I am the 95% of dieters who regain the weight.

I am the 95% of dieters who regain the weight.

I didn't try to be part of the 95%. When I gained weight in college, I was struggling with accepting my changing body but also knew that dieting wasn't an answer. But then one summer I got very ill with a drug-resistant Strep infection and was basically on an extreme diet for 4-6 weeks when I could barely keep down food. After putting on about 50 lbs over a year, I lost it all in a month. When I recovered, though, the weight came right back on and then some. My weight stabilized after about a year and remained fairly stable for the next decade with a natural fluctuation of about 15 lbs up and down.

There is an old saying in Fat Acceptance that losing weight is as easy as holding your breath. Keeping it off is as easy as continuing to hold your breath. Dieting has breed a myth of its success off the fact that its not hard to induce weight loss. This period of "success" is what convinces dieters that its their fault when the diet fails. The truth is that the diet failed and was always going to fail. When I did might sound extreme, but its actually tame compared to some commercial diet plans. Even the most pseudo-reasonable "lifestyle change" relies on a fundamentally unsustainable formula. Sooner or later, we need to breathe. The diet industry, though, thrives on sustainability. Every time a diet fails, that's just a new customer. More billions to make off of peddling fat stigmatization.


I am the 95%. I did not fail. A culture of fat shame and fat hate has failed me.

There is a reason my picture is at the top of the page

Wow. You losers really love taking your marching orders from an obsessive dweeb you probably would have beat up in middle school. Not because you were tough, of course, but because he was weird and defenseless and made for easy prey. Its ironic that he now is both desperate for your approval and simultaneously directing you to swarm at his command. I mean, really fucking pathetic, but ironic, too.

Have fun being sad, worthless people who disappoint everyone around them!
So, someone on reddit linked to my post about White Knights today and my traffic shot up. I'm always amused by this in Blogger stats. They have a little chart of my blog traffic that defaults to the current week and usually there are normal little ups and downs but sometimes something throws off the curve and I get a straight line hugging the bottom of the chart and then a line going straight up to the top. This happens most reliably when I get linked on reddit or when I get linked from Shakesville.

Anyhow, someone made a sad little quip about supposed "white knights" and someone responded to them by linking to my deconstruction of that line of attack. It will not surprise you to learn that the response was a whole lot of guys dismissing me as a white knight and generally belittling me in a general.

Quite a few took the time to mock me for being fat. They saw my photo in my blog header and decided they could just stop right there. Clearly someone so fat wasn't worth listening to. It was a potent reminder of how much risk fat people face when they are publicly fat. Of how much entitlement people feel to insult and demean us on sight. Which, as it happens, is precisely why my photo is up there.

I put my photo on the top of my blog specifically to say "fuck you" to each and every person who thinks I don't matter because I'm fat. I put it up there knowing it would incite hatred and wanting that reaction. I don't want to comfort these assholes by hiding. I don't want to feel like I'm not putting myself out there to stand behind what I believe in. Mind you, I don't think this is something fat people are obligated to do. The risks are real, after all, and I can't ask anyone else to take on those risks. I can ask myself, though. I can decide for myself that I can take the abuse. When I was considering it, I was thinking about all the other fat bloggers who I knew what they looked like. It might not be because their photo was on every page of their blog, but they are putting themselves out there. I found that really inspiring and when I took some great shots of myself in Santa Monica last year, I decided to just go with it.

I'm not going to lie, there are moments where the insults hurt. Where the risks are realized and they sting, but they are getting less and less. Today, reading the insults, I mostly just laughed. Really? That photo up there is so outrageously ugly that you can dismiss everything I have to say? Bullshit. I look great in that picture. I love that picture. Not every fat person can get to the point where the really love how they look, even for just a moment in one photo. I am fortunate to have gotten to that point and its something that I can come back to in the times when I'm struggling. Is that vanity? Maybe. Maybe some vanity is a good thing for fat people to have. Given the way we are told to feel about ourselves, I don't really think there is any danger in going too far in the other way. That scale is never going to get imbalanced that way so we should have no shame of whatever bit of vanity we may get.

I put my photo in my header because I think I look awesome and I want the people who hate me to see it and know just how awesome I am. I want them to look at that picture and then tell me I'm ugly so I can know that they don't know what they are talking about. Never am I more confident than when responding to someone trying to strip me of my confidence. For me, the vulnerability of being fat and visible is ultimately a source of strength.

