Obesely Obese Obesity

So, evidently Wired Magazine has decided to define "fatosphere" thusly:

Fatosphere n. A blogosphere of the obese, by the obese, for the obese. Often designated "no-diet zones," fatosphere blogs seek to counter medical claims that obesity is a health epidemic.

Never minding the limiting of the definition to just fat bloggings criticism of the "obesity" epidemic, I'm stunned that when defining the FATosphere, they refuse to call us fat. Nope, must use the socially approved slur of "obese" and use it as much as humanly possible. I'm stunned they didn't invent new forms of the word like an adverb "obesely".

Look, among the things fat blogs should be trying to accomplish is to get ignorant people to STOP calling use "obese". Its a loaded word. I've gone over this, before.

"Obese" medicalizes our bodies. It reduces us to being seen as diseased. Far more than "fat", it used to define us. And not even by our bodies, but by the state of failure and disease those are bodies are supposed to represent. Its like insisting on calling a gay person "homosexual", using the Latin to dehumanize people. Its not a nice way of calling us fat. Its an offensive way of calling us fat. And its worse than "homosexual" because the Latin origin of "obesity" is an accusation of gluttony. The word roughly means "on account of eating". Using the word makes a judgment against us. It reinforces cultural stereotypes and one thing fat blogs should darn well do is reject it and demand others do the same.

If you call me obese, you are not being respectful of me. I'll grant that a lot of people don't know any better, but that's not a free pass. Its a word of scorn and derision and it is disrespectful to call me or any other fat person "obese" or to talk about a state of "obesity". If you didn't know that before, fine. You do know, and I hope you'll act accordingly. I'm not "obese". I'm not "overweight". I'm fat.

The alternative to fat suits

No, not fat actors. God forbid. Making thin actors gain weight is the sign of true authenticity.

Did you really need to make Jared Leto so upset having him gain weight for a movie about John Lennon's murder? Is it that hard to find a fat actor who looks like Mark David Chapman? Hell, I'm a fat actor who looks like Mark David Chapman. There must be thousands of Was the awe-inspiring star power of Jared frickin' Leto that important? He's Jared Leto. One of those names you recognize, but ultimately can't place in the pantheon of boring and unsuccessful and increasingly not even young actors. Unless you were REALLY into Jordan Catalano, he's already interchangable.

Leto is now going on a media tour complaining about how hard it was to be fat. Poor little Jared was too fat to walk. I'm serious. He gained 60 pounds and suddenly he needs a wheelchair. Well, I must just be Jesus walking on water to get around then because I'm fatter than poor little Jared was. Of course, it might have been that he had gout. Yeah, the idiot gave himself gout, either by rapidly gaining or rapidly losing this weight. Many stories don't even point this out, acting like becoming disabled by gaining 60lbs is just obvious.

Poor little Jared also complains about he'll never be the same again after getting fat, like he's damaged goods. Yeah, because rapidly and intentionally forcing your body to gain weight is such a normal experience. Lets be clear here. You forced your body to gain weight rapidly and then starved yourself to lose 62lbs in time for your next movie role. I don't doubt that you screwed up your body, but it had nothing to do with being fat.

Lets save the next poor little Jared from himself, Hollywood. If a role is for a fat character, try hiring a fat person.

Invisible prejudices

There is been discussion lately on the "last acceptable prejudice" moniker often used for fat bigotry. There is more truth to that motto then is being let on, but it is ultimately far too imprecise. It requires too many qualifications and clarifications to usefully communicate the intention of identifying what makes fat prejudice unique. This is often how we are called up to look at our experience because all too often, looking at ways fat prejudice is alike to other forms of bigotry brings cries that this is an inappropriate line of discussion. We can't talk about how fat prejudice and gay prejudice or racial prejudice intersect because we are told that this would devalue some other prejudice. Likewise, I don't doubt that there are those who profess to believe in FA who do the reverse. Fat prejudice is a problem, but homophobia isn't. This is something that has hampered a greater discussion of how fat prejudices interacts and intersects with other forms of social and cultural oppression.

