Why?
While employers can currently establish plans that incentivize weight loss, it’s not illegal and/or will not cause your taxes to go up to decide not to participate in such programs. Additionally, there is some measure of direct voting by employees — complaining about the plan, leaving the business to work elsewhere, not participating in the plan — that is much closer to the decisionmaker in the process and could ostensibly much more quickly repeal a plan decision than waiting for a large enough group of people to be voted in who commit to weeding out problems in legislation, which can take at its quickest years, and at its slowest, never (as the problems become too deeply institutionalized).
If the government forces everyone to buy private or public plans, then encourages (through subsidies to private plans, or directly in public plans) plans that create initiatives or penalties based on weight, then there is no escape. Even if it’s just verbal encouragement, it gives employers the sense that they can discriminate against unpopular groups and lower their own costs without the possibility of losing an employee that is a member of an unpopular group, since even if that employee was to leave, chances are the same discriminatory initiatives would be in place wherever else they’d choose to seek employment.
The choice to participate in health care should not be forced. Choice is sometimes the last check one has on a virtually universal discriminatory and unethical system with deeply rooted institutional bias. The ability to choose to opt out of healthcare, to have the choice not to participate, is essential. Those who want to argue about public costs are only doing so in the context of the current healthcare framework under which we suffer: though the nature of insurance re: pooling risks does mean that some will pay in and never take out as much as they pay in, while others will take out more than they pay in, it doesn’t mean that anyone’s health is technically anyone else’s business. That’s just the nature of insurance.
This would not be the case if health decisions and health behaviors and being a member of an unpopular health class literally become public business. By definition. One would have to completely trust the government not to fall in with popular Healthist sentiments that have a tendency to put a good deal of the blame for unaffordability and poor public health on fat people. In my humble opinion, placing such immense trust in a fickle, by nature ever-changing, populist, and power-hungry entity is foolish.
Those who are interested in freedom from institutionalized discrimination should always be concerned when choices are taken away, rather than offered up. The way to fight discrimination is to open doors, not close them. Many pro-fat activists are in favor of universal healthcare because they believe it will force insurers to cover those who are currently not covered, or allow the government to provide a plan that will cover them (they currently already have this power, by the way). But this is an example of closing doors, not opening them. Fatphobia is still out there, and it runs rampant in government — and is no less present in Progressive political circles than any other circle. If fat people can be used as scapegoats to save money in what is sure to be a very expensive system (TNSTAAFL*), that is what is going to happen.
And that is already what is happening, as the healthcare bills currently being proposed are overrunning their cost goals, even taking into consideration that every gimmicky scheme to shift money around has been called upon in order to make the bills look less expensive than they already are (frontloading payins, backloading payouts, political promises of savings that won’t be kept, etc). Since the government doesn’t have to worry about doing anything scientifically sound if their electorate cares more about money than science, they’ll pick groups to discriminate against (or promote discrimination against) re: insurance in the order that these groups are medically unpopular. Fat people and smokers are, without a doubt, the top of that list.
Universal or forced coverage is not good for fat people. What you gain in terms of being technically covered you will lose in the inevitable discrimination, higher costs, public shaming, fat hate and the wider spread of fat hate and focus on fat people as a “problem,” and so on.
Besides, I (and many others) know how to really lower costs, so that even groups that insurers put in a higher rate category would be able to afford insurance. But to lower costs would require less regulation, less control, more choices for individuals to buy care…in other words, a free market injection in a hopelessly overregulated industry. I’m certain that the cost of a plan for a “fit” family of four in Massachusetts currently would be the maximum of what you’d see for a non-”fit” family of four in a freer market.
The answer to the problem of fat people not being covered (or covered affordably) does not lie in handing over our fates to politicians and bureaucrats who are the ultimate barometer of public whims and misinformation.
If you have any questions, here is a bit of reading.