Like I said, I don't think this needs to be everyone's choice. Even those who shy away from linking their photos to their fat politics are still living their lives visibly fat. Even those who still hate their bodies are publicly fat and that should inspire us all. There is tremendous power in being seen. That is why people want to drag us down. They want to take that power away from us, but they never can. Our bodies are powerful and we can be inspired by this power. Not to put our photos on the internet, but to do anything in our lives. Being seen while fat is a real power we all have. They will never take that from us.

A Message to My Fellow Fat Admirers

Dudes!

What up?

So, I've noticed some of my fellow male fat admirers throwing tantrums when women object to be sexualized without consent. These dudes whine about how the women are telling them aren't allowed to find fat bodies attractive.

Cut that shit out. Like now.

No one is out to confiscate your boners. Sexual attraction to fat bodies is totally awesome. There may be people out there who want to shame you for your sexuality, but its not these women. So, by all means, holster your outrage and listen up.

The issue these women are complaining about isn't sexual attraction. They are asking to be treated with respect and dignity. Try not to be shocked at this stunning request. You still get that be sexually attracted to fat women. Just, maybe respect them.

And actually, strike that maybe.

Don't act all mystified at this concept. Its possible to interact with people you feel a sexual attraction towards without sexualizing them. Sexual attraction doesn't mandate objectification. That's just you being an asshole. Trust me, I've been attracted to fat women as long as I can remember. I'm still able to appreciate context and react accordingly. Its NOT. FUCKING. HARD. I'm sick and tired of men acting like this is impossible and that people are trying to police their arousal. Are these women saying its wrong to have sexual desire for fat bodies? NO.  Its not about your sexuality. Its about THEIR sexuality. They may well be very happy to experience a fat admirer's sexual desire, but on their terms and with their consent. This isn't outrageous or obnoxious. Its their right.

I get that no one has ever told you that you should respect fat women, but you should. I get that men are often taught by our culture to sexualize and objectify women constantly, but that doesn't make it okay and it certainly doesn't make you the victim when people tell you to stop. Our culture systematically attempts to strip women of their sexual agency and men have a responsibility to do their part to stop that. Which mans starting with not doing yourself and continues with telling other men to stop doing it.

This is especially important for fat women who already live in a culture that conspires to desexualize them. They often find themselves in scenarios where they are told to choose between never being desired sexually or always being objectified sexually. That's fucked up and wrong. You should be able to know that by just basic empathy, but I'd submit that as fat admirers its in our interest to combat thin privilege and male privilege. Not just because standing with our current or prospective romantic and sexual partners on issues of basic human dignity is the right thing to do (though that really should be enough), but its in our self-interest, too. Those restricted options women face impact us, too. We are being taught that our sexuality is wrong and that if we act upon it that we are deviants. We are told we don't deserve to open, loving relationships with partners we are sexually attracted to. We are told we shouldn't date them because they are "unhealthy". We are told there must be some defect that causes our sexuality. We are being denied the opportunity to embrace our sexuality in the ways men with conventional attractions take for granted. The women who complain about objectification of fat women aren't trying to take away our sexuality, they are trying to fight for it! We should stand with them and resist those who tell us to sexualize and objectify fat women because they don't deserve better and we don't deserve better.

I know there must be a lot of questions circling your head right now. Like, "but, Brian, how will I masterbate?" First off, find someone with a hand to spare and ask them smack you in the back of the head. What did I tell you about no one confiscating your boners? I'm telling you to recognize context as an element of personal expression. Fat people have a lot of reasons to display their body that have nothing to do with your personal gratification and that's what you need to respect. Maybe its body-positive photography on Tumblr. Maybe its burlesque dance. Maybe its just going to the beach in a bikini. These things aren't done to get you off, and that's okay. You can appreciate what they are doing for what it is. You can and should support fat women being affirmational about their bodies without expecting that is being done for your limited benefit. Its okay to just say "that's beautiful". It doesn't have to be about what's going on in your pants.

And, in case you hadn't noticed (and of course you have), there are fat women who want to express their sexuality in a way which DOES consent to your sexual gratification. You are lucky in that if you want to consume pornography that you have a wealth of options that are produced and controlled by the women appearing in it. These women have a made a choice for their own sexual expression and agency. Women of a myriad of shapes, sizes, colors, ages, and even gender identity. So fucking spare me the complaints when women who don't consent take issue with being objectified. The problem is respecting their sexual agency. Objectification means you don't. Indeed, you probably specifically seek out women are not trying to express their own sexuality. Don't be that guy. Be better.