To the end, while the consequences of fat bigotry can be very serious, they are also inconsistent. I recognized this when last week when David Paterson was sworn in as Governor of New York. Paterson is only the 4th African-American governor in the history of the United States. Even more uniquely, though, he is the thought to be the first legally blind governor in American history. Which illustrates a key difference in the structure of fat bigotry. We don't have to fight for our first fat mayor, first fat senator, first fat governor, or first fat President. Its already happened and no one thought to notice.

Nor should they have, really. While fat prejudice can be strong, for certain people it can be overcome. Indeed, for some, its not much of an obstacle at all. Which ultimately contributes to it being a prejudice no one needs to think about having. Indeed, for most who harbor fat bigotry the power structure has become completely inverted. Instead of recognizing the ways fat people are disenfranchised, they instead presume us to actually be the party in power. That the problem is that we are not attacked enough.

So, why do some people have no problem getting ahead while fat, while others don't? This is clearly a place where the intersections of other prejudices has a significant impact. Not all fat people are treated equally. For some, people genuinely don't see it as a problem, while for others it is all people see. Gender, race, class, all these things play a part and there are no easy ways to identify it, much less respond to it. Very often, all these prejudices blur together and all become invisible.

Which isn't a reason not to respond. But this ultimately needs to be a two way discussion. While it is healthy for fat acceptance to be challenged to think about these intersections, those who make that challenge need to understand that they need to be part of the process of identifying them. You cannot just say, "you don't represent me". There needs to be a willingness to share your perspective for other people to really learn from it.

That doesn't mean that sharing that perspective should be polite, mind you. I'm reminded of growing up in a lower middle-class, racially diverse community. My understanding of the privileges I experienced as a white male was informed vividly by black classmates and female classmates who talked about them without pulling punches. I saw how some responded to this with hostility, but it did help me to really focus on the advantages I had gotten without every asking for. I learned to respect that I was privileged by our culture, and that I needed to recognize this if I wanted to be part of a solution to this problem.

When I got to college, this all turned around and I got a lesson in class privilege from the side of the lower-middle class. I went from an environment where I thought my family was pretty well off, to one where I was the poor kid. Instead of a thriving and diverse community, my private university was overwhelmingly white. Looking back, I have to say that I'm not happy with how I responded. Because I didn't talk about it. Didn't even like thinking about it, really. Slowly I recognized the divide and how alienated I felt by it. My classmates spoke of summer internships and spring break vacations. I went home to work during the summer. My first two years at college, I spent spring break in my dorm room. I only ever went on trips my last two years as part of a scholarship from the school's choir. A scholarship I didn't really ask for and which no one talked about. I saw they way economic class advantages people, but I never tried to instigate a discussion about it. I should have. I think it would have been a healthy thing for my classmates to be exposed to, but I held back because I didn't want to be seen as attacking them. But we need to share our experiences, so others can learn to recognize and respect these differences. I did my classmates a disservice by withholding my own experiences from them. It was a learning opportunity for them that they didn't get.

They couldn't start that dialogue, though. Which is the challenge. I think sometimes, the concern that people will be defensive, ends up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can't hop into a room, say "fix it", and not expect a possible honest response to be "fix what?" from people genuinely interested in social justice. Especially when you're not even talking about the macro issues of privilege, but the micro issues of the intersections of different privileged groups.

We also need to recognize that we have all these different civil rights fights for a reason. Feminism cannot be racial equality which cannot be gay rights which cannot be fat rights. Each of these groups should have a unique and distinct voice, because collectively we will be more powerful. Which again, isn't a reason not to foster dialogue and understanding nor to hold back from challenging other progressives causes when they trample upon our own. But there are also a lot of reasons why there needs to be a focus on what differentiates us, too. It is part of the process of identifying what is fat prejudice, what fuels it, what will defeat it. We need to own that fight, so that we can, ourselves, be advocates of understanding to others. The final result of a pan-humanity movement of togetherness and distinctiveness might one day come, but until then our separate "fiefdoms" can actually serve a meaningful purpose. They are the means to that end. No one group can be everything to everybody. Right now, no one group can be everything to everybody who believes in that one group. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be better. Try to advance our positions and commitments. We need to own that process so we can lead it where we want it to go. We cannot change society but just sitting back and telling it to change. We need to act. Waiting for things to come around to a marginalized point of view isn't good enough.

