Bridgette on Medium

Originally posted at Fatly Yours on Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Medium has a premise that might be hard to buy: a mother of three who's also a psychic, seesthings and talks to the dead, and helps the local DA with murder cases. It's based on a real person who may or may not really be psychic, Allison DuBois, who is portrayed on the show by Patricia Arquette. The realistic aspect of the show is the family life. In real life and on the show, Allison has three daughters. What interests me the most is the middle child on the show, Bridgette DuBois (Maria Lark). She divides opinions - precious sweetheart, unusually realistic child or irritating and precocious? I personally like her and think she's depicted quite realistically. She seems to have an actual personality, which is rare for child characters (especially ones that aren't the center of the show).

Bridgette is a rarity for many reasons. She's a tomboy. She doesn't comb her hair much. She's a bit of a "freak" - she might decide to camp in the dining room instead of sleeping in her room; she might want to wear a biking helmet to school every day; she sometimes sees dead people or has clairvoyant dreams. She's portrayed as unusually intelligent and aware of what's going on with her parents. And - she's chubby.

I love that she's chubby. I love that there's never been any issue with this on the show. I love that her two sisters are slim; I love that her parents are pretty slim; I love that she's gained weight during the show and her depiction hasn't changed. She's written as a girl with a personality, and her role could be played by a slim girl. This, to me, is always a good sign.

The family's eating habits seem realistic to me. With two working parents, there might be oatmeal or waffles in the morning, but more often than not, it's a quick bowl of cereal and then off to school. In the evening, the family eats a homecooked meal together - if the parents have time to prepare one. Food is a pleasure, but health is also considered. For instance, Allison is notorious for bringing healthy foods to soccer practice, and the parents insist that Bridgette eat her salad as well as the hot dog (note that she isn't expected to eat only salad while others eat hot dogs). Bridgette is only shown eating at meal times, and her diet isn't any different from her slim sister Ariel's. No commentary is ever made of the girls' weight.

What we often see on TV is a division between "fat families" and "slim families". The fat family has fat parents, fat children, fat grandparents, fat uncles and aunts, fat pets, and everyone's eating massive meals of grease and sugar all the time. (The most extreme fat family I've seen was on Eddie Murphy's The Nutty Professor.) The matronly mother is always telling her children to eat, or wondering if they get any food at all, especially if they've moved away from home. "Food is love" is the motto of such families.

The slim family is the norm. It consists of skinny mother and daughters, slim/muscular dad and skinny sons. The grandma and grandpa are allowed some chub; all family members under 60 are usually slim. They eat TV-normally - i.e., they eat homecooked meals together, but there are quite a few bags of chips and candy in between,which, as we all know, is OK for slim people but not for fat people. Also, they don't eat as much food as the fat family (it's all about eating less and exercising more!) Food isn't discussed much, and it's just a part of everyday life rather than the focus.

If there's a hybrid form, it's the fat men/skinny women family with a fat father and son, skinny mother and daughter. The rule of thumb in both skinny and hybrid families is that no girl over five or so is allowed to be chubby. That's why Bridgette caught my eye. While I wouldn't call her fat, I realized I'm not used to seeing school girls on TV with a body like hers. It's nice to see a realistic spread of children in a TV family. Most real life families I've known have been mixed: chubby child, skinny child, one in between the extremes, another chubby child. Siblings can have very different body types, but you rarely see this on TV. Maybe the idea that all of the girls have blonde hair, like the mother, is a bit annoying, because I haven't seen many totally blonde families either. But I do like the realistic touch in body types.

The girls' gender identities on the show are also somewhat interesting. Bridgette is a tomboy who likes to dress in boyish clothes, while her older sister Ariel is a super-feminine slim girl with long golden hair and pink clothes. There isn't rivalry set up between them (at least so far) even if Ariel is the popular girl and Bridgette is the freak at school. When the boys in Ariel's class rank her as a "hottie", Bridgette reacts not with jealousy but with obvious disbelief: "Someone thinks you're a hottie?! I thought you had to be smart to get to junior high!" This comment, to me, shows that she doesn't think about how boys might rank her. She speaks from her usual point of view of sisterly superiority - the same tone Ariel often takes with her.

The parents' attitude is also encouraging. The girls have distinct personalities and are allowed to be themselves. Allison and Joe worry about Bridgette being lonely, but as someone who never really fit in, Allison also sees a value in being a freak. When Bridgette decides to wear her bike helmet to school, Joe is worried and wants to wean her of it, while Allison demands that they let the girl be herself. In the end, she is allowed to keep the helmet on for her school photo.

Bridgette is often shown to be more alert and intelligent than Ariel. When the family go on a camping trip, they stumble across a dead body. Bridgette becomes suspicious about her mother always uncovering dead bodies and solving murder cases, but when she tries to discuss it with Ariel, the older sister just shuts her down. It's an interesting scene - does it mean Ariel is dumber than Bridgette, or less observant, or just in denial about what goes on with her mother, despite the fact that Ariel, too, has had clairvoyant dreams? As the popular one, she faces more pressure of being "normal". Bridgette has perhaps never been too concerned with that and is more interested in finding out the truth about their mother's abilities.