Maggie does a Podcast!

Okay, so maybe not Maggie and more me. I was honored to be invited to join the Friend of Marilyn radio show and podcast from Access Manawatu, but Maggie was the topic of discussion. Check out the October 12 episode on iTunes or RSS as I talk with host Cat Pause about the Maggie book and my appropriation of Maggie for body positive messages. I'm surprisingly happy with the discussion considering how self-critical I can be about these things. Download and listen now!

Also, check out Maggie's recent adventures from my Tumblr:

“Maggie Explores the Galaxy”

“Maggie Reclaims the Word Fat”

“Maggie rejects Fatphobic Fashion Dictates”

“Maggie Makes a Yay Scale”

“Maggie Goes to the Beach”

“Maggie Takes Up Hiking”

The right way to fat shame our children

Of course, there isn't a right way to fat shame our children, but that won't stop folks from trying. "Maggie Goes on a Diet" was clearly the wrong way, buts its not like people want fat kids to feel okay in their bodies. The solution? Why, semantics, of course!

You saw this dynamic a lot in the hand-wringing over "Maggie". People thought it was really important to do something about all this fat kids, but Maggie's attempt just seemed mean. Surely they could have all the shame without the guilt? Well, if there is one thing the diet industry specializes in, its guilt-free through cheap pretense. The problem with Maggie isn't its content or intent. It was the word "diet". Just take that out and everything will be okay.

Well, fat activists aren't likely to agree, but unfortunately lots of people are. The semantics around "diet" are something a bedrock in the weight loss industry. While Maggie's author clearly didn't get the script, another new book for kids gets the pretense right. Former New York City mayor Ed Koch has also written a children's book about how awful it is to be a fat child and how fat kids should really do something about that. Unlike "Maggie", Koch's book, "Eddie Shapes Up," might end up in a lot of homes and classrooms. While the celebrity author helps a lot, it also keeps to the agreed upon script.

According to reviews, the book gives lip service to ideas of there being "all kinds of bodies" and makes sure not to use the "d" word. Diet has a bad reputation, you see. Why? Well, because diets fail. Like, virtually all of the time. That's created quite a marketing problem for the diet industry. They solved it through a masterful bit of unified denial. Diets are what everyone else is selling you. Diets are what everyone else is buying. Diets are everything you did before now. Diets are never what you are doing now, because we all know that diets don't work. So Eddie doesn't go on a diet. He "shapes up" and "gets healthy".

This semantic game is played a lot. It sort of acts like a dog whistle to allow fat shaming while letting everyone feel less guilty about it. Inevitably, it gets defended with lines like "how can anyone disagree with this". Indeed, the plans often offered in these scenarios could be fairly innocuous and fat neutral. The problem is, these scenarios aren't fat neutral and that is the problem. Their proposals are secondary to their purpose. So long as the purpose is to "fight" to existence of fat children (or combat, wage war, or whatever other violent vocabulary is favored), they are still working to shame fat children. No matter what semantics they use to advance their war, that statement of purpose is what is creating the problem.

"Eddie Shapes Up" will no doubt curry favor with a lot of people who don't want to think they are shaming fat children, but still feel a deep need to wring their hands over fat kids. It'll be compared quite positively in relation to Maggie. Don't believe this hype. There is no right way to fat shame children. We don't need to teach fat shame to teach healthy eating and activity. Indeed, you can't. Because actually healthy eating and activity is not some magic that makes fat people into not fat people. It can improve health for those who desire that, but its not likely to make you weigh less. So, what do you get when you teach people those things as a means to weighing less in response to an "epidemic" of fat children? You teach them that their bodies are wrong that healthy eating and activity don't work to fix it. Every time someone self-righteously demands to know how I can be against this sort of thing, I have to think, "How can I not be against it?"

We need to move past fat shaming and fat stigmatizing if we actually care about the health and well-being of our children, both fat and thin. All kids should learn that all bodies are okay. None of the exceptions and qualifications so often tacked on. No matter the content of one's proposals, so long as its being taught under the banner of fighting childhood "obesity", then its just a pretense.

