Heal the World? Nah, Let's just Blame the Parents.

Discussions on childhood obesity tend to run in predictable ways. One of the things I hate most about them is how they ignore the societal issues behind eating fast food.

A recent example is an article found in the Pundit, written by Deborah Coddington and titled "Fight Obesity - Nationalise the Dairies!" Apparently the title is a cynical one, and her main concern here is that nationalizing anything is terrible and everything is up to the individual's own choices. Obviously, she feels she is the voice of reason in suggesting something as novel as - parents being responsible for their children's food choices. Wow. This sounds common sense and even smart, if you look at it on the surface level. Which is why I feel like writing about it and breaking down why it's NOT smart at all.

The Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand (Spanz) – no less – wants restrictions on what dairies near schools can sell during certain hours.
We're talking about food here, folks – possibly fizzy drinks, chippies, pies, lollies, ice creams. Stuff that, if eaten sensibly, in moderation, will not do you any harm at all.

"Sensibly", "in moderation", being the operative words here. Because we all have the same idea of what they mean, and because we all know fatties do not eat moderately. Mind you, I give her credit for saying that it's OK to eat these foods. Or I would, if she didn't undo her own point later by suggesting that parents not give their children money for this type of food.

Then comes the big slap in the face at poor people:

Not so poor, though, that they can't afford to buy the odd pie or ten.

Poor people! They're not really poor, they just waste all their money on junk food. That's why they're so fat. This is where the class stuff comes in and Coddington gleefully and almost proudly glosses all over it. In most countries, junk food really is cheaper than "healthy" food. Many poor people actually have to work long hours at their low-paid jobs, sometimes work two or three jobs to support their families. The fact that they don't have the time or money to prepare nutritious meals is actually completely natural. It's an inevitable fact enforced by their lives and their poverty. In other words, it's not a choice in all cases. If you had to feed a family of five with 20 bucks a day, what would you buy? Five veggies a day or Hamburger Helper? Rich people do have the choice, because they can choose to stop at the most expensive supermarkets, buy the best produce available, and even hire someone to cook for them. It's easy for them to make snide remarks about the poor eating habits of poor people (pun intended), but it would be harder to actually discuss or, god forbid, attempt to change the economic reality of their society.

Now follows the predictable parents-are-at-fault speech.

How about this idea? Parents take some responsibility for their offsprings' health. They don't give them any money and instead, put two pieces of bread together with some vegemite in between? That's novel. Add an apple, a bottle of water, and make them walk to school.

Most articles on childhood obesity contain this idea in some form. What Coddington is essentially doing is releasing dairies and fast food outlets of all responsibility. If they market fast food for children, there's nothing we can - or should - do about that. Companies should be allowed to be free! What is this, Soviet Russia?

Blaming the parents is actually the easy way out. It sounds smart enough and appeals to what people already think, but the real messages is that society cannot, will not, change for you. It is always the individuals who must change. Instead of raising wages and benefits, or making fresh produce more available near schools and poor areas, or even introducing free school meals - let's make the parents feel guilty and put vegemite sandwiches in their kids' lunch boxes. Problem solved! (I feel like I should mention that white bread and vegemite isn't actually the most nutritious meal either. In fact, I might argue that children get more nutrition out a burger meal. But I don't want to start a big nutritional flamewar.)

I'd like to point out that I don't think any of these things would necessarily decrease childhood obesity. In fact, I should be putting "obesity" into quotation marks, because it's impossible to really measure how fat children are without seeing them. And even if you do see a fat child, it might do them no good to interfere. Children are growing, their bodies change constantly, and most kids I've known have been chubby, skinny, and everything in between before they're 13. I question how this is going to be harm their healths (except in the more extreme cases). I'd be more worried about their minds and what they learn from the constant humiliation of diets at a young age.

But Coddington is just coming to that:

Then when they're at school, Spanz could force them to do some PhysEd, just like the bad old days. Oh, sorry, I forgot, we can't hurt or humiliate them anymore can we, if they're not good at running, or jumping, and come last, or fall over. In these post-modern days of child-centred learning, it's the self-esteem which is paramount.