The chubbiness might be a part of Bridgette's "freak" personality. Maybe the implication is that she doesn't care about her appearance - also with the unkempt hair and boyish clothes - and is truly herself, no matter what others think. Maybe they would have written her this way even if she hadn't become chubby, or maybe they picked a chubby girl for the role because of this. Either way, it's part of the reason why I identify with the character. Way too many girl characters are meek, pretty and popular, and almost always thin. There's usually a chubby or fat boy in the "boy shows" - in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a show that doesn't have any chubby guys. For girls, it's a different story. Even when the character is an outcast of sorts, a thin and pretty girl is usually picked (for instance, the unpopular Sam on Popular).

Interestingly, Patricia Arquette has gained quite a bit of weight since Medium began - not enough to make her fat in my book, but enough to put pressure on her to diet. She has refused to do so, stating that her body looks realistic for a middle-aged mother of three. I was positively surprised by this. A mother of three with a demanding job is likely to gain weight as time goes by, and this probably wouldn't be a big deal in real life. I like that she insists it's not a big deal on the show either.

Time will tell what happens with Maria Lark as she grows up. She might lose the chubbiness as she grows or grow up to be fat. She could be forgotten as a child star of yesteryear, or become a famous actress, in which case there will be more pressure on her to be slim. I wish the industry, like her parents on the show, would let her grow up to be who she truly is, but I have my doubts. At least she has a good example in her TV Mom.

Eating and Body Image on the Gilmore Girls

Originally posted at Fatly Yours on Sunday, March 30, 2008


For those who haven't seen it, this show revolves around Lorelei Gilmore (Lauren Graham) and her daughter Lorelei "Rory" Gilmore (Alexis Bledel). It's a slightly off-beat, wacky comedy/drama about quirky people in a small town. People who talk really fast and eat a lot of fast food. I'm not as thrilled with it as some others, but there were many good things on this show, and I enjoyed watching it.

The leading ladies are, of course, beautiful and skinny. However, they also break stereotypes in a way. Here we have two thin women who don't count calories, eat whatever they like and never really exercise. Some viewers have been annoyed at this, complaining that it's unrealistic and they'd be fat in real life. I don't think that's a given. In real life, too, some thin women can eat whatever they want, and writers aren't obligated to turn their characters into morality tales of "what happens if you eat unhealthy foods". An unhealthy-eating character who gets diabetes is no more realistic than one who doesn't, it's just a different story. Both endings are possible in real life also.

I feel like fat women are expected to envy women like this, but I don't. I find their eating habits pretty liberating and fun to watch. I don't think eating nothing but junk food is necessarily an enjoyable lifestyle, and for many people, it's dictated by poverty and other such issues, not by their taste in food. Knowing this, I still enjoy seeing two women eating and talking about food with a childlike, happy attitude that doesn't include counting calories or competing at who's eating the least or the healthiest. Lorelei and Rory make eating fun.

Luke, the owner of the diner they frequent, is set up as the counterpoint to their food attitudes. He constantly tells them they shouldn't be eating burgers and drinking coffee, and he tries to sneak in light options. His job, however, negates his message, and the Gilmore girls take his scoldings with a smile. I'm not sure if we're expected to agree with Luke or think he's an ass for telling them what to eat, but this never becomes a very strong conflict between the characters. I don't think I'd take comments like that in stride, but Luke is set up as the grumpy yet loveable hermit character who, despite his angry demeanor, has a heart of gold. I think the writers are saying he's too uptight about food, and that the relaxed joy of living that Lorelei and Rory represent is also manifested in their relationship with food.

Throughout most of the show, Lorelei is single. There are several love interests, and she comes close to marrying some of them, but she's not depicted as the typical "centre of attention" thin lady who all the guys fall for (think Ally McBeal). She has her own business and has had to make it on her own as a single parent. Instead of becoming a tough, no-nonsense kind of woman, she's still pretty chipper and nice to everyone. She has a quirky, likeable personality and a "live and let live" attitude. I think this is a pretty good, well-rounded character.

Rory, on the one hand, is a bookworm who has few friends, not a super popular cheerleader. This is nicely non-stereotypical, because bookwormish characters are often (TV) ugly and miserable. On the other hand, she is the kind of character all the boys fall for. I've always disliked depictions of teenage girls as femme fatales who make all the boys go wild, and this could be seen as an element of idealizing the skinny body. Rory is a little too perfect, and I feel ambivalent about her, but at least she's believably ambitious and insecure at the same time, not just a giggling, shopping stereotype. Her best friends are also pretty refreshing and non-stereotypical characters. Minus points for no fat girls in her high school and college though.