ALL fat bodies are made into a public concern

Like most fat people, Chris Christie is apologetic for his body. Most fat people have internalized the fat shaming that gets directed at them every day of their lives. Most never even think to question it. Of course they shouldn't be fat. Its not a topic they ever give any consideration. Indeed, they often have more hostility towards fat activists because of this. Its important to remember, though, that internalizing fat shame doesn't immunize you from it.

There has been lot of concern trolling of Chris Christie lately along those very lines. People are gravely concerned about the prospects of him running for President. Not for his politics, mind you, but for his health. He obviously is much too unhealthy to consider higher office. This concern trolling has now reached the editorial pages of the Washington Post thanks to a supremely self-righteous bit of concern trolling from Eugene Robinson. He acknowledges that Christie feels ashamed of his size, but this merely justifies his paternalistic lecture about how Christie needs to lose weight if he plans to run for President. It is a shameful hit-piece and has no place in our political discussion. It builds on all sorts of tired and clichéd attacks on fat people.

Perhaps the most fundamental being the notion that this needs to be said. It is always preposterous when you see people so proud of themselves for stepping up and telling a fat person to stop being so fat. Already, we're seeing other pundits contribute to this by congratulating Robinson for saying the things that needed to be said. Why does everyone person who tries to put fatties in their place think they are the first person to do so? Heck, Robinson even quotes Christie saying he knows all of this. Christie AGREES, but that's still not enough to prevent the smug satisfaction over "telling it like it is".

Robinson also asserts that Christie is obviously too unhealthy to run for President. His proof? Well, just look at him being all fat and stuff. It takes him a while to offer anything more than his obvious fatness to justify his obvious lack of health, and even then the evidence is weaker than he'd like us to believe. Christie has had problems with asthma and was hospitalized for it briefly over the summer. When this happened, Christie obviously takes responsibility for his fatness, but also noted that he's relatively healthy by objective indicators. That doesn't slow Robinson down who proceeds to threaten Christie with the usual litany of fat diseases he's obviously going to fat himself with any day now.

Robinson continues by trotting out some dubious statistics about how fat people are causing the national health crisis. He tries to be clear that he's not blaming Christie for the National Debt crisis, shortly after blaming all fat people for the National Debt crisis. Easier to blame us collectively than individually, but don't forget that you can't do one without the other. We can't all be responsible for something without being responsible as individuals. Fat people having higher health care costs is something oft asserted, but with little discussion of what goes into that. Reading through Robinson's evidence, at least part of the increase is just based on costs associated with trying to make fat patients into not-fat patients. We'll never know much of the increase is due to fat people not receiving adequate preventive care due to stigmas involving seeking medical treatment while fat nor how much may be attributable to the life-time of weight cycling seen in virtually all fat patients who have made countless attempts to lose weight.

Robinson concludes by giving false lip-service to the notion that Christie isn't at fault for his weight. Sadly, this kind of tone is used by a lot of liberals eager to shame fat people collectively but rightfully squeamish about doing it individually. They like to talk about how they understand genetic factors, or they may try to blame evil corporations. Anything to comfort themselves with the notion that they aren't bullying fat people even while they are talking about how we need to eliminate fat people. Its an extremely hollow bit of pandering that I'm getting quite sick of. You can't write a whole column about how Christie needs to stop being so fat already and just assert that you aren't blaming him so you are somehow so terribly mature. Its a charade and one fat people aren't falling for. When you fixated on shaming and stigmatizing fatness, you are shaming and stigmatizing fat people. I don't care if you want to think you're better than that, but you aren't. You aren't saying anything different than all of the other people who tell us every day that our bodies are unacceptable. Your message is substantively NO different, no matter how you want to excuse it to yourselves.

Again, though, the tragedy of all of this is like with most fat shaming, its directed at someone who agrees with it. Maybe Christie will object to the the tone or venue, but he's repeatedly endorsed the substance. Yet people will still make a point to shame him over and over and over again. Christie will win himself no reprieve for his own acceptance of shame for his weight. It simply doesn't matter to the people doing the shaming. To them, if he didn't want to be shamed for his body, he should just stop being so fat at them.