Do not give the public the ability to vote on your private health matters: No Fat People in Concentration Camps
Socialized medicine leads to more discrimination, higher costs, and fewer choices: Universal Healthcare and Fat
We should be free to do what we want, as long as that liberty doesn’t infringe on the liberty of others: Libertarians and Obesity, Take Two
A chain of back-of-the-envelope logic whereby involved government in healthcare in our current climate leads to dire consequences for fat people: Eliminate Fat People
Involving government in healthcare in our fatphobic environment can lead, and has led, to the breaking up of families. Additionally, it could lead to the state-sponsored eradication of fat children, by any means necessary: The Tide of Hate Rises
You should never give someone else the ability to make choices about your body: When Your Body is No Longer Yours
The state is not an objective third party with no profit motive, and will not operate as such in the distribution of health care: Why Universal Healthcare Should Be Opposed by Fat Activists
Junk science and fat unpopularity = the legislation of thinness: Universal Healthcare is Not Automatically Fat-Friendly
The Food Police are coming: “Lock-in” the Fatty Fat Fats
*There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Here’s a quick hit, a really fair and fat-positive article on Reason.com: http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/02/a-big-fat-political-mistake
The comments are a mix of fatphobic and reasonable.
Chris Christie, Republican candidate for New Jersey governor, has been at the center of a controversy which has propelled him from the favorite to win to merely sitting on the knife’s edge of public opinion. What was the propellant?
His opponent’s focus on his fat (see Rachel’s excellent post on the subject).
But there are some who are claiming Christie may have turned the tide recently by doing nothing except coming out and defining that focus which has been weighting him down in the polls, as it were:
I found Chris Christie’s new tack very smart. He called out his opponent for the ads in a subtle, humorous way: by basically coming forward and owning his fat. “I’m fat, Don.”
Imus went on to, in mainstream media fashion, probe Christie for the numbers that would best determine whether or not he fell into some socially-shunned BMI category (which is why not allowing yourself to be labeled by such numbers is so important). Christie gave his height, but when Imus asked:
“How much do you weigh?”
Christie responded: “550 pounds.” (followed by laughter)
The point Christie was making wasn’t that 550 pounds was comically huge, but that he might as well weigh any number that is “large enough” to put him into some socially-shunned BMI category, since that was the way he was being treated, simply based on his appearance. The actual number isn’t the point. The point is that he falls into what is currently considered to be “too large,” and being too large to be taken seriously was what he was trying to own. He subtly expressed the ridiculousness of the importance of that number to his political campaign, while at the same time acknowledging that his opponent wants it to be important.
The Christie vs. Corzine race should be watched closely by those interested in fat politics. Whatever your affiliation (or lack thereof), this race could set the precedent for future races involving fat candidates of any party. If Christie is able to turn the ownership of his fat to his advantage, future campaigns against fat opponents might be less willing to utilize fatphobia in their platforms. If he isn’t, it is still an important case study, and could be a depressing sign that the moral panic against the obesity folkdevil has not yet reached its climax.
Here’s a quick hit (h/t NewsBusters.org):
Food Fight: MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski Advocates Tax on Meat, Soft Drinks, and People Who Consume Them
SCARBOROUGH: Now when we say ’sugar,’ do you mean coke, cocaine, or is that code for sugar with Paterson, or is it actual sugar?
BRZEZINSKI: [ignoring Joe, continuing to read] “In view of our obesity epidemic and the extra burden it places on our health care system – not to mention the problems it causes on a crowded New York subway when your neighbor can’t fit into a single seat – it is a reasonable proposal.” He goes on now to talk about red meat. And you all need to think about this.
[snip]
BRZEZINSKI: No, people who want us not to just be an obese, sick country. I’m going to read one more, Peter Singer again, Professor says –
That’s right, you disgusting fat pigs that are causing all the traffic problems (cuz, yanno, overcrowding isn’t due to bad scheduling or antiquated trains and lines…it’s due to your FAT!) should be taxed in order to shift the health care costs you will definitely, beyond-a-doubt based-on-scienterrific-studies incur at MY skinny-assed expense! (btw, not that Peter Singer doesn’t have very particular political views, no, he’s a very objective source on this).