Wow, so self-esteem is valued over competitive sports? That's terrible. Mind you, I wouldn't be against PhysEd if it were exercising in a way that feels fun - something most children already do on their own. But if you teach children that exercise is all about competition and being picked first for the team, will they want to exercise later in life? I recall learning one thing from PhysEd at school: exercise is not for me. I haven't exercised much in my adult life. I'm not saying it's all the school's fault - I'm just not a very athletic person - but I do blame the school for some of my aversion to exercise and fitness. I liked first grade PhysEd, because it was playing and dancing to music on our own. I actually question the value of teaching all children to play baseball or soccer.

We're only allowed to humiliate smokers, because they're a drain on the health system. Hang on, aren't obese people a drain on the health system too....?

How about we don't dehumanize anyone by calling them "a drain on the system", and we don't humiliate anyone? I'm not even sure what Coddington is saying here. Is she actually in favor of humiliation, as long as it makes people live healthier? Wouldn't that amount to government interference and go against individual choices? Her article doesn't go deeper into this, so I can't tell. But I dare say this passage reveals Coddington's true colors: she's all about individual choice, as long as she doesn't have to pay for others' choices with her tax money. So a nanny state that makes people eat healthy might be A-OK, as long as you don't limit capitalism and the freedom of companies.

Next stop on the gravy train to Whingeville: ever-widening gap between so-called rich and poor.

"So-called rich"? Interesting. Coddington seems to be suggesting that if any social reforms are made, it would only make things worse. Let's keep everything the way it is now, because it's (going well for her) a risk to change anything. Of course, she straw-mans the idea of fast food restrictions by talking about nationalising the dairies etc. I'm not sure how awful that would really be, but it sounds suspiciously like "any restrictions amount to socialism!!!!!1". 

Humiliating children for their own good is a ridiculous idea. Making lower-class parents feel guilty for their children's "obesity" is simply a cop-out. I'm not against children eating fast food, but I wouldn't mind some restrictions on fast food companies. They should have accountability when they're marketing to children. Companies should have accountability, period. Parents already feel guilty enough, and they do take responsibility for their children. Let's demand more of those those who just want to make money. 

Negative Compliments

Originally posted at Fatly Yours on Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Very often, when people say something good about a fat woman, it's not a simple positive compliment like "You look really good today." We all know the aggravating "You have such a pretty face" and "Have you lost weight?" variants, but there's also another type of negative compliment. It's the "at least you're better than" compliment. "You're much better off being fat than anorexic", or "You look much better than those skinny bitches". It's a compliment that directly offends someone else. The fat woman's positivity, especially looks-wise, is constructed through something she's not, the other extreme she's been able to avoid.

This is especially true of fat actors. I was looking through Camryn Manheim's imdb bio and made the mistake of reading some of her forum below. People are complimenting her appearance in this thread, but it seems to be combined with anger against thin actresses:

"I'd like to see a movie where Johnny Depp tells Kirsten Dunst "It won't work out, you're just too darn skinny!"


My jaw dropped when I saw this. Some people want to see a movie where a man dumps a woman based on her appearance. But hey, it's cool because she's unattainably skinny. If a man dumps a skinny woman, he does it for ALL women. He's not offending women who are naturally skinny, because everyone is naturally the same - on the slim end of normalweight - if they eat right and exercise. So really, he's not rejecting the woman inside, but the symbol of having to be skinny to be attractive to men. It might sound good, but this is the kind of logic that we should be trying to avoid. No body should be made into a symbol.

Some people see skinny the same way they see fat. It's unhealthy, it's a sign of having an eating disorder, it's the symbol of abiding to ideals instead of being yourself, it's not being real. This is not empowering or accepting in any way, because it's still making generalizations based on people's appearance and aggrandizing normalweight as the only real body people can have. In my experience, the people who make fun of "stick insects" are the same people who laugh at fatties. They will try to flatter you by saying they find skinny women ugly.