Then there's a fat character called Sookie (Melissa McCarthy). She's the second banana to Lorelei, so she gets minus points for that. Cheerful and always smiling, she does act a bit like a fat "best friend" stereotype - loyal and loveable, but never the star. I don't think she appears in every episode. In addition, she's a chef, so her work and much of her life revolves around food.

However, there are also many positive things about her depiction. Sookie knows her food and cooks it herself. She has a joy of eating that is just as uninhibited as that of Lorelei and Rory, but it's mixed with a knowledge and appreciation of food that they don't have. For example, Sookie and her husband Jackson grow some of their own vegetables, while Lorelei never eats salad. These two attitudes on food can be seen as complimentary, because Sookie also enjoys unhealthy treats. She gets better nutrition, but there's no element of moral virtue in her eating. A fat woman who enjoys eating but is also mindful of nutrition and cooking is a positive rebuttal of stereotypes. Sookie isn't on a constant diet, and she isn't shown as either more gluttonous or more deprived than Lorelei.

Another positive thing about Sookie is that she's not depicted as a lonely single woman with no hope of ever finding a man. During the show, she gets married and has two children. (Note that being a happy single woman who doesn't need a man would be just as positive.) Her marriage doesn't fall into trouble, Jackson doesn't leave her for a pretty young model, and no one acts surprised that Sookie could find someone.

What's more, I don't remember hearing Sookie make any derogatory remarks about her own looks. Her mind isn't occupied with thoughts of dieting, so she's free to be happy and focus on living her life. I see that in Lorelei and Rory too. McCarthy was on a diet during the show, so Sookie became a bit smaller, but this was never referenced to. (The picture is taken after the diet.)

The town of Stars Hollow, where Lorelei and Rory live, isn't made up of young and skinny people either. Most of the inhabitants are middle-aged, and in addition to Sookie, there are several fat women living in the village. They're not clumsy and laughable*, they don't throw themselves at men, and they're not made fun of. People don't wait until they're out of the room and then start whispering, "Did you see how big she was?" In Stars Hollow, fat ladies are a part of the normal life of the village. This is what I see happening in real life too. When I watch many other shows aimed at women - Sex and the City and The L Word and such -, I see nothing but slim and thin women. Seeing fat women on a TV show feels comfortable. It makes me feel like I'm not completely invisible.

Is the show unrealistically non-weight-centric for today's world? Is it a positive depiction or a brushing-the-problem-under-the-rug depiction if a thin girl never once thinks she might be too fat, or if teenage girls only talk about rock music and literature, never about their figures? I'd love to see a show where eating disorders and body image issues are realistically depicted, or what's more, one that is brave enough to have the Sookie character in the main role. But you can't have everything, and I think Gilmore Girls got many things right.

With some comedies, I've had to worry about being offended by the fat characters. This is especially true of popular comedies like Friends. I don't remember once being offended watching Gilmore Girls. The show seemed to carry a soothing undertone of equality: there's room for different body types and lifestyles, because life is not a dieting contest.

*=In the very first episode, Sookie was shown as clumsy, falling over her pots and pans and setting something on fire. Luckily, they dropped this angle soon.

Body Image in Bridget Jones

Originally posted at Fatly Yours on Monday, December 17, 2007

When Bridget Jones' Diary came into the theatres, I saw it twice. I liked its lighthearted humor, and particularly the loveable loser as a lead, which is not all that common for a female protagonist (but is almost always the case for a male protagonist). When I read the books, however, I realized how much better it could have been. What disappointed me the most was probably the choice of Renee Zellweger for the lead, or more generally, the choice of a leading lady who was otherwise skinny and was "fattened up" for the part.

In the novels, Bridget Jones is normalweight - around 130 lbs - and loses and gains the same few pounds all the time, like people do in real life. She's much more intelligent than she comes off in the movies: she's a feminist of sorts, self-ironic and analytical. Her biggest problem is that she's self-absorbed and neurotic, much like in the movie. However, unlike in the movie, her fight against fat is shown as her own private struggle, endless and futile, and in the end, others like her better when she's not skinny. In other words, a surprisingly realistic take on a chubbyish normalweight woman. I wouldn't give the books a size acceptance trophy, but they aren't completely fatphobic either.

In the movies, we see a different reality. They ditched a lot of the body-positive elements from the novels and replaced them with cheap fat jokes. The scene where Bridget realizes 2000 calories is a daily recommendation? Not in the movie. The scene where her friends think she's a bore and less attractive when she finally loses weight? Not in the movie. Instead, they spend most of the first and especially the second movie stuffing her into unfitting and unflattering clothes to purposefully make her look fatter. They have her fall ass first onto a camera to emphasize the size of the ass. Classy.

The books depict Bridget as a vain, neurotic woman made that way by an ambivalent environment, one which - through the media - tells her she's too fat, yet doesn't reward her if she loses weight. The movies depict her as a fat, sloppy girl who, despite her self esteem issues, is pretty oblivious about how she looks in tight clothing.