More headbashing gold:
SCARBOROUGH: Don’t get mad. I can stay up for actually 20 hours consistently, but the thing is I haven’t had a great diet my whole life. Okay, I’ve probably eaten more Big Macs than most human beings alive, and I’m serious about it. But at the same time, I lead an active lifestyle. My blood pressure is 120 over 80. My cholesterol is fine. They’ve done one of those scans. I have no plaque. I want to live that way. That’s up to me.
BRZEZINSKI: I’m glad for you. This isn’t about you.
SCARBOROUGH: That’s up to Americans.
BRZEZINSKI: Look at America.
SCARBOROUGH: That’s the problem, Mika. It’s not about you. You want to project your values on everybody else. We don’t want to live like you. We think you have serious issues with how you treat your children. I want my children to eat a Big Mac. I want my children to have pizza. Now, afterwards, I’m going to take them outside, and I’m going to run them, and they’re going to be healthy.
BRZEZINSKI: So just run it off, and the calories will burn, and there won’t be plaque building up in their heart.
Yes, Mika. You obviously have a greater understanding of the science behind this than the average American you want to order around. :: cough ::
BRZEZINSKI: It’s not about you eating one, Willie. It’s about America eating way too much and all the things they shouldn’t be eating and America being completely obese. And us pretending –
SCARBOROUGH: America, meet your new nanny, Mika Brzezinski.
BRZEZINSKI: – because it’s not P.C. to say you’re fat. Fat and unhealthy.
SERWER: Tofu, bean curd, that’s where we end up. That’s okay.
SCARBOROUGH: In Mika’s world, we end up eating tofu and bean curd.
BRZEZINSKI: No, in my world, we actually talk about what we’re putting in our bodies.
Yes. As if no one talks about what we eat ad nauseum now. No. There aren’t thousands of diet plans, food plans, nutritionists, dieticians, medical researchers, and lobbies that talk about food as a moral, financial, and health issue every fucking day. Nope. You’re right. Doesn’t exist. We need to talk about it MORE!
And the last, but not least, of the bigoted statements made by this ignoramus:
SCARBOROUGH: We know that you are trying to foist a nanny state on the rest of us.
BRZEZINSKI: All I want you to pay a little more so I don’t have to pay for your big butts, okay?
That’s fine. Though don’t look to my pocketbook the next time you tear an ACL working off that naughty, naughty pizza.
EDIT: I just wanted to note that the comments are pretty fat-positive, though this isn’t a blog that necessarily aligns itself with FA. It just typically holds the belief that your body is your business.
I’ve decided that, as a political statement and a measure of self-protection, I will refuse to be weighed from now on.
Entirely. Completely.
As a show of solidarity, my thinnish husband said that he won’t let himself be weighed, either.
Political, in that:
* health information may become potentially much less private with the advent of electronic health records. I don’t want numbers that could be used to label me as some kind of social deviant, subject to higher taxes/fees/etc.
Self-protective, in that:
* I don’t want doctors to immediately see my weight/BMI first, and treat my condition second.
If doctors/nurses have a problem with this, I will calmly explain that I will not be weighed, and repeat whatever reason I came in for.
If health insurance companies ask for my weight, I will give them a safe number that won’t put me in any bad categories. It’s not a lie, I haven’t weighed myself in years. So I’m just giving them my best guess and, gosh, I’m bad at estimation!
If employers/employees require numbers for health initiatives, I will tell them no. If they insist, I will tell them they can try to drag me on a scale, if they like.
I know it’s radical — that’s the point. There really is very, very little reason to be weighed, and those numbers are being increasingly used to categorize us into “compliant” and “noncompliant”/”deviant” classes. But if we don’t let them assign a number — well, how are they going to categorize us? They can’t just field a guess.
What do you think? Will you refuse to be weighed? If not, why not?