I don't think it's fat acceptant at all to go around saying you'd rather see a fat actress than a "stick insect", "skeleton", or "anorexic". These are all terrible words (except "anorexic" when applied to people with actual anorexia). Some women are naturally that way and should have the right to be seen as normal variants, not as extreme examples of dieting. Some skinny women love eating. Some skinny women are fat acceptant. Most skinny women are far from being bitches.

The negative compliment is really a double negative, because it goes against fat women too. The underlying idea is that fat is sort of a bad thing. Better than some other things, but still inherently bad. Why is it that we never hear fat women compared favorably to "normalweight" ones? Some people do prefer fat women to normalweight women; it's only a matter of taste. However, they're usually shot down with "But it's unhealthy to be fat!" as if sexual tastes have anything to do with health.

Predictably, someone in the thread asks, "Is this a thread for fat fetishists"? Remember, if you like a fat woman's appearance, you like fat; if you like a thin woman's appearance, you like women, or the individual woman. It's ironic, because lots of men fetishize thin women and their disciplined, obedient bodies. This is often not a conscious thing and they are not called on it, so they assume their fetish is just regular heterosexual lust, or even something better - unusually high standards: "I like a really beautiful woman."

As a lesbian, I find many thin women attractive. I also find many fat women attractive. It doesn't seem to have that much to do with weight; it's more about the looks of each individual. I used to try and like exclusively fat women, because it's not fat acceptant to like thin women and everyone already likes them anyway. But then I realized three things:

1) fat acceptance has nothing to do with physical attraction;

2) everyone does not like thin women. There are lots of people who find both fat and thin
repulsive, and are proud to proclaim this;

3) shock horror - thin women have body insecurities too.

So really, it hurts people when we say, "This woman is a stick insect", or "I find people this skinny repulsive". It's never fun to hear that you, or people your size, are repulsive. You don't have to find everyone attractive, but it shows poor judgement and lack of empathy to go around saying people are ugly or repulsive. And in this digital era, you can be sure that stars sometimes read conversations about themselves online. Why do we expect them to have egos of steel that aren't affected by such comments?

"I'd rather see a fat woman than a skinny one" is a straw man. It expresses the attitude that fat is bad, but skinny is even worse. It's a misguided way to rebel against beauty ideals. It changes nothing. One woman is still called beautiful at the expense of another; the ideal is reversed to be anti-skinny, but it's still exclusive. Here's a revolutionary idea: if you find someone beautiful, why not just call her beautiful?

By the way, Camryn Manheim is pretty awesome.

DJ on Full House

Originally posted at Fatly Yours on Wednesday, June 11, 2008

As usual, I have to start by saying that she wasn't really fat. Even if it's tagged Fictional Fatties - actually, Fat in Fiction might have been better - it's more an example of an average-sized girl going on a diet and how a family show handled that. It'll be more like a recap of one specific episode.

Donna Jo "DJ" Tanner was the oldest daughter on the sappy family show Full House, aired in 1987-1995. She was played by Candace Cameron, the one of the young actors on the show who I think could act, so maybe she was picked for her acting ability rather than her looks. The writers couldn't write small children - they were precocious and irritating, while DJ mostly got pretty realistic (well, compared to the rest of the show) dialogue that required a bit of acting.

So, DJ was chubby. Her best friend Kimmy Gibbler (Andrea Barber) was lanky. I like how they looked like real teenagers, because they were really teenagers, not some 21-year-old actors hired to look flawless on camera. Yet the chubbiness somehow became a problem. The Behind the Scenes documentary notes that the TV industry was becoming more aware of anorexia. So it illogically follows that "everyone was worried that the more heavy-set Candace would go too far in the other direction". Wow. Who is "everyone"? What is the "other direction" as opposed to anorexia? Going too far in self-acceptance? Maybe it's binge eating disorder? But no, apparently it's "getting too chubby", because her parents hired her a personal trainer. To stop her from becoming anorexic, or something. This was when she was 17. I think it's ridiculous that people couldn't see a contradiction between telling a slightly chubby 17-year-old to diet and wanting to save her from anorexia. How is a professional trainer going to save you from developing an eating disorder - especially if s/he was hired only to make the girl thinner?

