I saw this on a diet ad today. "Actual atypical results". We all know of the diet industry's Orwellian word play and their legally mandated "Results not typical" that gets attached to any suggestion that their product will do what they claim it will. Still, somehow this seems like a new low.
Its like they are dressing up a pig in a top hat and tails and hoping know one notices that its a pig. They are trying to get the "Actual results" in there, but decided that rather than just say that with the "Product doesn't work" fine print, they'd just do it all at once. Its a real live example of "Genuine Artificial". Its very slick, really. Trying to hide the "results not typical" in the middle of a boast of your snake oil's supposed effectiveness.
"Results actually atypical" might be a bit more of an honest construction, though. Just another bit of wordplay to add to the fat-hatred industry's repertoire of "Product doesn't work" disclaimers. Someone please show me another product which has to insert a disclaimer insisting it won't work as advertised. Please show me another product whose marketers are allowed to get away with this kind of slimy behavior. In the real world, this would never be allowed. Sadly, when the product being peddled is fat hatred, these are actually typical results.
6.24.2008
5.10.2008
For what its worth
A diet blog interviewing another diet blogger who wrote a diet book and which talks all about how dieting is awesome, fat is awful, and fat acceptance just as awful if not worse... well, that shouldn't be surprising. I get how some people were surprised, but there is really very little out of the ordinary about that. For what its worth.
5.07.2008
WiiFat
So, my girlfriend owns a Wii. And its pretty fun. I never expected to like it, but the Wiimote controls are actually very easy to use and a lot of fun. One thing that's bothered me, though, is the way the Wii is often promoted as an "anti-obesity" tool. Ya know, cuz kids have to move and stuff and because video games had already been on the long list of things that are making kids teh fat.Nintendo hasn't exactly stopped this talk and they are about the release the "Wii Fit" to really push their point. A more expressly fitness oriented accessory, its essentially just a balance board. Oh, but it doubles as a scale. With a weight limit, of course. In Japan it was around 300lbs, but I'm told its up to 330lbs for the American and European releases. This is actually a little higher than I thought, but obviously is still going to prevent a lot of fat people from using the product. The one being marketed as a weight loss tool.
Probably just as well. This story from Kotaku tells of a user in Japan who had the game tell her 10 year old daughter that she was fat. She was 4'9" and 92lbs at 10 years old. Which, for the record, is a "healthy" weight. Naturally, you've got no shortage of commentators taking the software's side and calling this unknown girl fat, so read the comments at your peril. The parent in the story told of how they had to reassure the girl who was devastated by the video games judgment of her. That's screwed up. We don't need video games expanding the threshold of who gets to hate their bodies. We don't need video games teaching children to hate their bodies. We already have too much of that as it is. Shame on Nintendo. For all their talk emphasizing "fitness" its seems clear that this is yet another effort to define fitness by fatness and nothing else.
5.06.2008
Moderate Fat Acceptance
So, after grousing about the ways radical fat acceptance is marginalized, I find myself actually reigniting my dissatisfaction with radical fat acceptance. There are problems on both extremes and a lot of it comes down to how one extreme deals with the other. Essentially, both are trying to define the other out of the movement. And while I sympathize with the radical end more, that doesn't mean I think its ultimately been very productive.
The issue with radical fat activists is that they want fat acceptance to mean something. So do I, and I know I've hit that point over the head with a shovel about a hundred times. The difference for me is that I've tried to focus on talking about that rather than trying to enforce it. I want there to be a sense of a line more than I want to be responsible for actually drawing that line and enforcing those boundaries. Radicals, in my experience, have been more eager to clarify that identity. I get that, but I know its ultimately a counterproductive strategy. Inevitably, they fall into personalizing the debate, and that is something that the radicals will never win on. I know from experience that even talking in broad terms that one is bound to be confronted as making personal attacks. Actually making personal attacks isn't going to serve anything. This is tough, because one of the go-to strategies of anti-fat acceptance is to personalize the issue. Individualize it so it seems that fat acceptance is personally attacking each individual dieter. But I think its important to recognize that this is done because it advantages fat hatred. It isn't even something that's always consciously done because we're talking about a huge cultural force. Which is why I think broad themes need to be stressed. Personalizing it is done because it serves the purpose of fat hatred. Its a no-win for fat acceptance most of the time and we need to be very careful about picking our fights.