This is, of course, why we also need to be willing to listen when others engage us about things we may not fully understand or appreciate. We need to welcome that input and foster a constructive atmosphere. No one gets to abdicate responsibility. Just as we cannot sit back and wait for the world to change, it is not okay for the world to sit back and wait for us to change it. Both sides need to be engaged for an understanding to come out of it. That's the hard part. Like so much, there isn't a simple answer. Both sides need to find a common ground of good faith. The world cannot sit back and dictate the terms of its willingness to change, either. That is unacceptable, and no one should feel pressured to find a false common ground. That just falls back onto reductivist approaches that make a civil rights struggle into the least it can be so the most can agree. If someone doesn't want to accept that, good. They should challenge attitudes and press for change. They shouldn't hold their punches. Change won't always feel good for those in a hegemony, but that's how its always going to be. While defensiveness can sometimes be a self-fulfilling prophecy, it sometimes is just defensiveness. I'm not saying its easy to distinguish, but its worth trying and pushing. Holding back because someone might be defensive isn't acceptable, either. Quite the opposite, I'd say. That's why we all need to be agents of the change we desire.

Normalcy isn't perfection

Usually when looking at parallels between fat acceptance and gay rights, one is apt to strike upon the genetic arguments both groups make. And indeed, there is a lot to learn there. But with all the talk of "good" and "bad" fatties, I'm actually more reminded of the Gay Marriage issue.

While marriage equality is something that I'd say a vast majority of gay rights activists are fighting for, its not something every gay person agrees with. There have been vocal concerns among some gays that this fight will lead to a social obligation to marry for gay people that they are opposed to. Not every gay person wants to get married, they say, so why fight for it? Isn't this only going to make it acceptable to be a married gay person in a society?

While I understand the reasoning behind that concern, I've always found it to be self-defeating. Its like stopping a field trip because one child decides he doesn't want to go to the state capital. And ultimately, I think the concerns are proving unfounded.

Its not that marriage equality activists are saying every gay person must get married. They just want the right to do so, if they wish. And gaining this right, in turn, will actually benefit those gay people who don't want anything to do with marriage for any number of reasons. Maybe they think its sexists or inherently straight-centric. Maybe they don't believe in monogamy at all. The movement, though, hasn't tried to suggest that all gay people are the same, and the risk that opponents would try to force that compromise hasn't come to be. Just like people are not becoming tolerant only towards genetic gays, they also aren't becoming tolerant only towards married gays. Its about achieving normalcy. Normalcy isn't perfection and it isn't uniformity. Not all straight people believe in marriage, and that's fine. Sure, there is some social pressure, but its not outright bigotry. Not all straight people believe in monogamy, either. All of these perspectives exist in the straight community, they just aren't used to define the straight community. That's what gay rights activists are looking for. Normalcy. Gay marriage isn't about conforming to a heterosexual ideal. Its about recognizing that gay people and straight people aren't that different. Married gays aren't "good" gays, but they are gays. They can be a unique and vibrant community, but there is also so much that brings us together, too.

That's what fat acceptance is going for, too. Its not about confirming to an ideal of the "good fatty". Its about achieving a normalcy where fatties aren't judged to begin with. Its not about achieving a segregated tolerance where the only acceptable fat person plays by the "rules". Its about getting the same opportunities as thin people. Thin people eat "healthy", or don't. The exercise, or not. But none of that defines their existence. Not all social pressure will get wiped off the map, but the way bigotry is tied to body size will. Talking about "good" fatties isn't about enforcing a aspirational conformity, but about achieving normalcy by showing that we're just like everyone else. That's the attitude we're combating. Where any "bad" behavior becomes a moral failing on a magnitude unlike anything a thin person would every experience for the same actions. This normalcy will undo those notions of good or bad, and we can all just be. Its not about being perfect. Its about being normal.