What bothers me the most with Robinson's article, though, is his self-justification where he explains why this is his business. Christie's weight isn't a private matter, you see, because he has chosen to enter the public arena. Much like the "hasn't anyone told you to stop being fat" sentiment, this is the sort of wildly divorced from reality assertion that any fat person should just laugh at it. Really, his body is a public concern just because he's a public figure? Funny, because to most fat people, it seems like people are always making our bodies their business. No special justification needed, this is just another day in the life for a fat person. Our bodies are always treated like public property and we are subjected to repeated shaming and belittling for our transgressive size. Robinson may want to act like he's just making a special allowance for himself, but this is no special risk Christie faces for being in the public eye. Going out in public while fat is enough to make it a public issue for most people. What is happening to Christie is happening to fat people every day. Don't think for a second that he's some kind of special victim for being a fat politician, nor that he faces some sort of special responsibility for it, either. This is positively mundane.

I'm no fan of Christie politically. I think he'd make an awful President. There are lots of ways to make that case without concern trolling him for being fat. That is unequivocally wrong and I demand better. There is nothing mature about fixating on his weight instead of his policies. Christie gives people ample reason to oppose him based on his ideology. That has far more to do with how he'll govern than his pants size.

Its not discrimination if I think its wrong for everyone!

In reading some of the discussion around L Word actress Leisha Hailey being kicked off a Southwest Air flight for kissing her girlfriend, I was reminded of a favorite defense trotted out in favor of discrimination. "But I think publicly kissing your partner is wrong no matter what your sexuality!" Indeed, its Southwest's defense here, too. Its not the sexual orientation, its the behavior. There is roughly no reason to ever take this sort of line seriously.

Its a pretty common tactic and that's what we need to recognize. This is a tactic and even an earnest proponent of it references it while willfully ignoring the larger social context. They think if they, individually, are willing to apply something to everyone, that's a get out of prejudice free card. That doesn't really work on a personal level, and it is pretty much insulting on a cultural level.

I'll take the cultural level first, because, well, it's low-hanging fruit. Trotting out this kind of "well, I'd discriminate against everyone" line in response to instances of discrimination is just an attempt at derailing. It doesn't matter why you'd do it. What matters are the systems of discrimination. By centering the discussion on your hypothetical motives, you just seek to distract from focusing on the larger social issues at play. You make something about you which isn't remotely about you. The reality is, your supposed even-handedness isn't what is happening in our culture. When gay people are scolded for showing affection, there is no counterpart among straight couples. Straight couples aren't being thrown off airplanes for kissing. Thin people aren't subjected to ridicule for eating in public. Men aren't viciously denounced for being sexually assertive. Your standards aren't the point, because your standards clearly aren't what's happening.

I feel this generally fails on the personal level, too. All too often, "but, its wrong for everyone" thinking only ever comes up when its wrong for the group society agrees its wrong for. Its essentially a hallow claim. You protest that you'd feel the same way if this were happening to a socially privileged group, but you never have to worry about that because it never will happen to a socially privileged group. Its just something to make you feel better about cheering for the stigmatization of marginalized groups.

The fat community sees this played out a number of ways. I suspect the most recognizable would be the fashion policing of fat bodies. Fat people are often scolded for their clothing choices by people who insist they'd find it distasteful on any better. Not coincidentally, though, they only ever voice that disgust with fat people for whom it is culturally protected to scold and demean for their bodies. They love claiming their prejudice is without regard for body size, but they never question their own actions and how even-handed they actually are when directly scolding people. They might like to think it and maybe they'd snark at celebrities, but I've seen little reason to think these people are seeking out thin bodies to police at the rates they are seeking out fat bodies. People like claiming they think its wrong for everyone, but the next time you hear someone say that, ask them to demonstrate that thinking in action. They like saying that to scold marginalized people, but how much time are they actually out there being publicly outraged when privileged people do it? I doubt many would even pass that test, much less be able to justify the recentering aspects of that position that draw attention away from social discrimination.

Maggie After Dieting

So, by now, I'm sure you've become aware of a rather awful book aimed at children called "Maggie Goes on a Diet". The book depicts a teenaged girl who is bullied for her size and then goes on a diet and becomes thin and popular. While the protaganist is 14, the book's target audience is actually girls as young as 6. The cover depicts fat Maggie holding a dress in front of a mirror with her thin reflection looking back at her.

So, yeah, pretty much a horrible, horrible thing. Its been getting widespread condemnation, which, of course, means even people who think fat people don't deserve respect think this goes too far. The imagery of the cover really struck me for how tactless it is. It reinforces so many notions of there being thin people just waiting to come out of our fat bodies, a cliché which mostly serves to dehumanize fat people. We aren't actual people, just something covering up thin people. While a lot of mainstream critics were blandly attacking the book for not promoting fat stigma the right way, I kind of kept thinking to what happens after the book.