EDIT: Based on a few comments, here is a brief note — I think the point is being missed, here, a bit. The idea is to ultimately keep a number that has potentially harmful social consequences from being recorded. It doesn’t matter if my doctor isn’t a government employee (especially if the pending healthcare legislation passes), acquiring that number is a simple matter of changing the law, or plundering electronic databases. The idea is to keep that number from being recorded because I do *not* trust my doctor to use that information wisely. I do *not* trust any body in our current fatphobic climate to use that number wisely. There might be some who are looking just to track stability and long term trends (and besides a sharp jump or drop in weight, what are those supposed to tell me about my health, anyway?) and not carp on BMI-bullshit myths, but that’s not something I’m going to trust. And I do not trust that my information is going to remain private. It might. But it could just as easily be shoved into a database that some bureaucracy would be able to dredge at will.
This post is inspired by Unapologetically Fat’s post on Fashion Bug, please read it, it’s great!
It was a late summer’s day, and my mother was down to visit. I hadn’t seen her since the wedding (so since May), so it was fantastic to have a visit. We usually go clothes shopping when she’s down — call it a bit of a tradition — and we talk about fat issues. Call that a tradition, too. My mom isn’t quite a convert to FA yet, in that she still has a bunch of image/health issues that unfortunately her doctors have compounded.
We decided to stop by Fashion Bug — I had heard there was a store re-do, and I was interested to see how it would look. I walked in, and was pleasantly surprised — it looked like a regular boutique, instead of the usual segregated sections (plus on the right, straight on the left). I could see the clothing more clearly. Instead of having a casual rack crammed next to formal rack (both made of the same cheap knits and polyester), there was a casual and formal side, in which straight and plus sizes generally populated every rack.
Prices and selection was better, yes. But what impressed me even more than that was that I was, for the first time in years, shopping next to women of all sizes. There was a straight-sized woman who was interested in the same shirt, for instance, as I was. There were straight and plus sizes interspersed, shopping together for the same things.
And it was a freaking wonderful feeling.
I had never really thought about how confining and shaming it was to be segregated to often the back corner of a store (in a much smaller section), next to the FOOD (Super Walmart’s new brilliant placement for its Plus section), or next to Maternity or the kid’s clothes (cuz fat people are never single or young, yanno). I told myself that it feels better to shop near people of my own size.
But you know what? It really didn’t. That day at Fashion Bug, when I was shopping amongst straight sized people for the first time in years, *that* is when the shame lifted. *That* is what made me feel like we were all normal, just differently sized. That fat and thin people don’t inherently like different things, or inherently represent different demographics (in a broad sense), or inherently don’t want to shop near one another, or that plus sized people should have smaller selections of cheaper-made clothing because they don’t *deserve* the selection the straight sizes get.
As far as I know, Fashion Bug is the first mainstream store to integrate the straight and plus sizes. For that, Fashion Bug, I will definitely give you more of my business (your price drop doesn’t hurt, either!).
All I know is that I loved, loved, loved being able to shop with my mom again, who is a straight size. That we aren’t banished to different ends of the store. That she doesn’t come back from her side with a top she rightly knows I’d love, but dangit, it’s just too small (not her fault, she perpetually thinks I’m a 1x for some reason lol).
There has been released recently a widely pressed study — another Nurse’s data dredge — showing that middle age women have increasingly greater chances of not making it to “healthy” old age (health is defined including certain levels of mobility, as well as the not having any diseases) if they are overweight or obese, compared to “thin” people.
Link to news article about study
Lie warnings in the news article — contains blatant lies via “expert” testimony (that weight is a modifiable, non-genetic factor — as we know on this blog quite well, weight is 77% heritable, second only to height).
Link to the full text of the study
Looks like the study is another data dredge of the Nurse’s Health Study. Recall that this study is the parent of the most-cited article on health and obesity, “Body Weight and Mortality Among Women,” which concluded that even mild overweight (and extrapolating upwards from there) was associated with a greater risk of premature death. Sound a bit like the conclusions drawn in the most recent study, except replacing premature death with greater ill-health.
