I grew up steeped in ideas about good foods and bad foods. Eating good foods (or even better, no food at all) made one a good girl, virtuous, and - eventually, presumably - skinny. Eating bad foods made one a bad girl, gluttonous, and fat with all the most negative connotations of fatness that society allows.
I've worked hard to unpack and (to some extent) unlearn these attitudes. I had a moment today when it really reared up. I realized I feel guilty/bad when I eat Ritz crackers. I remember being told they were full of fat and they were not something we ever had in the house growing up.
I wonder... are they really nutritionally that bad? I almost looked at the Nutrition Facts panel when the thought reared its head. But what would that prove? They are not made of air and cardboard, and they are a processed food, so a glance at the facts and figures is not likely to prove they've got the same nutritional content (or lack thereof) as a handful of celery sticks and shut up the guilt that way. Nope, that's staying within the problematic paradigm. It's not about whether they're "bad" or "good" at all. I've gotta use my intuitive eating and HAES skills and shut that sh*t down.
Fact: In an ideal world, I would've brought a lunch, but I didn't.
Fact: The options to go out and purchase near work, and the time it would take to do so, did not work for me today.
Fact: I need to feed my body. Unplanned fasting is not an acceptable option for me.
Fact: I had Ritz crackers in my desk drawer because they're something I'll eat even when I feel crappy and/or don't feel like eating.
Therefore: Ritz crackers were the right choice given the parameters in place today.
Take that, tape loop in my head!