Defining Healthy (the end of good and bad)

I thought of an illustration of my last post a little bit late, but I think its apt to show why defining ourselves as good or bad by the dictates of a fat hating society is a futile effort. Let me offer you two descriptions of a fat individual.

Person A is a classic "bad" fatty. They eat tons of cheese, never enough veggies, and always load up on dessert. They drink at least 24 oz of soda daily and often snack on candy or salted treats. They never go to the gym and haven't done organized exercise since high school. They've gained more than 100lbs in the last 10 years.

Person B is a classic "good" fatty. A vegetarian, they also enjoy healthy seafood like steamed white fish and salmon. They drink plenty of water all day. They don't own a car and walk to the subway. During the spring and summer, they try to go hiking as much as possible, often on challenging rock hiking trails. Though fat, their weight has remained mostly steady since college.

Forget about whether one is more deserving of fat rights over the other. Both are completely fair descriptions of myself. For all we are told about how "their" definitions of health are absolutes, they are still extremely subjective. I can be a "healthy" person and an "unhealthy" person all at once. In our culture, though, fat people are coached to magnify and concentrate at how we are unhealthy. For us, that's the only stuff that matters. Because this is such a powerful message, we've come to do it to ourselves.

We need to push past this. Look, there is no guilt that should be had for falling into these mindsets, but that doesn't mean we should justify or affirm them. It is a powerful message, and we'll fall into traps. We can't be perfect. We can only try. Its the trying that is important. It is what will allow us to look past our set-backs rather then letting them define the limits of our possibilities.

When we feel like we are being a bad fatty, we should remind ourselves to question the standards we are holding ourselves to. These are standards set out by a culture that despises us. We must not let them define us. This is not something that Fat Acceptance is causing. Its part of the culture of fat hatred. Accept that we will all have moments where fall prey to these dictates. Don't beat yourself up over that. But define yourself not by the moment of doubts, but the goal we are reaching towards. You can accept that you will have moments of self-negativity without accepting those moments of self-negativity.

We need to come with a new definition of healthy. One that lets everyone be as healthy as they can be in the bodies they have, instead of defining them by their failure to have a body they do not have. "Good" fatties are not offered as aspirations, but as refutations of a culture that says that this cannot be. We show this to be false not to move the fence of what is acceptably fat, but to tear down these suffocating barriers entirely.

There is NO good or bad

The whole idea of "good" or "bad" fat people that's going around right now feeds right into the culture of fat hatred. That is the culture which defines good or bad and that is what we need to confront, instead of trying to reduce our message to fit into their standards.

In our fat hating society, ALL fatties are bad. Not only bad, but far worse than the most "bad" fatty you'll ever find. Our self-inflicted notions of what makes a "bad" fatty are still miles away from the prejudiced assumptions made about all of us. We made label ourselves "bad" if we don't excersise daily or eat more than 2,000 calories, but that's not the "bad" we're dealing with. We are dealing with a culture which is convinced that our bodies are proof that we eat thousands of calories a sitting, that we are virtually housebound by our sedentary lifestyles. They really do think we are sitting on our couches all day shoveling candy into gaping maws. That we sometimes watch TV and that we allow ourselves to eat isn't the "bad" they are talking about.

We can't play under their rules. The so-called "good" fatties aren't the end, but rather a means to an end. Its not about showing that we can be good by their rules. Remember, THEIR rules don't allow us to be good at all. That we can eat little, excercise plenty, and still be fat shows that THEIR rules are complete garbage. It shows that the way they define good and bad is dangerously misguided. It shows that their definition of health is a farce. "Healthy by their rules" fat people don't defend these rules. They tear them down completely.

