I recently decided that I will be participating in Low Impact Week starting tomorrow. Over the past few years, Albert and I have made a mllion changes in the way we live, and we could probably stand to make a gazillion more. I think the only way to do it is to go one step at a time. I don't know exactly when we started making changes — it was probably about the same time we moved here. Albert insisted on buying only recycled paper products. When he started, I was opposed to paying the extra 25¢. Now I am pretty much opposed to paper products in general. I still use them, but I am cautious about it and I'm about to make the jump to cloth napkins.

I have always been opposed to companies that tell women we must cover ourselves with toxic chemicals to be beautiful. I am opposed to toxic chemicals in general. So I spearheaded our household changing to kinder, gentler personal and household products. We started taking reusable bags to stores, which is no big deal and also earns you a small refund which helps offset the higher cost of natural products. Then, at some point, Albert noticed our electric bill was getting out of control. We had always been conscious of turning off lights and unplugging chargers, but we were pretty liberal with our central heat and central air. Last summer, we cut out the A.C. and reduced our bill by almost one third. We also saved a ton of money when we gave up our car. I have no problem walking everywhere and using SEPTA (okay, I have a million problems with SEPTA but I have no problems with the idea of public transportation) and we rent a Prius from Philly Car Share when we're going a long distance.

At some point, we both started getting into the idea of fresh, local food. I love the idea of picking up some ripe vegetables at the farmers' market and eating them that very day, but, in actuality. . . I don't love vegetables. I grew up on largely processed food and I am sure I am addicted to the chemicals in boxed mac and cheese and mayonnaise and Hostess cupcakes. When you are used to sucking down high fructose corn syrup all day, it's hard for a nectarine to compete. So I am slowly retraining myself. We did recently have some noticeably tastier strawberries from a local farmers' market, and Albert found a guy who makes delicious (and cheap) bread and an Amish family that makes awesome cheese. Every day we find something new to replace the old addictive stuff.

Another thing we did was get our names off those credit card offer mailing lists. We get credit card offers and insurance mailing lists almost every day. It only took five seconds to opt out.

This is an ongoing process, and we are far from environmental role models. We rent an old, environmentally unfriendly apartment which we are not allowed to modify. But we feel better about our smaller daily choices, and for anyone who says one person or two people can't make a difference, well . . . maybe you're right. Maybe we haven't made that much difference in the world. But we've made a ton of difference in our own world, and we get more exercise, eat better, help our local economy, save money and create less waste. Those can't be bad things.

So what will be different about Low Impact Week? Well, first of all, I'm unplugging the TV. It's rerun season anyway. I love TV and I will never ever be one of those high horse anti-TV evangelists, but I think I could stand a week without getting sucked into every dumbass reality show that airs. Secondly, we are going to attempt to buy only local food. Lastly, we are not going to eat any take-out lunches unless they come in recyclable packaging. We already eat vegetarian meals, walk everywhere, use reusable bags and avoid A.C. We are prohibited from modifying our apartment or planting anything outdoors. We live in a city with a crap-ass idea of recycling. So, we'll see how it goes.

Here are some things you can do today.

. . . me, because I watched a freaking marathon of this dumbass show last weekend. I have written about my distatse for The Biggest Loser before, but it's like a trainwreck I have to keep watching it. Again and again and again.

There is so much I hate about this show, it's hard to know where to start. So I'll start with what I like: I like seeing the relationships that develop among the teammates. I like seeing the family reunions. I like the updates at the end that show how well the eliminated contestants are doing.