Is she that much fatter in the movies then? Well, not really. In the first movie, Zellweger does look the size I imagine Bridget to be. Yet it becomes obvious that this size, in the universe of the movie, is a BIG size. In the second movie, Zellweger gained even more weight and looks slightly overweight, bigger than Bridget in the book; cue more fat jokes and tight clothing. She still catches the eye of two handsome suitors - and some lewd older guys -, but somehow this seems to be *despite* her weight, because she's imperfect and clumsy and loveable because of that (and we all know that lewd older guys like a girl with flesh on her bones!)

Renee Zellweger isn't big enough for the role and therefore attracted way too much attention with her weight gain/loss. She talked negatively about her Bridget body in the media, which is a pretty natural reaction, especially if you're used to being so skinny. However, it came off as "OMG 130 lbs is HUGE!". I think this alone made the movie's message of "normal women are OK too" - which was pretty hypocritical to begin with, given how they made fun of Bridget - completely useless. By reacting in this way, she also gave viewers a free pass to laugh at her "fat" size in the film. The same people who would have shrugged to see a woman that size in real life howled with laughter to see skinny Renee Zellweger "blown up" that way. Some of those who laughed were themselves the same size. It's the same effect as the fat suit - it's "funny" to see a skinny star (Courteney Cox, Gwyneth Paltrow, "Weird Al" Yankovic) in a fat suit, because it makes them look unnatural and strange all of a sudden. The problem is that it also makes fatness look unnatural and strange and laughable.

So, Zellweger watches Super Size Me and gets panicky about how dangerous a fast weight gain can be. Have I mentioned recently how much I hate Super Size Me? But yeah, that part of it probably does hold true - gaining 20 pounds in one month eating nothing but junk food is not good for you. So she is now health conscious and says she'll wear a fat suit instead, if they make a third movie (which I hope they won't, as even the first sequel was pretty washed-out). Like I said above, her weight gain and loss created a fat suit effect anyway, so it's not so different if she opts for the fat suit this time. I'm not pro-extreme weight gain for the purposes of a movie, at all. If anything, that sort of thing reinforces the stereotype that anyone can gain weight if they just "eat a lot".

What bugs me is that Zellweger seems to have no qualms about extreme dieting, which she engaged in after the movies. Her weight gain was "unhealthy" and the subsequent weight loss was "necessary" and "healthy", even if it made her underweight. She seems to think that rapidly gaining weight is bad, but rapidly losing it is OK; that being underweight contains no risks whatsoever, while being overweight is an immense risk. It's an understandable attitude, since we get far more "watch out for obesity!" stuff in the media. The experts and journalists seem to assume that we don't run a risk of becoming too skinny.

It must be confusing - or rather, reinforcing the wrong beliefs about weight - to hear an underweight actress talk about the health hazards of being normalweight. Because I do worry that this is what some people will take home from all this. Not that forcing your body to gain or lose a lot of weight is always bad, but that looking like Bridget Jones is dangerous and OMGPANIC Super Size Me.

Here's hoping that for the next movie about a normalweight woman, they actually hire a normalweight actress who's proud of who she is.

Anti-Gay vs. Anti-Fat Arguments

Originally posted at Fatly Yours on Monday, December 10, 2007. I've slightly modified this post, but I might modify it more later as I look into it more. My goal was never to say that being gay=being fat; there are overlapping areas, but two oppressions are never the exact same, and there's no point in having a shouting match between the two.

The funny thing about being a fat lesbian is that you see counterarguments from two different sides, and they're the exact same arguments. Seriously, there is virtually no difference between anti-fat and anti-gay arguments; it's the same ignorant generalizing bullshit. Yet, anti-gay people are usually seen as ignorant and homophobic, while anti-fat people are seen as rational and moderate in our culture. What's the real difference? Here are just some examples of the strikingly similar arguments.

It's not in your genes. It's a lifestyle choice.

Sure it is. If you're different, and we don't like you, it's not because we're bigoted; it's because you chose to be different from the rest of us. Who do you think you are? It doesn't matter if there's mounting evidence in both camps that it is in your genes, because that's just gay/fat people looking for excuses, surely they've bribed some scientists to be on their side.

I don't necessarily see it as a "lifestyle" that I feel something for my own sex, or that I have a certain amount of fat in my body. People are individuals, regardless what they represent to you. For every fat person who eats nothing but junk food, there's a slim person with the same lifestyle. Ditto every gay person who has casual sex. You can argue that some fat and gay people do these things, but you can't prove that we all do. I've had less sex, and less food, than some of my slim heterosexual friends.

Sure you can choose to change. I mean, technically, any homosexual can start a relationship with someone of the opposite sex - but that doesn't guarantee there'd be love or erotic attraction involved. Any fat person can eat low-cal stuff and exercise, but it doesn't guarantee s/he'll become thin. Even if you make the choice to change, some people will still assume you have the "wrong" lifestyle, and discriminate against you. You really can't win there.

And the most important question of all - why is it OK to discriminate against choices? Don't we have freedom of choice in a democracy? Isn't it always the person discriminating who needs to change their attitude, because you can't change others anyway? Isn't it a choice to refuse to accept someone who's different from you?