Recall Campos in “The Diet Myth” — he used the very study cited above to show how manipulations of data, and selective interpretations, could account for wildly different results. So different as to contradict the very conclusions of the authors themselves — in fact, he showed that the Nurse’s Health Study was another example of the inverted J-curve of mortality with respect to BMI, placing those at greatest risk of “premature” death in the underweight range, next in line the far opposite end of obesity (which is still on the level of some “normal” folk), and with the least chance of “premature” death in the overweight category.
Given the fact that this is the same Nurse’s Health Study, just a few years older, the inverted J-curve must still present itself. Which is likely why the authors didn’t tackle longevity in the study, just a very specially-defined “health” status, which likely maximized the amount of “unhealthy” over-70s in the overweight/obese category. Let’s check out the study a bit more.
Their definition of “health”:
Although there is no consensus on the definition of successful ageing or healthy survival, the working definitions in most previous studies8 9 11 12 were based on the concept raised by Rowe and Kahn, which incorporates not only chronic diseases but also physical, cognitive, and other functions.23 We used this same concept to derive our comprehensive working definition of healthy survival. Specifically, for our primary definition, healthy survivors were participants who survived to age 70 or older and as of age 70 were free from 11 major chronic diseases—that is, cancer (except non-melanoma skin cancer), diabetes, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, congestive heart failure, stroke, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (because cognitive function was assessed near 2000 for 99.1% of the study population, we used the disease status up to 2000 for this domain); had no major impairment of cognitive function; had no major limitation of physical functions; and had good mental health. We defined nurses who survived to the age of
70 and did not meet these four criteria as “usual survivors.” In our cohort, there were 1686 (9.9%) “healthy survivors.”
First of all, the study is a giant set of self-reported surveys. Got that? While causes of death and major diseases (like diabetes, cancer, Parkinson’s) are checked up on with medical records checks or with a phone interview or with additional questionnaires, the study authors are not bringing in the women and doing thorough checkups on them. That’s the nature of epidemiology — the belief that even though the data quality is vastly poorer to more rigorous, in-lab studies, if they crowd enough people on to the rolls, they will make up for the data quality with numbers. In other words, it comes down to the power of statistics to produce correlations that are then reported as study results.
Secondly, the definition of ill-health is very complicated, obviously crafted to maximize the results they obviously desire in their introduction (remember, introductions are usually written before the study is even begun — they are often extrapolations of the abstract, and the abstract is often what is submitted to various organizations in order to procure grant money to get funding to conduct the study).
And yes, we have the J-curve phenomenon, which is never mentioned in the study. Why could this be relevant? Simply because if there are more overweight and obese women living to old age than thin women (which is suggested by the J-curve), there is more potential for the number of overweight and obese women to have a greater incidence of “ill-health” as defined by the study. Then, if you play the numbers game just right, you can likely easily show that for every 1 “unheathy” older thin person, there were 1.8 “unhealthy” fat people. Yep — 80% is an odds ratio. It makes it look huge, right? Like 80% of all fat people who live to old age get sick? That’s why they used that number. It’s much less scary if you for every 5 unhealthy elderly thin people, there are 9 unhealthy elderly fat people, with “unhealthy” being defined on the four-point physical function, cognitive function, mental health, and chronic disease-having criteria as quoted above.
Here’s a quote to further give you the sense that the data was very chopped up and carefully manipulated to maximize the desired outcome. Note here that four BMI categories (underweight, normal, overweight, obese) are turned into several more:
For analysis of BMI, we grouped the nurses into six categories according to their baseline BMI: <18.5, 18.5-22.9 (reference), 23.0-24.9, 25.0-26.9, 27.0-29.9, and
Furthermore…the first chart in the study really says it all…this is a null study. What is the difference between 22.9 and 24.4? I know, it’s subtraction, but apparently the to the authors, this is basically what underpins their entire set of results. That’s right — in 1976, when the study started, the average BMI of the group of ~1600 “healthy” survivors was 22.9, and the average BMI of the group of 15,379 “unhealthy” survivors was 24.4.
Also note that the study authors decided to disinclude women who had lost weight between ages 18 and the study start.