I hate, hate, hate the stupid eliminations and the dramatic weigh-ins and all the psychological manipulation of the contestants. It's like The Biggest Loser wants to have it both ways: you can't set people up for humilation and paint a picture of heartwarming life changes at the same time. It's totally damaging because it paints an incomplete picture of realistically losing weight. For example, they never show a complete training regimen that includes warming up and cooling down. I saw a trainer shut off a treadmill with no cooldown while a 300+ pound guy was running at 5 mph! Another time, a woman on the elliptical announced that her heart rate was at 186. Is this healthy? When I exercise with a heart rate monitor, it starts beeping like crazy when I get anywhere near that high. This whole show is nightmare for viewers with eating disorders, with all the numbers that are constantly thrown about, like "heart rate of 186" and "17 pounds lost in one week." Then there's the crazy psychological manipulation, like forcing contestants to choose between calling their families or wrecking their diets by eating huge, gooey danishes. Plus, people work out until they puke and it's presented as a good thing. There is not much healthy about the way "healthy lifestyles" are presented on this show.

If someone asked me to make a game show about weight loss, I would have made something totally different. Yeah, no one asked me to make anything and if they did, a game show about weight loss would totally not be my first choice, but anyway — here's what I'd do.

I would not have people move to an isolated ranch. Maybe there would be a one-week training retreat or something, but for the most part, I would have people stay in their normal lives and work with trainers in their towns. I would not cut anyone off from their families; instead, I'd get whole families involved making healthier food choices and exercising together. I would not objectify the contestants by making them partially undress for weigh-ins with pounding King Kong-type music in the background. I would not make the contestants participate in humiliating challenges, like pulling cars around a track. In my show, contestants' progress would be gauged much less frequently, perhaps once every six weeks or so, using measurements and body fat percentages and increased strength and stamina, etc. It would be all about getting from point A to B, not competing against someone of a different gender with different metabolism, different abilities and different issues. I would have doctors and therapists clearly visible on the show, explaining things like joint pain and water weight and pyschological distress from public humiliation. The winner would be announced a year or two later, so it's not about rapid weight loss from crash dieting and over-exercising but rather about achieving and sustaining an appropriate goal.

Yeah, yeah, my show would never get on NBC. Apparently people would rather watch drama, manipulation and physical and emotional suffering. Too bad. By the way for the best, most balanced, non-judgmental program about weight, check out PBS's Fat: What No One Is Telling You. I loved it because over and over again, people shouted out my refrain: Everyone Is Different!

I recently read Amanda Marcotte's "Feminism in the Era of 'Girls Gone Wild'" on Alternet. As always, I skimmed the article and poured over the comments. After reading all the comments, I just have to submit this:

Participating in Girls Gone Wild is in no way inherently empowering for young women. Girls Gone Wild is a bunch of drunk girls acting stupid. I'm sure it's fun for some of them. I'm sure some of them regret it and some of them don't. And some of them are confident and some of them have no self-esteem and think flashing their tatas to Joe Francis will make them feel better about themselves. I bet most are simply being drunk and silly. I would personally kick Joe Francis in the teeth if he asked me to appear in one of his films but I can't deny that I have probably done plenty of silly drunk things while trying to be sexy when I was 18 years old. I have — thankfully — blocked out any examples, but let me just say that I bet they were liberating in some senses and degrading in others and on the whole could be safely classified as drunk girl acting stupid.

One thing I noticed in reading all these comments is that there seems to be a stigma against young feminists critiquing anything that relates to sex. I don't think people who object to GGW or "porn star" t-shirts on teenage girls should be judged as anti-sex. There are troubling aspects to these phenomena and stripping for free to make Joe Francis a bazillionaire is something that should be examined. Once again, everyone is different: some women might feel degraded and some might feel empowered and it's up to them to try to make sense of their feelings without being told how they "should" feel. Kids who are coming to terms with their sexuality in a highly commercial culture saturated with alcohol will undoubtably experiment in some ways that are healthy and some that are unhealthy. And some of them do it on camera.

ETA: Check out a take on this topic over at Feministing. Be sure to read the comments.

Thank you to everyone who followed my Urge for Going site over the years. I recently let the domain expire, and I have yet to remove some of the dead links to that site. I am going to compile my Urge for Going essays into a zine-type thing just as soon as I have the chance. I will post here when it is ready if anyone wants a copy.