Which is hard. Restraint on issues of deep personal import isn't easy. I'd say it isn't even natural. But I think its something that has to be done to some degree. As cathartic as a full-frontal assault is, its something we're often manipulated into. I've fought this long enough to know that are times when we will need to speak out, but we undermine ourselves by being too quick to pull that trigger. At its worst, this frustration just keeps building, and radical activists become prone to attacking people who are allies and this ends up being just the reverse of those who try to push radical activists (or those who agree with them too much) out of the movement.
So, I shouldn't be mistaken from thinking there are problems on both ends. There are. I pulled back because I really wasn't happy with either. We need more "moderate" voices, but often those moderate voices want to shut out radical ones. And vice versa. Its important to remember that on the spectrum of fat acceptance, "moderate" isn't the center and it can't act like the center in the movement. And likewise, the radical end could stand to use a lot more strategy in advocating for a more progressive fat acceptance. I don't know how to solve it, obviously, since all I've managed getting in the middle of it is to have both sides attacking me, but it is a problem.
The issue with radical fat activists is that they want fat acceptance to mean something. So do I, and I know I've hit that point over the head with a shovel about a hundred times. The difference for me is that I've tried to focus on talking about that rather than trying to enforce it. I want there to be a sense of a line more than I want to be responsible for actually drawing that line and enforcing those boundaries. Radicals, in my experience, have been more eager to clarify that identity. I get that, but I know its ultimately a counterproductive strategy. Inevitably, they fall into personalizing the debate, and that is something that the radicals will never win on. I know from experience that even talking in broad terms that one is bound to be confronted as making personal attacks. Actually making personal attacks isn't going to serve anything. This is tough, because one of the go-to strategies of anti-fat acceptance is to personalize the issue. Individualize it so it seems that fat acceptance is personally attacking each individual dieter. But I think its important to recognize that this is done because it advantages fat hatred. It isn't even something that's always consciously done because we're talking about a huge cultural force. Which is why I think broad themes need to be stressed. Personalizing it is done because it serves the purpose of fat hatred. Its a no-win for fat acceptance most of the time and we need to be very careful about picking our fights.
Which is hard. Restraint on issues of deep personal import isn't easy. I'd say it isn't even natural. But I think its something that has to be done to some degree. As cathartic as a full-frontal assault is, its something we're often manipulated into. I've fought this long enough to know that are times when we will need to speak out, but we undermine ourselves by being too quick to pull that trigger. At its worst, this frustration just keeps building, and radical activists become prone to attacking people who are allies and this ends up being just the reverse of those who try to push radical activists (or those who agree with them too much) out of the movement.
So, I shouldn't be mistaken from thinking there are problems on both ends. There are. I pulled back because I really wasn't happy with either. We need more "moderate" voices, but often those moderate voices want to shut out radical ones. And vice versa. Its important to remember that on the spectrum of fat acceptance, "moderate" isn't the center and it can't act like the center in the movement. And likewise, the radical end could stand to use a lot more strategy in advocating for a more progressive fat acceptance. I don't know how to solve it, obviously, since all I've managed getting in the middle of it is to have both sides attacking me, but it is a problem.
Radical Fat Acceptance
Radical fat acceptance exists. It isn't me.
Which ultimately is why I get pissed off when people brand me radical. Its not that I hate the label, but I'm profoundly troubled by what the label accomplishes. Its a step towards marginalizing fat acceptance. Of defining what is acceptable. Its not about defining me, but defining the limits of fat acceptance. Even if I'm a "limit", I don't think that's a good thing for fat acceptance because it acts to exclude those who are more radical than I am. It pulls fat acceptance in the opposite direction it needs to go, and that's a problem. While I don't think this is her motive, Rachel branding me as a radical benefits fat hatred, because it acts to move the debate back into fat hatred's direction.
What I suspect Rachel is doing is just trying to define herself as the center of the debate. Which is admittedly something everyone does to some degree, but the problem here is that Rachel is an opposite extreme in the fat acceptance spectrum and that's something that needs to be respected. The "all on the same team" point she tries to make in this post is undermined by the ways she tries to set the rules for that team. Where I am an extreme on one hand and the Rudd Center an extreme on the other.