That is where FA must step in to provide an alternative. Not an alternative which retains the restrictive dictates of health, but one which is properly expansive and inclusive. We tear down their system, and then call for a new one which is not simply a slightly adapted version of what exists now, but which is better for all people.

We need to stop seeing things the way a fat hating culture wants us to. We must stop labeling ourselves "bad" because we don't follow their rules. We must not reduce fat acceptance so as to not disturb their rules of what is good and bad. What we must demand is change. Genuine and radical change. "Good" fatties are part of that in that they show that the emperor of fat hatred has no clothes, but that doesn't force us to accept that their definitions of bad are bad. It doesn't force us to preserve their prejudices and exclusions. We're not talking about tweaking fat hatred, we're talking about overthrowing it.

In that fight, we cannot afford to give up our most powerful weapons against fat bigotry. We will not change a culture of fat hatred by saying "So what if all the reasons you hate us are right?" They already think they are right and they've concluded that this culture of fat hatred is a just response. We cannot change it by saying, "So what if we choose to be fat," because they already believe we have a choice and that this is the proper reaction to that choice. Those are not arguments for change, and they aren't arguments we need to make.

So you are a "bad" fatty. What makes you think that has any impact on your size? There are "bad" thin people out there. Why should you think your body is the result a "choice" when they made the same choices and have a different body? So you have diabetes. Does that mean you aren't healthy? No less so than anyone with diseases commonly associated with thinness. There have been diabetic fat activists for decades. There have been fat activists with PCOS for decades. There has never been any contradiction there, because that's not what fat acceptance is advocating. Its never said that only some fat people should be accepted. Its shown why all the reasons we are not accepted are false, unreliable, and unproductive.

Should it matter if being fat is a choice? No. But it does matter to the culture of fat hatred, and playing "but it shouldn't" won't change a thing. It shouldn't matter if being gay is genetic to advance gay rights, but gay activists recognized the ways homophobia perpetuates itself. Sure, there are some who will hate gay people anyway, but by educating people on how there is no choice for most gay people, they've torn down the intolerance. And when someone becomes accepting on these grounds, it doesn't matter if a gay person choose to be gay or not. Once you tear down the intolerance, those issues really don't matter anymore. I don't doubt that we'll be offered conditional acceptance, but we have no obligation to take that. We have no obligation to say, "good enough". We can reject it for the false compromise that it is and keep pressing our case to undo fat hatred's notions of good and bad.

We shouldn't be identifying ourselves as "bad" fatties. That's playing by "their" rules. We're going beyond that. That's the destination of fat acceptance. That is where "fat is not unhealthy" and "fat is not a choice" is taking us. We'll never get anywhere if we try to reason within a fat-hating system. We need to confront THEIR standards for hating us and show them to be false. We need to take this fight head-on.

NO, U R FAT

I'm not sure what's sadder. That this happened, or that its so expected in the entertainment industry that its so unsurprising.

I've gotten roped into watching some of American Idol this year, which at least allows me to read the snarky reviews of the show at Television Without Pity. Especially fun is all of the rumors they hint at in their recaps that usually send me googling to get the in-jokes about gay strippers, wigs, and unspeakable acts by Santa Claus.

One bit of snark led me to the story behind one of this year's contestants Carly Smithson. Seems just 7 years ago, Carly had her first chance at stardom which also led to her being a famous "cautionary tale". At 18, the Irish singer was tapped to be the next big thing. Her record company spent more than $2 million promoting her, including setting her up with an apartment for 2 years while she worked on her very carefully and corporately crafted first album. It was a spectacular failure, though, selling fewer than 400 copies and earning write-ups in papers like the Wall Street Journal for the debacle.

It was that write-up that caught my attention thanks to a throw-away tidbit the author makes in her introduction. Referring to that bankrolled apartment, the author mentions something the then teen singer had scrawled on her fridge in marker.