I think the strongest fishy smell to this study is that there was no discussion about how weight gain between 18 and 50 greater than a certain amount can be indicative of disorders they did not test for (PCOS, Cushings), and that they didn’t discuss the possibility that many of these women may have been undiagnosed with diseases which have weight gain as a symptom (like Type II diabetes, hypoglycemia, some thyroid conditions). It’s possible that in their four-point determination of “health” status, which was based on presence of chronic disease (only 11 diseases, not including PCOS, Cushings, lipedema, hypoglycemia, and some lymph disorders which have weight gain as a side effect), mental health, cognitive function, and physical function, ignores the way ones physical function, for instance, can be negatively impacted by lipedema and lymph disorders, or how one’s mental health can be negatively impacted by the stigma associated with PCOS and other weight-gain related conditions, or that one’s mental health can be negatively impacted to a large degree in our culture by being “fat.”
Another issue to address is that fatter people do have a well-known greater incidence of mobility issues when they age compared to thinner people. It’s just gravity, people. A lean elderly person with no other chronic conditions will feel stronger, having the same rate of deterioration as a fatter elderly person. Does this mean that the fatter elderly person is less “healthy” and this means being fat is bad? I think the level of health is the same in the two, it’s the level of ability that is different. And in that sense, this study is clearly defining good health as being “most youthful.” And I don’t really agree with that definition, and though I’m not a medical professional, I don’t think a lot of medical professionals would agree with that definition.
The study doesn’t draw as strong conclusions as it would proclaim. Even if we were to give them the benefit of the doubt in the most complete sense, what they are saying in their results is that elderly thin people — a small part of the population — will be about 80% more likely to not be depressed, and to be mobile, than all elderly people with BMIs over 30 (a much greater amount of people). What does that say, really? They are free of fat stigma, especially as is usually compounded by doctors, which elderly people have to visit far more often than the average younger person. They can also fight gravity better in their relatively deteriorated condition than people who are heavier. That’s common sense.
Finally, the funding:
Funding: The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (grants AG13482, AG15424, and CA40356) and the Pilot and Feasibility program sponsored by the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center (DK46200). QS is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Unilever Corporate Research. MKT is supported by the Yerby postdoctoral fellowship programme.
When it comes down to it, what this study *does* do very well is satisfy some of the most highly prized marketable points in favor of the diet industry:
1. Panic women further about their health. The younger, the better.
2. Make them believe that the “normal” BMI cutoff isn’t good enough. They should ideally be as thin as possible, with the best outcome their desire to be underweight (which was shown by this study to be the greatest indicator of “healthy” survival). Therefore, virtually all the population of women is “too fat,” at all points of their adult lives.
3. Get more middle-aged women, who are typically less vain and image-centric than young women, panicked about weight.
What do you think about this study?
EDIT: I also want to point out that all the study participants were white. Considering the strong genetic component of body size and what we are increasingly learning about the relationship between ethnicity and body size, the fact that this study is extrapolating to all non-white in its fundamental message is absurd, and another one of its many weaknesses. (not to say all people of particular ethnicities are shaped the same, of course – I’m shaped very differently from my own paternal grandmother, for instance)
On Rush Limbaugh’s radio show today, he quoted at length from the Newsweek article that obesity is genetic, as heritable as height. Millions of people listen to this show every day.
I know many of my readers here don’t agree with Rush’s politics, but spreading the message that fat has been shown to be as heritable as height, and is not under a person’s control in the long run, is extremely important. Rush was responding to Michael Pollan, who argued in the New York Times on September 9 that Obama should go after Big Food first before going after Big Insurance, because — you guessed it — fat people are the reason why health costs are going up, and they’re going to keep going up unless you go after Big Food (i.e., eradicate fat people).