No. The Rudd Center does do some useful research on fat stigmatization, but for fat acceptance they are at most a useful fool and we would do well to recognize that. Moreover, the Rudd Center has no interest in being in the fat acceptance spectrum. Read their blog. They routinely attack fat acceptance for ignoring the fat-hating truths that the Rudd Center holds so dear. They don't respect us. To them, we are at most useful fools. Frankly, we need to return the favor.
There can be room for a spectrum of beliefs in fat acceptance, but the problem has always been that different points on that spectrum keep trying to recenter the debate. That's where this spectrum breaks down. Mind you, I've no claim to representing centrist fat acceptance, either. I'm not. I'm just not willing to play the role of the outer limits of fat acceptance, either, because it excludes too many meaningful voices that already have found little to interest them in the fatosphere. That's a problem this community needs to deal with and the hostility towards confronting it is a reason I've largely been disillusioned with this segment of fat acceptance. Because its repeating a pattern of throwing radicals under the bus that has plagued fat acceptance for years.
This all came to a head with Kell Brigan last year. The result being both sides (centrists and radicals) branding me as the enemy and blaming me for that, too. I feel naive, trying to play peacemaker, because it just got me attacked from both sides. I adopted a nuanced position because I felt it was appropriate, but nuance gets you no where. Kell was angry that I publicly disagreed with her. Folks at Shapely Prose were angry that I didn't publicly disagree with her more forcefully. To Kell, I was a tool of the SP crew. At SP, I was just a stooge of Kell. The only thing everyone agreed with was that it was all my fault. But the fallout is what continues to trouble me the most, because Kell's blog went silent. She was a radical voice that this community lost and that profoundly imbalances the debate in ways I'm not sure a lot of people respect. And talking with other radical fat activists, its the kind of thing that just reinforces a disillusionment that has gripped a lot of them for quite a while. This is a pattern in NAAFA's dealings, too. Pretty much from the start. Radical activists had to scratch and claw their way into NAAFA. Eventually they did and they and profoundly improved the organization and its direction about 30 or so years ago. But there hasn't been much movement since then. The radicals who made those changes fell off as things stagnated. A few good people stepped up, but not enough to effect change. Indeed, it often compartmentalized radicalism which is what I fear the fatosphere is eager to do. With NAAFA, it was okay for Marilyn Wann to be radical, but anyone else had to deal with the establishment who didn't welcome it. I don't want to fit that role for the fatosphere. Not just because I don't think I'm radical, but because that role just marginalizes fat acceptance. I was on the other side, so I'm not willing to accept these dispensations. Because I know it just works to exclude people and ideas from the discussion that fat acceptance needs.
That's why I'm offended when we suffer trolls in the name of giving them a chance. Because it moves the limits of the discussion in the wrong direction. Its why I tried in my own way to mend the bridge to people like Kell Brigan, because we needed someone like HER to balance out someone like Rachel who are more comfortable limiting discussions to bias and stigma. That's fine, but we need to do more and we need people pulling us in that direction. We need both, and this community doesn't have that right now. And there is some degree to which this community needs to recognize that it isn't creating a safe harbor for radical fat acceptance. Certainly, I wish more radical activists would speak up and speak out here. I wish they would take those risks and bring their voices to the table. Still, like the discussion on the involvement of persons of color in the feminist movement, I think the solution will require both groups to step steps forward. It can't just be one group educating the other. This fat acceptance community needs to address the reasons radical fat activists feel disenfranchised here just as those radicals need to step up and talk out, themselves. And labeling me a radical extreme isn't going to be part of that solution. Trust me, the people out there that do represent radical fat activism will see as proof of the problem.
Which ultimately is why I get pissed off when people brand me radical. Its not that I hate the label, but I'm profoundly troubled by what the label accomplishes. Its a step towards marginalizing fat acceptance. Of defining what is acceptable. Its not about defining me, but defining the limits of fat acceptance. Even if I'm a "limit", I don't think that's a good thing for fat acceptance because it acts to exclude those who are more radical than I am. It pulls fat acceptance in the opposite direction it needs to go, and that's a problem. While I don't think this is her motive, Rachel branding me as a radical benefits fat hatred, because it acts to move the debate back into fat hatred's direction.