If we tolerate this, what's next? Animal lovers? Incest? Pedophilia? Or in case of fat: a) any weight, even if you weigh !OMG500POUNDS!
b) any lifestyle, no matter how unhealthy - completely sedentary, alcoholic, smoker, etc.

Just because "homosexuality" is filed under "perversions" in your head, and "obesity" is filed under "addictions" or "ultimate unhealthy lifestyles", it doesn't follow that if we accept one item, we must accept everything else on the list. It's one of the weirdest logical fallacies, when you think about it. We don't have to accept everything - we could just accept, say, consenting adults who aren't harming anyone else. Because in the end, there's nothing we can do about them anyway. You're free to despise the lifestyles of others, but what are you gonna do? Move into someone else's bedroom/kitchen to watch that they live right? What happens to freedom of choice then? Does judgement go a longer way than helping people who are clearly hurting themselves and others?

My counter-question: what happens if we outlaw this? What goes next? Your right to choose your spouse? Your right to eat unhealthy foods, ever? The privacy of your sex life? Don't assume it's only the most "extreme" cases that will be banned; it's much more likely that the next one to be limited is you and your "moderate" lifestyle.

If we tolerate this, everyone will soon get fat/gay.

Homosexuals make up about 6 % of the population (at least in Finland). As for fat people, if we're talking about the fat people you see in documentaries, I mean the supersized ones, it's about the same, or lower. I dont' see any sudden surge in either group, and I don't see a reason to suspect an oncoming surge, because most people are still pretty homo/fatphobic. More importantly, though, you can't just make yourself gay or supersized. Some people might experiment with homosexuality, but it just doesn't come naturally to everyone. Some might eat lots of fattening foods, but everyone doesn't have the same tendency to gain weight.

It's a matter of control: if we don't control people's eating and/or sex life, it will become totally uncontrollable and scary and there will be no boundaries anymore and the Earth will be flinged from its axis and we'll all die. Because being fat and gay is so lucrative - look at how much fun they have, having all the sex and eating all the food!

Homosexuality/obesity is so accepted nowadays. Gays and fat people can indulge in their lifestyle openly and we can't do anything. And they want more rights?

Most gays and fat people face lots of discrimination and hate. We also go through a phase of self-hatred and internalized fat/homophobia. Some never get over it. There are people who kill themselves because of all this internalized hate. But hey, we have it so easy, and we're so oblivious that we bug certain people. You can probably tell that this type of entitlement makes me mad. There's no denying that the privileged group in our society consist of white, middle-class, right-wing Christian, heterosexual slim people. Yet those same people often complain that they don't have a place in today's world of homosexuality and obesity. I don't even know what to say without getting really fumed up.

To some people, it's enough that gays and fat people exist, that's already pretty impudent, so how dare they ask for rights. Once in a forum, someone suggested a "fat pride parade", and someone else responded with "I see fat people parading around every day." Yeah, well, every day is fat pride day, right?

Homosexuality/obesity is simply a mental/eating disorder caused by
-a distant relationship with your same-sex parent;
-childhood trauma, especially sexual abuse;
-basically anything else that you can pinpoint in a person's life story

I'm not saying something like this can't happen. Sure, there could be someone who was originally straight but was raped and became gay through some complex mental trauma. There could be someone who was abused and started overeating to make themselves unattractive to the opposite sex, or to deal with their emotions. The latter sounds a lot more likely, but I'm sure both could be psychologically possible.

However, if this were true, it would also work the other way around. You don't see straight people second-guessing whether a trauma in their childhood caused them to be attracted to the opposite sex, and you don't see normalweight people asking if they should in fact be fat, if only they hadn't been so distant from their mother. This, to me, is what shows it to be discriminatory. You can't explain away unwanted variation like this. And even if it were true with some people, doesn't prove it's true with everyone who's fat/gay/bi/whatever else you don't accept.

What's more, the scientific validity of theories like this is problematic. My biggest issue is with the basic question "why do people overeat" or "why do people become attracted to their own sex". What if it's not something you do or become, just something you are and have always been? If there's a strong ideal that everyone should eat healthy foods only, we will perceive the unhealthy-eating people as people who have a problem. The same goes for valuing heterosexuality as the only "healthy" orientation. The truth is, there are traumatizing things in anyone's childhood. My sexuality has been explained away with "you were bullied at school" and "your Dad was absent throughout your teenage years", but my same-sex feelings date back to when I was seven, before either of those things began. Does it prove anything? Maybe, maybe not. It just feels unlikely that there is a simple explanation.

And in the end - yes, it could be that you were originally something and became something else. That's how we grow and mature. You're not supposed to be exactly what you were when you were a child; it's OK to change with time, and it's OK to accept who you are now. If you have sexual or eating behaviors that hurt you or others, that's one thing. But behaviors are usually modifiable, and your essential body type/sexual orientation isn't.