(as a note, many Sanity Points are required to read the article — it contains the usual myths about the costs of fat people. It also, aggravatingly, euphemizes the ‘obesity epidemic’ with phrases like ‘a result of the Western diet’ — because, yanno, there aren’t any people who eat a non-Western diet that are fat!, and ‘fast-food diet’ — because, yanno, all us fatties do is chow on McWhatevers. Additionally, it assumes all diabetics are diabetic because of what they eat and how they exercise)
Rush has been notably up and down on the issue of fat in a personal sense — a fat man himself, he has regularly undergone diets and then regained the weight (he’s on a diet right now in fact). However, he’s been fairly consistent with his message that it’s no one else’s business but your own what goes into your mouth, and certainly isn’t something that should be regulated by some Nanny-state. He’s also been the brunt of much fat-stigmatization (his opponents regularly take cheap shots at his weight before they go on to explain why they disagree with this-or-that message, or even use his weight as a symbol for what they perceive as his moral failings), and has said surprisingly refreshing things about fat:
The Left’s New Villain: Fat People where he takes some delightful shots at MeMeMeMe Roth:
Did you catch what this Roth b-i-itch said at the beginning of the bite? You’re supposed to be working out every day? You’re supposed to be working out. You’re supposed to eat fruits and vegetables, you’re supposed to be. And MeMe Roth, who nobody has ever heard of, is now the sole authority on what you ought to be doing. I tried to warn people. This is the SUV all over again.
“People who regularly exercise….are the ones getting regularly injured. …. you’re the ones putting stress on the healthcare system.” link is to audio, not text
Of course, his track record isn’t perfect. But he’s regularly saying a lot more fat-positive things, especially in the context of body autonomy, than the vast majority of media with his kind of audience. And that’s important, regardless of how you view his politics.
Here’s to you, Rush, and I hope that your journey becomes personally fat accepting with time, though I thank you for a few sane points about “the obese” in a chaos of illogic, hate, and blame!
Ah, Facebook bigotry.
Guaranteed to be even more awkward than your ordinary brand of internet bigotry, as it usually involves family, friends, classmates, or coworkers.
I recently got into a bit of an exchange with a person I’ve met all of once, who thought it necessary to masturbate his fat-hate onto my Facebook wall. Seriously, I can just picture some of these bigots with pleasure-faces as their hate oozes out into the world, delighted as pigs in shit often are to root publicly, messily, and splashing it up on you if you’re not careful to stand far enough away.
I shot back with a link to the heritability study and told him that “even if adiposity measures health in some kind of reasonable way (which *hasn’t* been conclusively shown, despite “common” knowledge), your health isn’t someone else’s business, so bugger out of their life. Trust me, fat people know they’re fat. No, really. They do.”
Yeah, a bit grammatically incorrect. I don’t deign to be that careful with my sentence construction when I’m addressing hateful morons that really, really need to bugger off with their hate, oh, yesterday.
I’m rather pissed. And do you want to know the earth-shattering, oh-so-deviant, gravity-defying status update to which the douchebag above was referring?
Body obsession occupies women’s time and minds, as a tool of patriarchy to pin us down. What if we could put this energy into politics, poetry, science, or art?
And his response (get out your bingo cards!):
Well, I guess we’d be a race of super advanced fat people, like in WALL-E…
Obsession is always bad, I agree. That said, from a health perspective, we do let ourselves go quite a bit, women and men, and I think it’s very easy to over eat and under exercise. I also find it funny and a little pathetic that one of the biggest research fund hogs in the world right now is a pill to make you lose weight. Seriously? Is it *that* hard to go to a gym 3 times a week?
Gah.
What’s your story of fat-related Facebook/MySpace asshattery? Or rather, have you noticed the sheer determination of bigots to be bigots in *your* space?
(oh yeah, and I totally unfriended his ass. Hence the title of this post!)
This post is meant to archive a study oft-cited by fat liberation activists. Please take some time to read the study, and please link to it on your own blogs if you find it compelling.
Wardle J, Carnell S, Haworth CMA, Plomin R. Evidence for a strong
genetic influence on childhood adiposity despite the force of the obeso-
genic environment. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:398 – 404. [HTML]
Accompanying editorial:
BigLiberty is a 27 year-old modern polymath living in MA, USA. She sings classical soprano, composes classically-inspired goth rock, writes poetry, reads philosophy, and studies economics. She has her BA in physics and MA in mathematics.
bigliberty
anniemcphee