"NO, U R FAT"

As you can see in the promo picture above, this was an exceptionally thin young woman. Indeed, she'd spent years in modeling and performing up to that point, too. This is still how she saw herself, though. As not good enough. Not pretty enough. Not thin enough.

While these pressures are so insidious as to not require outside influence, I still suspect there was an executive somewhere that cautioned the thin teenager that she needed to bring her weight down to be a hit. I'm reminded of the horrifyingly funny bit in the movie "Knocked Up" when E! network heads urge the obviously thin Katherine Heigl to drop 20lbs in her on-air role. This is just how the entertainment industry works and no one is supposed to be surprised.

To some degree, we need to reclaim the shock and horror that this sort of thing should elicit. The way women's bodies are turned into commodities and products under tight control and specifications. We need to be stunned at a story like this because it simply is not acceptable.

Vote for Boston's Big Moves

Boston's alternative weekly, The Phoenix, is having a poll for their upcoming BEST issue. One of the categories is Best Dance Performers and one of the options happens to be the plus-size dance troupe Big Moves. Head on over to show your support for this great organization. The poll does require that you submit an email address to include your vote, so be sure click "Skip to Finish" after you submit your vote for Big Moves.

Big Moves has one this poll before in 2006, so it'd be great to see a repeat win for the fatties. If you'd like to donate to Big Moves, you can do it online through the Boston Dance Alliance.

Fat is Contagious: The Book

Old news to some, but since its getting some attention on NPR and The Today Show, I thought it was worth linking to Kim Brittingham's essay about her mass transit stunt, "Fat is Contagious". I probably shouldn't call it a stunt, since its really more performance art if you ask me. Frustrated at the way people refuse to sit next to fat people on buses and subways, Brittingham created a fake book cover titled "Fat is Contagious: How Sitting Next to a Fat Person can make you Fat".

Its a terrific essay and something most fat people will be readily familiar with. I know I got this treatment all the time riding the Orange Line in Boston. For all the constant fussing about how us fatties are squishing people on mass transit, the reality is scarcely recognizable. First off, most of us will stand even if there is a seat we can easily fit into just because we don't want to deal with the hassle of people getting upset at our presence. I know I do, and frankly I've never seen a fat person force themselves into a seat they couldn't comfortable fit into. I'm sure its happened once or twice, but its the classic straw-man. This just doesn't happen with the frequency necessary to justify the whining. Most people are actually upset that fat people were sitting there first.

Or they are just idiots. See, I got plenty of annoyed glances when someone saw me on the Orange Line, but I also knew darn well that I fit into the seat. I knew because I repeatedly checked everytime someone acted like I was invading their personal space. No, my fat ass fit just fine with room to spare. Which is when I started to realize the actual problem. Its not my fat ass, but their broad shoulders. These jerks were too self-absorbed to realize THEY were actually jutting into my seat by refusing the cross their arms in front of them. Instead, they spread them out to their sides while reading a newspaper. Guess what? No one can fit into a subway seat doing that. I don't care how thin you are, if you spread our your arms to read a newspaper, you've spread out your arms into someone else's seat. Yet everyone one of these people felt entitled to blame me for their inability to fit into their own seat. Because I was fat, after all.

Worst time was when I boarded the train and saw a seat open on an aisle. Though the aisle seats actual press against short wall, they are a bit roomier so I pick them to give me a little more room to deal with thin seat hogs. A person was sitting in the seat next to it, but there was plenty of room for me in the open seat. Well, not according to him. He had spread himself out while it was empty and refused to adjust when I went to sit down. So, while he was actually well into my seat, he huffed and puffed at me for squashing him. Eventually he stormed off to stand further into the train rather than just try to fit into his own seat and probably wrote some angry missive on Craigslist about the indignity of it all.