Have you heard of this [insert latest ex-gay/diet support group here]? They've worked wonders on some people. You should give it a shot!

The success rates in those groups are minimal. It's unlikely that I would change in any way. I don't need to give something a shot if I know less than ten per cent come out "healed", and most people face pressure within the groups that might do them more damage.

I don't know. Maybe some gays need ex-gay groups if they really can't accept their sexuality for various reasons. Maybe they need a group of likeminded people where they're not expected to feel good about themselves. Maybe some fat people need diet groups too. Maybe fat acceptance deters them because they're not ready to accept themselves. I'm not really worried about the concept of people being in a group where they can voice their negative feelings and work on them.

What I am worried about, however, is that these groups do give you a certain goal, and you probably won't be happy with yourself until you've reached that goal and kept it. It's a goal that, for most people, is unattainable. What's the psychological cost of living your life reaching for an unattainable goal? This is what we should be asking. A handful of "success stories" doesn't eradicate the desperation of those who "fail".

And finally, the most idiotic one of them all:
If you have a tendency to be fat, you just need to eat less than other people. / If you have a tendency to be gay, and you can't change, you just need to live celibate.

People who say this believe they're being fair. They're simply not giving anyone a free pass: everyone has to remain sexually pure/slim, no matter what, and if some people have to work a little harder to achieve it, tough luck for them. How many heterosexuals would agree to live celibate, not just until marriage, but their whole lives? Pretty much no one. This is one case where it's difficult to make the same argument against dieting, because many slim women already live a really limited life of counting calories and call this "normal" and "healthy". Sigh.

Is bigotry always the same, regardless who you direct it at? Obviously it's not as simple as "all attitudes against gays are the same as the attitudes against fat people", and fat people haven't gone through the same exact things gays have. But the underlying attitudes seem to be the same.

We can only hope that in twenty years' time, fat people enjoy the relative mainstream acceptance gays have now, and gays will have become a lot more accepted. Homosexuality was a crime twenty years ago, and it was classified a disease. Gay rights have come a long way, and hopefully fat rights will too.

Is This Fat Acceptance To You?

Originally posted at Fatly Yours on Thursday, December 06, 2007.

There's a fat acceptance group here in Tampere called Iloiset syöjättäret (happy eaters - syöjätär has some archaic "temptress" meaning too). I recently heard of it, and I was thinking of joining, but on second thought, nevermind. I much prefer the blogosphere. Apparently there is no strong resistance movement in Finland, because their ideas don't seem to be particularly revolutionary.

In an article in Helsingin Sanomat, February 2007, which can be found here but only in Finnish (but do look at the pictures of fatties with FACES!), psychologist Lea Polso from Iloiset syöjättäret is interviewed about obesity. So it starts by her saying that dieting doesn't work and people gain the weight back. So far, so good. But then...

Polso agrees that obesity is a growing problem. She thinks that too easy solutions and explanations are offered for it.

"A growing problem"? Did she really say that? I mean, at this point, I could believe that the writer added "problem" while Polso just agreed there are more overweight people than before, or something. I also like the part about too easy explanations. But then it goes downhill, when Polso starts trying to explain away obesity. I mean, I'm glad her own solutions and explanations are so complex and in-depth. Her theory:

Partially it is societal issues that make people prone to gaining weight, Polso explains. The food envinronment has become dangerous for health: there is a constant supply of everything, in big packages at that. Less and less daily basic exercise is available. The slim-emphasizing beauty ideal creates pressure. A busy lifestyle also makes one prone to gaining weight.

Ugh. OK, points for saying the beauty ideals contribute to the "problem", but the rest of that is just your typical "Finnish newspaper article about obesity" bull to my ears. Having everything in a constant supply is dangerous for our health? I thought we need a constant supply of a wide variety of nutrients. Finland the way it was in the 1950's, for example, was a great place to become undernourished. Long winter, short season for cultivating things, poor finances after the last war, et cetera. Now we live in a culture where we can finally eat everything, and as a result, we're taller than before, have less scurvy and such, and yes, we weigh somewhat more. I'll never get used to people complaining about a good food supply. Obviously it's caused more good things than bad.

The big package sizes are a pet peeve of mine, because I live alone and eat alone, and my food comsuption is relatively small. Even with single-serving meals, I tend to have some leftovers, but with a package of five chicken legs, I might only eat two. It doesn't stop me from buying the whole package if it's the only one in store and I really want chicken legs. However, I can't stuff that many of them in me, so I just end up throwing the rest out. I'm not sure if the big package sizes really lead to people eating more or if they just lead to more bio-degradable waste. And as we all know, fat people have no exercise, right?

"People are going at full speed, and there's no time to listen to yourself. Many people lose touch with their inner selves, and it's difficult to deal with one's emotions. Some people eat because they're hungry for life," Polso explains.

