Pro-Ana communities: why they draw those starving for sustenance and support

Rosie Gilderthorp

Pro-ana: Less is more
Photo: Gideon Malais

A colleague recently brought to my attention a ‘pro-ana’ thread he had noticed on Twitter. He was horrified by what he read and I can see why. Twitter exchanges and message boards like this, consist of young women swapping tips on how to maintain a dangerously low weight and provide each other with ‘thinspiration’ pictures of sinewy celebrities. Pro-ana networks are a world of women with glossy hair, gleaming skin and sculpted cheekbones. There are no pictures of bad skin, thinning hair or infertility (difficult to photograph I accept), and there are certainly no stories about the death toll of eating disorders.  I, like my colleague, initially recoiled from these groups. It’s hard to avoid concluding that they maintain distorted thinking, fetishise a dangerous aesthetic and uphold judgments of women based on their weight. I started to think about writing a blog about shutting them down. However, when my initial horror abated, I began to wonder why people access them and what needs pro-ana groups seek to fulfil.

Are all murders equal?

Rosie Gilderthorp

Justice is blind. Isn't it?
Photo: Tim Green

Recently a serving soldier, Lee Rigby, was murdered in Woolwich.  The general public, willingly or not, became voyeurs, witness to the murder in a way still unfamiliar even in the world of camera phones and 24 hour news. With dramatic footage available, the media coverage was extensive. In particular, there was a strong focus on the grief of the family and the contribution he had made to the armed forces. Watching this story unfold I had the feeling that something very particular was happening in the way we were asked to view this murder. It’s something that happens from time to time with high-profile crimes. Something about Lee Rigby had made us take this one personally.

There has been considerable focus on the fact that Lee Rigby was a ‘war hero’ and a ‘family man’. I can’t help but wonder why it was inherently worse in the eyes of the nation that he was a soldier rather than a say, plasterer or a cleaner or someone who was unemployed? Would he have seemed a more palatable choice of victim if he had been single?  What about if he was involved in crime or violence? By this I mean the kind of violence not sanctioned by governments rather than the kind that gets you on the wrong side of the law. Having spent a fair time working in the criminal justice system I have been appalled by the number of horrific murders that are committed against young men and women within the context of ‘gang warfare’. These victims attract very little media coverage. It is as though the ‘gang’ label acts as a shield against public sympathy while the label of ‘soldier’ or ‘police officer’ ensures entry into the public consciousness. This is not purely a media issue. Recently, speaking to the Police Federation, Theresa May announced plans to alter legislation so that ‘life means life’ for those convicted of murdering a police officer. This implies justice means different things to us depending on the professional status of the victim. I can’t quite reconcile this with my understanding of the United Kingdom as a country in which all subjects are equal.  I value the lives of the police highly but no more highly than I value the life of anyone else.