See, most fat people have dieted and lost weight in their lives. Maggie's story is one I've heard time and time again in fat accepting communities. Growing up fat and getting teased. Finally being able to maintain a low weight for some brief period of time before the inevitable swing of weight cycling brings their size up higher than it was to start. Indeed, its a cycle most fat people experience over and over. Maggie's story rings true to many fat people. Its just not the whole story.

So, as I had been dabling with Tumblr, I saw an opportunity for an art project and several weeks ago started posting my own book covers for sequels to Maggie's first story. Starting with "Maggie Gains Back the Weight and Learns to Accept Her Body":
Whether fat haters like it or not, gaining back the weight is next chapter of virtually ever diet success story. Not because Maggie failed or wanted to gain back the weight, but because dieting is a failed system. I did this pretty quickly in Photoshop, but it got a very nice response on Tumblr and I solicited suggestions from folks on Twitter. I got quite a few great ones (many of which I haven't gotten to, yet) of what else Maggie could do to empower herself. @FatandtheIvy had a particular good one which lead to my next Maggie sequel, “Maggie Gets a Master’s Degree in Gender Studies”:
As I continued making these, I've tried to avoid putting too much baggage on Maggie. She's really meant to be an "every fat woman", so I want people to feel free to envision her whatever they like. As far as I'm concerned, she's female presenting, relatively fair-skinned, and has red hair either by nature or design. Anything else, feel free to imagine. She can be cis or trans. She may be queer or straight or ace. I try not to even think of her as necessarily white, though I presume that was her original creator's intention. She's not pale, after all. I've known people of Latin America, Middle-Eastern, and Asian decent with similar coloring. I've clearly decided that Maggie is not bound by her original creator's intentions and I'm trying to recognize that she need not be bound by my own, either. Maggie is all about possibilities and the possibilities available to fat people are far more numerous than we are often led to believe. Yes, Maggie went on a diet. That just gives her something in common with nearly every fat activist out there. She, like every other fat person, deserved more than for that to be the whole of her story.

So, because not everyone follows me on Tumblr or Twitter, here are the continuing adventures of Maggie as she subverts her diet propaganda roots and empowers herself:

“Maggie Joins a Roller Derby League”
“Maggie Learns to Belly Dance”
“Maggie Goes to Re/Dress NYC”
"Maggie Joins a Punk Rock Band"
"Maggie Protests Fat Stigma"

More, surely, to come. You can follow me on Tumblr for updates.

The continued failure of fat people prevention

If fat people were preventable, why are there so many fat people?

Its notable that anti-fat crusading celebrity chefs have shifted to talking about "preventing" fat people. Its a tacit admission that there is no safe, reliable way to make a fat person into a not-fat person. Which in the minds of fat-haters just increases the imperative to prevent us. Stop us before we fat! Not that this relieves any stigmatization of actual fat people as they focus on the potentially fat.

If anything, it makes it much worse as we're now a cautionary tale complete with an utterly made-up statistic of fat people costing "$10,273,973 per hour". Imagine if that song from from Rent had a chorus of "How about... the supposed economic impact of the continued existence of fat people." As a Shakesville commenter notes, this highly specific number is clearly derived from a far less specific $90 billion a year number. Basically, if you take $90 billion and divide it by the number of hours in a year (8,760), and then round up to the nearest whole dollar, you get their figure. They took a broad statistical estimate (prone to all of the usual manipulations that come with estimates based on assumptions which presuppose what you want to believe) and broke it down to the hour to make it seem more authoritative.

Still, we get back to the essential question here, if fat bodies can be prevented, why are the so many fat bodies to use as cautionary examples? Why has Jamie Oliver and those who have come before him failed so triumphantly to prevent fat people? The prevention and elimination of fat bodies has been a medical imperative for decades. Stigmatization of fat bodies is enforced through massive amounts of social shaming from family and peers and authoritative shaming from medical professionals. If fat people were preventable, everything ever done by those trying to prevent them has been a spectacular failure.

In his petition, Jaime Oliver says we must "demand better" from our UN Representative. I'm not sure what he thinks better will be exactly. He's already gotten the whole structure of our society behind him. Its a rather massive degree of entitlement for people who already run the world to be demanding more. But such is thin privilege.