I'm not sure about this. I mean, it sounds like a reasonable enough idea, but it also sounds deceptively like armchair psychology. I know she's an actual psychologist, but does she have to throw around phrases like "one's inner self" and "a hunger for life"? It's all very vague, and it's hard to tell what this is based on. Even if this theory were true, it doesn't follow that:
a) all fat people have this problem;
b) everyone who eats "junk food" or eats "too much" is out of touch with their inner self;
c) people who have their eating "under control" are, by default, doing much better mentally (from what I've seen, one of the best ways to stay out of touch with one's emotions seems to be frantic dieting).

So we're dealing with fairly annoying generalizations here, and still trying to explain why people are fat, instead of asking why we think fat is a bad thing. I think this is the biggest problem with this entire article. I mean, it continues with a photographer saying that obesity is like climate change - "you don't do anything about it until you have to". I know he's talking about men, but dude. Come back when you've talked to some fat women. And chubby women. And slim women. The whole article seems to be skating around definitions that are never really discussed. How is obesity being defined? Is it true that we are all getting fatter all of a sudden? Does lifestyle really play a role in everyone's weight? What do the latest studies say? Well, this journalist (whose name I can't find anywhere on the page) obviously didn't think to ask.

Back to our "fat acceptant" psychologist, who apparently has found a way to make people lose weight without making them diet.

Many people lose weight, once they learn to understand the needs and feelings related to dieting. Polso is the leader of the Tampere-based Happy eater-groups where people practice this. It's common that people find a certain phase in their life that their weight gain is related to.

If people need to discuss their relationship with food, and they find a place to do that, then good for them. But there already are groups like this that don't advertise themselves as fat acceptance groups. I'd like to ask what the difference is between a group like this and a group where people diet together. Because what I see in this article is a group where, while discrimination against fat people is discussed, a certain idea of eating is still upheld as "normal". I'd also like to point out that discrimination is also discussed at Weight Watchers meetings.

To be honest, I'm not convinced that all people need a "conscious" relationship with food. My whole life, I've strived to have a relationship with food where I can eat it, enjoy it, and skip thinking too much about it. I think I'm healthier, happier and more productive when I don't think too much about food, and I think most people already have a problem with focusing on food too much. We don't need more of that.

Why is it that every single Finnish person I know, even the ones who are pretty fat acceptant and/or don't believe in dieting, still think fatness is a problem? There really is zero fat acceptance talk in the Finnish media. It's all "Yes, it's a problem but", or "it's a misunderstood problem". This whole article says, "Not enough is being done to help fat people", "Fat people are misunderstood by others", but sadly also "Fat people have a problem with food". Over and over again.

Am I the first Finnish person to say BEING FAT IS NOT A PROBLEM? Well, it isn't.
And I refuse to treat it as such.

Food Demonizing

Originally posted at Fatly Yours on Tuesday, October 30, 2007

In my sugar post, I brought up food demonizing, but didn't really discuss it further. I'd like to expand on why I feel that fat positivity also means food positivity. This is very close to what I've read at Shapely Prose about HAES (health at every size) thinking, so maybe "food positivity" is really just another word for HAES.

Most of us would agree that Fat Acceptance is against thinking along these lines:
" [Obesity] causes disease and death. When we get rid of [obesity], people will live longer, healthier lives."

This demonizes obesity as the root cause of any health problem, and makes professionals ignore signs of disease in a fat person - "It looks like your BMI is 40, so lose some weight, that's bound to end your cough/headaches/joint pain/unstoppable nose bleeds." It also makes people look down on fat people as a problem in modern society, something that needs to be stopped or controlled before obesity takes over and kills us all.

If you take this type of idea and replace obesity with anything - sugar, fat, processed foods, additives, animal products, etc. - you're still thinking in the same language as the fat-haters. The problem isn't only with the idea that obesity is the big bad wolf that causes problems; the problem is the structure of the idea itself.

This kind of thinking implies that
a) Disease can be prevented, maybe not in every case but certainly in most cases.
b) Ergo, if you get a disease, it's likely to be your own fault. You should feel shame and guilt.
c) People with Disease X are overeaters of Food Group X. They're paying the price for their lack of control, and they need to learn about moderation.
d) If I didn't develop Disease X, that means I've eaten Food Group X moderately. Maybe that means I'm a bit more informed and in control than those with the disease.

It implies fear: food is to be used with extreme caution and only for nutrition purpose, and if you let it take over, it'll kill us all. It also acts to justify negative perceptions of sick people, labeling them as "overeaters" or "gluttons", "ignorant" or "irresponsible". It offers an easy solution that doesn't work for everyone, and if you can't comply with that easy solution - say, giving up white sugar completely - you are "weak", "out of control", "a victim for the big corporations", and so forth. Of course, said easy solution is easy only on the thought level and requires lots of effort in your everyday life to make it work, which serves to make you feel proud of yourself and your accomplishment. This might make you seek validation from others and constantly tell them how you feel so much better now and they should do the same thing you did. Which is exactly what dieters tend to do.