Brittingham does a very good job revealing the absurdity of this hostility towards fat people on mass transit and the book cover is brilliantly subversive. She has a very good story of a confrontation she had on the bus without even pulling out the fake book and the insane way people use "health" as a smokescreen for their bitterness towards fat people. A woman was blatantly angry at her for taking up space and having to endure sitting next to her could be heard justifying this with the tired "for her health". None of her concern was remotely related to health, but that's where fat bigotry always comes back to. The ultimate justification. When all else fails, you're just concerned for their health.

Anyway, go read it. The essay's a bit of old news, but if its new to you its well worth a read.

Changing the Conversation

The most vital thing for fat acceptance to strive for is a change in the conversation about fatness. Indeed, this is far more important than advocating or supporting individual conversion to fat acceptance because a change in the conversation ultimately needs to happen first or there will always be a glass ceiling on what fat acceptance can accomplish. It been up against that ceiling for decades and sadly shows no signs of breaking through any time soon. For all the occasional press and gradual conversions, little ground has really been won in the war on us because too much time and energy has been spent trying to reassure people that we're not really trying to change the conversation too much. Its no wonder we've done so little when so much effort has been given to promising that we'll do little.

Fat acceptance needs to embrace its radical nature. Its not that our goals really are radical, mind you. Indeed, embracing the radicalism of fat acceptance should not be seen as granting the efforts by fat acceptance's critics to marginalize it. All civil rights efforts begin as radical though they have all merely demanded equality and tolerance. Fat acceptance is no different, but we need to recognize that in the face of an oppressive society, such small requests will be seen as extraordinary and cumbersome. We need to push back against this attitude in order to progress. We need to challenge cultural dogma about fatness and dieting in order to change the way we talk about fatness and fat people as a society. That change doesn't happen by sitting around and waiting. It doesn't happen by making compromises and concessions. It happens by allowing ourselves to be seen as radical when we are anything but.

Radical is all too often a dirty word. I've bought into this myself, sometimes, as I've bristled at how the word is used to demean and subjugate moderate views in defiance of a cultural mandate. But I am beginning to recognize its value. Do I think fat acceptance is radical? No. But society does. So, the only useful fat acceptance will be a "radical" fat acceptance. If society isn't threatened by fat acceptance, it would never label it as radical. We need to threaten society as it now is constructed. We need to threaten a culture of fat hatred and bigotry. We need for them to see us as radical.

Feminism didn't get anywhere by playing nice and reassuring men that women we're going to ask for too much. It took a stand and demanded equality and its a struggle that's far from over but which has made enormous strides. Civil rights for blacks was not advanced by playing by the rules of cultural oppressors. It was advanced by taking a clear and firm stand. Always, the leaders who were viewed as dangerous radicals in their time have been come to be seen as forward thinking heroes by history. To the concern trolls, this is not saying that the struggle for fat rights is exactly like the struggles seen by women and blacks in our society. No struggle is every exactly like another, but we can learn from each other all the same. I see much for fat liberation to learn from other civil rights movement and I long for those lessons to be put to use. While we mustn't allow fat hatred to define our defiance as extremist, we must allow it to be seen as radical. We must challenge fat hatred. We must make it uncomfortable. And we must recognize that this isn't just theory. People will be uncomfortable will us. Individuals. We must allow that. We cannot do what is expected of us. We cannot bow to thin privilege, to dieting privilege. We need to stand up for something else and be willing to let people be uncomfortable with us. We need to know that its them. Not us.

Only by doing this, can we begin to change the conversation about fatness. That we can take the way fat oppression is advanced and turn it around on itself. Daniel Engber wrote an article for Slate last week that laid out a good way of doing that. He analyzes the evidence and concludes that not only are politicians wrong to scapegoat fat people, that indeed they have it precisely backwards. That instead of promoting the culture of dieting, these politicians should be asked to pledge their support for a federal ban on weight-based discrimination.