He isn't wrong that we need to demand better, though. But who we need to demand it from are Oliver and his cronies. We need to demand better from every self-appointed "obesity" expert who perpetuates shame and stigmatization in the name of failed policies. We need to demand better than treatments that have never been shown to work and prevention that has never been shown to be effective. Fat people must demand better. Better health care. More respect. Less discrimination.

You're damn right, Jamie Oliver, that we should demand better. Better than you. Better than self-promotional marketing campaigns that will do far more the elevate the global brand of a celebrity chef than improve the life of one fat person, much less make anyone thinner. We need to demand options to improve our health and well-being that are not fixated on making our fat bodies not fat. We need to demand that health stop being an issue of right or wrong, good or bad. We need to stop shaming people for their health concerns and valorizing those who do "right". We need to stop the endless repetition of failed directives and stop predicating medical treatment and medicinal shaming on the size and shape of our bodies. Fat people deserve better. We demand better.

Bigotry doesn't always announce itself

"I never said I hated fat people!"

A few weeks back I saw someone pull out this line in an argument. Variations of this remark come up a lot among people defending bigoted remarks of many stripes, and fat people certain see a good amount of this. In this case, someone had written an article suggesting fat people are unfit to serve in political office. (the original article seems to be down as a result of a site update, so no link) Calling for discrimination seems to be pretty clearly a case of bigotry to me, but not to many. After all, they never said they hated fat people.

Bigotry doesn't always announce itself. Indeed, it rarely does. Lots of bigots out there like to flatter themselves with justifications and explanations for why their calls for discrimination, stigmatization, and disempowerment aren't actually bigotry. Its an example of the entitlement that comes with privilege. They feel entitled to not have their hate labeled as such. Doing so would terribly rude and hostile. Far more rude and hostile than suggesting a class of people be barred from public office. So long as they don't label what they do and say as hate, no one else can.

Well, that's bullshit, isn't it? We can't count on hate to be self-labeled. Sure, a lot of people DO feel free to hate fat people because we live in a culture which privileges such hate. That a few do so openly, though, is a reflection of the far greater number that so less overtly. They fully believe themselves when they decry the awful treatment of themselves when called out on their privilege, too. They believe every one of their justifications for their hate. There is no "deep down" where they know they are hateful. Deep down, the just know they are right and will angrily defend their righteousness.

Fat hate has an especially potent system for denial, too. Its not hate or bigotry. Oh, no. They actually just act out of concern for fat people. This doesn't make fat the last acceptable thing to hate, of course. Indeed, this dynamic plays out precisely with hatred for women, African-Americans, gays, and so many others. There is always a culturally acceptable coat of paint slapped on the hatred so everyone can pretend its something else. You see this in the white racists so concerned about how the end of slavery has destroyed black families. You see this in the homophobes so concerned about the supposed mental instability of gays and lesbians. You see it in the misogynists who are so concerned about protecting women by infantalizing them and lionizing them as their noble protectors.

For us fatties, its always concern for health. Fat people must be barred from politics because they are so gosh darn unhealthy. We'll just go dying in the middle of our terms, leaving chaos in our wake. Sure, we keep electing 80 year old white men to office. Sure, we elect persons who have recovered from cancer. But fat people are just going to die any day now! I mean, there isn't actually anything to justify the perpetual death threat our culture puts fat people in, but why let relevance keep people from dredging up health. Dan Savage brought health in to justify his disgust with "girl love handles". No, it wasn't some arbitrary system of aesthetics that Savage was elevating to a beauty mandate. Its not that he finds it ugly (though, he totally does), its that he finds it so gosh darn unhealthy. I'm sure health concerns were paramount in the minds of those who decided to pick on a 19-year old recovering bulimic for looking slightly heavier since getting treatment for her eating disorder.

Limiting activists to calling out that has announced itself is a way of privileging the status quo and skewing the debate in its favor. Its all about making sure the culturally dominant hatreds end up looking like the moderate stance. They want to position those calling for empowerment as an extreme opposing the actual extreme of people expressing crass, direct hate. Then the status quo gets to act all above the fray for its sainted reasonableness by not hating too obviously. Compromise!

We must call out all hate. Not just the hate that makes itself plain. The hate that tries to blend into the background noise of our culture is far more insidious and far more of a threat. We will not wait for hate to make itself known before we speak out. We will seek it out and expose it.