What I suspect Rachel is doing is just trying to define herself as the center of the debate. Which is admittedly something everyone does to some degree, but the problem here is that Rachel is an opposite extreme in the fat acceptance spectrum and that's something that needs to be respected. The "all on the same team" point she tries to make in this post is undermined by the ways she tries to set the rules for that team. Where I am an extreme on one hand and the Rudd Center an extreme on the other.
No. The Rudd Center does do some useful research on fat stigmatization, but for fat acceptance they are at most a useful fool and we would do well to recognize that. Moreover, the Rudd Center has no interest in being in the fat acceptance spectrum. Read their blog. They routinely attack fat acceptance for ignoring the fat-hating truths that the Rudd Center holds so dear. They don't respect us. To them, we are at most useful fools. Frankly, we need to return the favor.
There can be room for a spectrum of beliefs in fat acceptance, but the problem has always been that different points on that spectrum keep trying to recenter the debate. That's where this spectrum breaks down. Mind you, I've no claim to representing centrist fat acceptance, either. I'm not. I'm just not willing to play the role of the outer limits of fat acceptance, either, because it excludes too many meaningful voices that already have found little to interest them in the fatosphere. That's a problem this community needs to deal with and the hostility towards confronting it is a reason I've largely been disillusioned with this segment of fat acceptance. Because its repeating a pattern of throwing radicals under the bus that has plagued fat acceptance for years.
This all came to a head with Kell Brigan last year. The result being both sides (centrists and radicals) branding me as the enemy and blaming me for that, too. I feel naive, trying to play peacemaker, because it just got me attacked from both sides. I adopted a nuanced position because I felt it was appropriate, but nuance gets you no where. Kell was angry that I publicly disagreed with her. Folks at Shapely Prose were angry that I didn't publicly disagree with her more forcefully. To Kell, I was a tool of the SP crew. At SP, I was just a stooge of Kell. The only thing everyone agreed with was that it was all my fault. But the fallout is what continues to trouble me the most, because Kell's blog went silent. She was a radical voice that this community lost and that profoundly imbalances the debate in ways I'm not sure a lot of people respect. And talking with other radical fat activists, its the kind of thing that just reinforces a disillusionment that has gripped a lot of them for quite a while. This is a pattern in NAAFA's dealings, too. Pretty much from the start. Radical activists had to scratch and claw their way into NAAFA. Eventually they did and they and profoundly improved the organization and its direction about 30 or so years ago. But there hasn't been much movement since then. The radicals who made those changes fell off as things stagnated. A few good people stepped up, but not enough to effect change. Indeed, it often compartmentalized radicalism which is what I fear the fatosphere is eager to do. With NAAFA, it was okay for Marilyn Wann to be radical, but anyone else had to deal with the establishment who didn't welcome it. I don't want to fit that role for the fatosphere. Not just because I don't think I'm radical, but because that role just marginalizes fat acceptance. I was on the other side, so I'm not willing to accept these dispensations. Because I know it just works to exclude people and ideas from the discussion that fat acceptance needs.
That's why I'm offended when we suffer trolls in the name of giving them a chance. Because it moves the limits of the discussion in the wrong direction. Its why I tried in my own way to mend the bridge to people like Kell Brigan, because we needed someone like HER to balance out someone like Rachel who are more comfortable limiting discussions to bias and stigma. That's fine, but we need to do more and we need people pulling us in that direction. We need both, and this community doesn't have that right now. And there is some degree to which this community needs to recognize that it isn't creating a safe harbor for radical fat acceptance. Certainly, I wish more radical activists would speak up and speak out here. I wish they would take those risks and bring their voices to the table. Still, like the discussion on the involvement of persons of color in the feminist movement, I think the solution will require both groups to step steps forward. It can't just be one group educating the other. This fat acceptance community needs to address the reasons radical fat activists feel disenfranchised here just as those radicals need to step up and talk out, themselves. And labeling me a radical extreme isn't going to be part of that solution. Trust me, the people out there that do represent radical fat activism will see as proof of the problem.