Oddly, when he suggests this he unknowingly points something out that many fat activists miss. He links to the Rudd Center at Yale University, which indeed opposes weight bias. But the group isn't fat positive. While they are genuinely opposed to fat discrimination, they are not part of the fat acceptance movement. That's okay. You can think fat discrimination is wrong without actually thinking its acceptable to be fat. I don't believe this will ultimately be a productive line of thought, but it is clearly one many believe in. Fine. That alone doesn't make something part of fat acceptance. Because ultimately, groups like the Rudd Center aren't really fighting for fat rights. They are fighting against fat discrimination. Perhaps that seems like a subtle distinction, but its a significant one and one I fear fat activists have been loathe to make in a misguided attempt to increase its coalition. In truth, that increase is a mirage. Because fighting for the rights of dieters is different than fighting for the rights of fat people. I can agree with Rudd Center that fat people should not be subjected to ridicule, but I cannot accept their view that fat people are ultimately a problem to be solved. I cannot see them as a true ally even if we agree in some limited ways.

And that's okay. Its okay to agree with some of what someone says without feeling the need to set a big tent to suit us both. Because our common denominator simply isn't enough. It doesn't challenge our society's stigmatization of fat people at its source. The belief that we are wrong and can become "right" if we just tried. That is too important a message to bury in the name of a big tent. There is too much of fat acceptance that ends up on the wrong side of that tent. We need to be willing to say, "I agree with them about this, but not that." Indeed, the Rudd Center isn't afraid and it condemned fat blogs just a couple weeks ago after the New York Times article. It did so by agreeing with us, but then not. We were right to oppose weight bias, but terribly wrong to not support the prevention and elimination of fat people. They drew a distinction. That's what fat acceptance must also do.

I get that some diet blogs follow the Rudd Center's line of thought. That fat people shouldn't be discriminated against. Fine. We agree on that. But they aren't fat acceptance just for that. They aren't progressing towards fat acceptance just because of that. And fat acceptance should not feel the need to act like that is fat acceptance just so we throw a bigger party.

This isn't a party. This isn't a social event. We can have friends we don't completely agree with. Nearly every friend I've ever had has ultimately disagreed with fat acceptance. I have countless friends who have spent years of time, energy, and money dieting. We're still friends. That's okay. But I can't redefine fat acceptance just so we can agree better. I won't limit it to the boundaries of what they'll accept. They don't believe in fat acceptance. And that's okay. They can be my friends. We can agree on elements of what I believe in, but in a fight for civil rights, I can't set the limits by what they'll be willing to accept. Even my friends, I challenge. I won't cheer their dieting. I won't bite my tongue when I tell them where I stand. I don't badger, either. I know where they stand and that's fine. They just need to know where I stand and respect that ultimately, we're in different places. Most respect that. Some don't. The ones who don't are the ones who have the problem. Not me.

Fat Acceptance, as a movement, needs to take the same outlook. It needs to stand for something, not everything. It needs to be willing to let people not agree with it, to let it be see as radical. It needs to contrast itself to change the conversation. I hope that day can come. When fat acceptance is willing to strike a contrast. Its been a long time coming and its a crucial step it trying to really take fat acceptance to the next level. Even a little fat acceptance will get dismissed as extreme, which is why we have to just go all-in on this instead of pecking around the edges of fat hatred. We need to be different, to be distinct. That is how we will grow the movement. By changing the conversation, not changing what we say in the conversation.

When a politician, even one we agree with, demagogues about fatness, we need to turn it around on them and insist they pledge to oppose weight discrimination. When a children's nutrition program defines success by an elimination of fat children, we must resist and demand that the discussion of food and eating be weight neutral. When anti-obesity programs insist that they are just trying to decrease sedentary lifestyles, hold them to their own standards and ask where is the funding for groups like Big Moves, which shows fat people can be anything but sedentary.

Fat acceptance has no donor base to fund its grass roots. It has no network of campus activists being trained to fight the good fight. It is profoundly disadvantaged by cultural forces and it is imperative on us to resist. To push back against oppression with a clarion call for dignity, respect, and equality. We must be willing to be radicals against the dieting hegemony. We must demand a change in the conversation about fat people.