood] worked to promote patriarchal authority as a nonnegotiable requirement of the orthodox Christian faith. Functioning as theological think tanks, CBMW and SBC seminaries provided resources for denominations, organizations, and local churches, helping to build a network of evangelicals committed to advancing a patriarchal version of Christianity. They worked in close cooperation; in the mid-1990s CBMW took up residence at the SBC's Southern Seminary, and the council endorsed the seminary's resolution to hire only faculty members who were opposed to the ordination of women - over the opposition of students and faculty." (p. 168)
"The widespread popularity of the purity movement was fueled in part by an injection of federal funds. As early as 1981, President Reagan began directing government funding to abstinence-only sex education, and this funding continued through the 1990s, reaching its peak under the George W. Bush administration; by 2005, more than 100 abstinence-based groups would receive more than $104 million in federal funding. Here was a case of government intrusion into the most intimate of matters, yet evangelicals didn't seem to mind." (p. 171-72)
"[Mark] Driscoll reveled in his ability to shock people, but it was a series of anonymous blog posts on his church's online discussion board that laid bare the extent of his misogyny...he offered a scathing critique of the earlier iteration of the evangelical men's movement, of the 'pussified James Dobson knock-off crying Promise Keeping homoerotic worship...' where men hugged and cried 'like damn junior high girls watching Dawson's Creek.' Real men should steer clear...Failing to exercise 'his delegated authority as king of the planet,' Adam was cursed, and 'every man since has been pussified.' The result was a nation of men raised 'by bitter penis envying burned feministed single mothers who make sure that Johnny grows up to be a very nice woman who sits down to pee.' Women served certain purposes, and not others. In one of his more infamous missives, Driscoll talked of God creating women to serve as penis 'homes' for lonely penises. When a woman posted on the church's discussion board, his response was swift: 'I...do not answer to women. So, your question will be ignored.'" (p. 195-96) [Any surprise if this church's member voted for Trump? Sounds like it could be a continuation of the "Grab 'em by the pussy" conversation and NOTHING like anything Jesus would say...]
"[James] Dobson wielded enormous political power, yet it was nearly invisible outside evangelical circles. 'The average person in the establishment is not aware of what Dobson is saying to five or ten million people every week,' remarked Richard Viguerie, the GOP's direct-mail mastermind. 'That has served us beautifully.' Dobson's power was all too apparent to evangelicals themselves, for better and for worse. When asked about their greatest fear, Christian college presidents agreed: the possibility that James Dobson would turn against their school. The lesson was clear: 'Don't mess with Dobson or, by extension, with any of the moguls of the Religious Right.'" (p. 207)
"Palin's candidacy, however, raised the issue of gender. For evangelicals who believed in male headship, was it appropriate for a woman to be in such a position of power? If the alternative was Barack Obama, then the answer they gave was yes. Days before the 2008 election, John Piper wrote a blog post with the title, 'Why a Woman Shouldn't Run for Vice President, but Wise People May Still Vote for Her.' Piper made clear that he still believed that 'the Bible summons men to bear the burden of primary leadership, provision, and protection,' and that 'the Bible does not encourage us to think of nations as blessed when women hold the reins of national authority.' But a woman could hold the highest office if her male opponent would do far more harm by 'exalting a flawed pattern of womanhood.'" (p. 236)
"Evangelicals hadn't betrayed their values. Donald Trump was the culmination of their half-century-long pursuit of a militant Christian masculinity. He was the reincarnation of John Wayne, sitting tall in the saddle, a man who wasn't afraid to resort to violence to bring order, who protected those deemed worthy of protection, who wouldn't let political correctness get in the way of saying what had to be said or the norms of democratic society keep him from doing what needed to be done. Unencumbered by traditional Christian virtue, he was warrior in the tradition (if not the physical form) of Mel Gibson's William Wallace. He was a hero for God-and-country Christians in the line of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Oliver North, one suited for Duck Dynasty Americans and American Christians. He was the latest and greatest high priest of the evangelical cult of masculinity." (p. 271)
"Evangelical leaders were growing increasingly alarmed by the 'avalanche of sexual misconduct' allegations that showed no sign of letting up...In his bewilderment, [Al] Mohler found himself asking if theology might be to blame. Was complementarianism 'just camouflage for abusive males and permission for the abuse and mistreatment of women?' Quickly answering his own question, he declared that, no, the same Bible that expressed God's concern for victims also revealed 'the complementarian pattern of male leadership in the home and the church.' Mohler was not about to abandon patriarchy...John Piper also decided that evangelicalism's #MeToo movement was a good time to defend patriarchy. In a Desiring God podcast recorded in March 2018, he blamed egalitarianism for leaving women vulnerable. Complementarianism charged men 'to care for and protect and honor women,' but Christian and non-Christian egalitarians had stripped women of that protection." (p. 292)