4.24.2008
Fat unicorns on t-shirts (again)
No, not the rhino chasing a false sense of beauty on treadmill (how perfect was that?). Woot's one-day shirt today is a fat unicorn eating a rainbow designed by Robbie Lee. I doubt it was meant positively (this is woot, after all), but I actually think the design ends up being fairly cute in spite of itself.Sadly, the shirt is already sold out at woot, but I guess they do a second chance sale that will start tomorrow for $15 with free shipping. Sizes go up to 3X (men's) so at least some fatties can pick this up if the are interested. Tomorrow at midnight (so tonight, I think) it should be available here.
4.21.2008
Fatties in Philly! Big Moves presents "Big Top"
Photo by David J. AndersonI had the great pleasure of attending the Boston premiere this weekend of Big Moves' spring revue, "Big Top" and was absolutely wowed. Its certainly Big Moves' most ambitious revue show ever and it did not disappoint.
As the title suggests, the show is circus themed, but defies expectations on that count. No clowns and no sideshows. Rather, it draws upon a 1920's aesthetic, hearkening back to when circuses were an exploration of the exotic. It seems a fitting backdrop for presenting a show for fat dancers, something as exotic today as the animal menageries and foreign cultures would have been in the 1920's. Big Moves went all-out with this theme with elaborate costumes and set direction creative a vibrant entertainment.
Unlike past Big Moves' revue shows, there is actually a story here, though it is told entirely through pantomime segments that are wonderful portrayed by the cast. Some of the pieces were clearly very challenging to choreograph but the result was a very rewarding artistic expression. The characters introduced in the pantomime segments given the show a base that lends the dance elements more power as pieces of a larger whole. Though there are some leads (a pair of young lovers; seasoned chorus girls) all of the dancers lend some personality to their characters creating a very fully realized show. In addition to a full compliment of jazz dance numbers performed by the circus' chorus girls, Big Top also boasts aerial dance sequences using fabric trapeze of sorts, a choreographed animal exhibition, and several appearances by Big Moves' stable of belly dancers.
Building off the exotic adventure of the 1920's circus, each belly dance routine had a different cultural basis. The first was an elaborate fan dance of sorts where the dance is portrayed as an Egyptian goddess with a cape of giant gold wings. Later, we see a French theme as the dancer melds the traditions of belly dancing and mime in a surprisingly cohesive manner. This all culminates in a Bollywood style mash-up where the belly dancers share the stage with hip-hop dancers in one of the highlights of the production.
The show is kid-friendly and less overtly political than Big Moves' scripted shows like Lard which will be featured at this year's Montreal Fringe Festival. Big Top is a great way to introduce people to the idea of fat dance and I can't recommend it enough. Its finished its Boston run, but will be putting on two shows in Philadelphia this coming Saturday, April 26. There is a 2pm matinée and an 8pm evening show at the Rotunda in Philly. Tickets are $12 in advance and $15 at the door. Kids 12 and under can get $5 tickets. I cannot recommend this enough and if you can get to Philadelphia for one (or both!) of the shows, I don't think you'll be disappointed.
I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that my wonderful girlfriend Cristin is one of the chorus girls. She and all of the dancers have been working very hard putting this show together and its really a great success. My thanks to all of them and their director Marina Wolf Ahmed for a great production. I hope you'll have a chance to see it, too.
4.09.2008
We all agree that fat people are bad
They do this all the time. When the issue of fat is to be debated in the media, they game the system by having the debate take part among people who all agree that fat is bad. Fat acceptance is left to be championed by someone who simply isn't outrageously bigoted about promoting weight loss. Whee.
This isn't something to feel happy about. This is how we get shut out of the discussion of OUR issues. Me!Me! Roth is succeeding at doing what so many right wingers have tried to do to political discussion, and we're happy about this? Bull. Like a lot of conservative idealogues, she has staked out an extremist position, not so much to advance it, but to pull the overall discussion in her direction. She is setting the rules for what is acceptable. As such, she gets balanced out with people who still believes her essential argument that fat is bad. Instead of being part of HER side, now they are the other side. Who does this benefit? Me!Me!, not us. Because now she is balanced not with someone who believes in fat acceptance or who challenges fat oppression. Rather, she is balanced by someone who simply wants to redefine weight loss "success".