This kind of thinking doesn't liberate people from ideals that tie us down. It only ties us down further into food creeds. What's more, my experience is that a lot of people who think in these terms also think, either overtly or subtly, that obesity, like diseases, is usually caused by overconsumption of Food Group X (see, for example, certain vegetarians attacking Michael Moore for his weight). It's a very logical idea that if certain foods are bad and fat is bad, limiting or giving up said foods will make the fat people slim, or mildly chubby at the very most, and everyone will be healthier. No one will gain weight ever again, because they're "eating right". In other words, food demonizing usually masks fatist attitudes.

The idea that there are "bad" or "wrong" foods is a moral judgement. It also reflects negatively on the people who eat said foods. If you talk about "bad foods", that usually implies that you think people who eat those foods are also bad, and if you eat them, you are bad. This results in a feeling of guilt after eating these foods and a firm resolution to never eat them again, or at least limit them considerably. It serves to create gaps between people where gaps are not needed, and most importantly, it makes us view our own bodies and natural hunger negatively. We become overeaters, gluttons, irresponsible, ignorant, ugly, bad, shameful, the moment we eat the wrong foods. There's nothing liberating about that. It's clearly tied to fat shame - most of us have probably felt the 'fat feeling' after eating certain foods, or just eating too much of something. You're out of control, hence you're fat.

I can't say I'm entirely over this kind of thinking. I still sometimes feel guilty after eating a whole bag of candy or a big burger meal, and I must admit I've come to a realization about more holistic health thinking very recently. I might still feel inferior when I see others order the salad while I'm having a pizza. Food demonizing is deeply rooted within all of us, because it's how our culture views food. However, I do see it as one of the goals of FA to break such myths and re-introduce a happier kind of eating, a kind of eating that isn't primarily a danger or an immoral act.

Food doesn't have to be a battle of good and evil. It can just be a simple joy in our everyday lives. If we can let our guard down and just relax.

The F Word

Originally posted at Fatly Yours on Monday, August 27, 2007

I've often pondered on the semantics of the words fat, overweight, obese, and so forth. I've always hated words other than fat, even if I use the word obese - or obesity, more likely - on my blog now and then. Just a note here that I do not endorse the message of the word; when I use it I mostly mean it in the sense "what people call obesity". Because really, obesity and fatness are two different things. Obesity is a medical word that has very little meaning other than "doesn't fit the norm", and fatness is just a body type. Not all people who are seen as fat are necessarily obese, either.

So yes, obese and overweight make us sound sick and are very often used to camouflage negative, even hateful, feelings about fat. My pet peeve, however, has to be euphemisms like big-boned. That one in particular just screams "self-deluding fatty who needs to be protected from the ugly truth about his/her body". "Heavy bones" is one of the dumbest excuses ever - and when I say excuses, I don't mean excuses fat people actually use, because I never heard any fat person say it. It's one of those imaginary excuses that people think fat people always use, because they've been featured in a comic or TV show. So yeah, let's define fat people by it, and thus define us as excuse-makers.

Another thing that bugs me is the way people behave when they hear you say "I'm fat". I've noticed that women always think it's meant as a derogatory comment aimed at one's own body and must be countered with a quick "Hey, you're not fat!" It's an almost angry response: "How dare you say that about yourself!"

I remember actually getting fat and realizing it changed the way that people respond to it. You get the slow drawling: "But you're not faat exactly..." And you get the awkward silence. Some people still do say I'm not fat, though. But here's the thing: some of them find it annoying that I even say it. Because you know, lose some weight or live with it. Just don't say anything. I can't say "since I'm fat, I have difficulty finding clothes in my size" (which actually has more to do with the selection in said store than my body, but whatever) and mean it as a statement. If I replace fat with short, I can say it. No one's going to look at me pityingly and say, "But you're not short!" (and frankly, at 5'2'', I'd call bullshit if they did).

So use the word fat if you dare, but beware: some people will inevitably see you as a self-pitying whiner. And I'm not saying that I've never called myself fat "in the bad way" (still do sometimes, just ask my girlfriend). But getting the same pity or annoyance when you just use it as a statement can be a pretty dampening experience. Others aren't only scared when you use it, they actively try to rebuke it and stop you from assigning the word with positive meaning - consciously or not.

Adding "fat acceptance" as one of my interests on MySpace gave me diet ads. One "big and beautiful" dating site, but the rest of it - Weight loss for idiots, South Beach diet, raw food diet (our original diet!!)... It seems silly because MySpace doesn't allow you to use fat as a body description. Where MySpace is concerned, fat doesn't exist. It's "more to love" or "some extra baggage". So your weight is baggage that you carry around, but hey don't worry - it's just more of you to love! No definition of how the distinction works. Are we talking perception or BMI? If most people think I look just chubby, am I only "some extra baggage"? But if anything, it sounds worse than "more to love". Why are fat people only given euphemisms, while non-fat people get to pick from "slim/slender, athletic, average"? Average might as well be normal though. And more to love is definitely not normal, but hey, it's OK, because... yeah.

It's not easy to bring awareness when even MySpace doesn't let me call myself fat.