This serves to marginalize fat people and fat liberation. It serves to further entrench and reinforce fat hatred. I'm sick of people arguing amongst themselves about how best to stigmatize fat people. I'm sick of agreeing that fat people are bad being the price of admission to discussing fat issues. This is not good enough. Not by a long shot. This is further letting the likes of Me!Me! Roth set the limits of fat acceptability and there is nothing to celebrate about that.
This isn't something to feel happy about. This is how we get shut out of the discussion of OUR issues. Me!Me! Roth is succeeding at doing what so many right wingers have tried to do to political discussion, and we're happy about this? Bull. Like a lot of conservative idealogues, she has staked out an extremist position, not so much to advance it, but to pull the overall discussion in her direction. She is setting the rules for what is acceptable. As such, she gets balanced out with people who still believes her essential argument that fat is bad. Instead of being part of HER side, now they are the other side. Who does this benefit? Me!Me!, not us. Because now she is balanced not with someone who believes in fat acceptance or who challenges fat oppression. Rather, she is balanced by someone who simply wants to redefine weight loss "success".
This serves to marginalize fat people and fat liberation. It serves to further entrench and reinforce fat hatred. I'm sick of people arguing amongst themselves about how best to stigmatize fat people. I'm sick of agreeing that fat people are bad being the price of admission to discussing fat issues. This is not good enough. Not by a long shot. This is further letting the likes of Me!Me! Roth set the limits of fat acceptability and there is nothing to celebrate about that.
"We don't hate you enough"
The idiotic article from New University has been dealt with. Ironically enough, there is nothing especially new about it. Its the standard foolish attack from a fat bigot crazed by fantasies of an all-powerful "fat mob" or "flob" (the "l" stands for... well it stands for rhyming with slob, don't ask this kid to make sense). I briefly thought fat oppression might be unique for the way its oppressors imagine that WE are the ones with all the power. It took me about two seconds to realize that's not at all unheard of, but still its somewhat unique the way several dozen unfunded and geographically disparate activists are imagined to be akin to Big Tobacco or Big Feminism or whatever Big Evil supports the existing ideology of the person making this stuff up. All this perverted reality leads to this stunning statement by the author summing up his position.
"The truth is that if you are fat, you must be told that you are fat so that you will do something to change it."
He says this like its a revelation. Like this is some divine truth he's benevolently passing onto the unwashed masses. Like no one thought of this before.
Which really illustrates the fundamental problem fat acceptance faces when it tries to engage fat bigotry and reason with it. Fat bigotry really does think the answer is that we just need to try being mean to fatties. They really don't get that this is been standard opperating procedure for decades. Our fatness is so simple to them, that they can't see the truth. I'm not sure how we get them too, but we need to recognize the depths of unreality that we're dealing with here. Many fat bigots genuinely think that fat people have it easy, and that this is why there are so many fat people. That it really is as simple as just telling us to stop being fat, even though we've been told that on a daily basis for years upon years.
They are convinced that the problem is not that their hatred isn't producing anything. Is that they aren't hating us enough. We can't bargain with that. We can't reason with it. Because it will keep coming back to us and suggesting, "well, what if we hate you some more" and think that's a compromise. We need to change the rules here, because we're dealing with critics who won't even let the rules of reality hold them back.
"The truth is that if you are fat, you must be told that you are fat so that you will do something to change it."
He says this like its a revelation. Like this is some divine truth he's benevolently passing onto the unwashed masses. Like no one thought of this before.
Which really illustrates the fundamental problem fat acceptance faces when it tries to engage fat bigotry and reason with it. Fat bigotry really does think the answer is that we just need to try being mean to fatties. They really don't get that this is been standard opperating procedure for decades. Our fatness is so simple to them, that they can't see the truth. I'm not sure how we get them too, but we need to recognize the depths of unreality that we're dealing with here. Many fat bigots genuinely think that fat people have it easy, and that this is why there are so many fat people. That it really is as simple as just telling us to stop being fat, even though we've been told that on a daily basis for years upon years.
They are convinced that the problem is not that their hatred isn't producing anything. Is that they aren't hating us enough. We can't bargain with that. We can't reason with it. Because it will keep coming back to us and suggesting, "well, what if we hate you some more" and think that's a compromise. We need to change the rules here, because we're dealing with critics who won't even let the rules of reality hold them back.
4.04.2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)