That's not my actual topic, even if it is pretty angering. Some years before this, in the fourth season, there was a whole episode about DJ's weight. It was called Shape Up. It's a really typical example of how dieting and teen body image issues are often dealt with on family shows. At this point, DJ is about 13-14 years old (Candace Cameron was the same age as her character).

The episode begins with DJ snacking on cookies in her room, because chubby girls eat cookies for breakfast (and by chubby I mean average build and round cheeks). A pretty bad start. She's planning her birthday party and it's going to be a pool party, so she has to get "in shape" for it. She ditches the cookies. Kimmy's there and DJ expresses envy over her figure. Kimmy says she looks that way because "I watch what I eat" - and then she picks up a cookie and says, "That looks good," and eats it. I actually liked this bit - sure, it's just a throaway joke, but I think the "I watch what I eat" of most slim people is based on pretty much that. "I'm slim, and I sometimes skip a snack, so I watch what I eat." I would have preferred if Kimmy also expressed anxiety about her figure and wanted to go on a diet together, because skinny girls feel it too.

DJ goes on a crash diet where she basically doesn't eat at all. Later in the episode, she bumps into Becky in the kitchen (the relationships of the Tanner household are too complex to go into, but suffice it to say that Becky is the only adult female in the house). Apparently DJ has pinned pictures of skinny models on the fridge door - warning sign nr 1 - and Becky asks her if she's trying to lose weight. DJ says she has a pool party coming up, and "I have two weeks to look like you." Warning sign nr 2 that this isn't going anywhere good. Becky, played by ex-model Lori Loughlin, is thin and pretty.

This is what DJ needs to hear: "What? No! You're good enough the way you are! You're too young to go on a diet anyway. You don't have to look like me, because I'm me and you're you. Come on, let's have ice cream together." But what does Becky say? She starts listing foods that you can totally eat when you're on a diet: "lean meat, steamed vegetables..." and acts blissful about it. I'm not saying yay for burgers and yuck for anything light, but it seems like Becky's done a fair bit of dieting in her life. DJ says she's supposed to not eat, and now Becky's got her thinking about food. She storms out. Warning sign nr 3. So, a teenager acts like she should be eating nothing, so she can get skinny. What would you do if you were in Becky's shoes? I know what I'd do - go talk her out of her diet, and if she's not persuaded, go tell her Dad about it. Sure, it might not work, but try at least. If a young girl with low self-esteem wants to diet, you tell her she doesn't need to. That's pretty basic stuff.

Later on, Becky and Jesse (John Stamos) get their wedding cake samples for testing. They're all chocolate, and before anyone else has a chance to try them, Michelle (Mary-Kate and/or Ashley Olsen) jumps in and starts scarfing them down with both hands. Everyone laughs like this is the cutest thing ever. She just ruined the wedding cake samples for everyone else. If I had done that at age three, I would have gotten a huge sermon, but okay. I guess we need a scene about gluttony vs. control, and I'm actually surprised they didn't give it to the "resident fatty", Joey (Dave Coulier), who for a long time was only a bit chubby, but still got relentless teasing from the muscular Jesse especially. And who, of course, was shown eating nothing but junk food all the time. The others ask Michelle which piece of cake she likes the very best, but of course she's had no time to take it in. If you stuff your face, you won't enjoy it! But is that the true lesson of this scene, or is it: the cute youngest child gets away with anything? DJ retires to her room with an icicle, claiming that she likes it better than chocolate cake, even if you can tell she finds it dreadfully dull. Warning sign nr 4. Everyone in the family seems to think this is perfectly normal.

In the evening, DJ weighs herself. Finding out she has only lost a pound, she gets depressed. Jesse randomly shows up. DJ says she's done with the diet, since it doesn't work. "Good for you!" Jesse says. Finally a voice of reason? "Tell you what, we could all use some shaping up - let's go to the gym tomorrow!" Wait, what?! I'm not sure how an insecure teenager is supposed to read that message. Also, Jesse has huge muscles, and Becky is model thin, and yet they need "shaping up"? The family exercising together, for instance by walking, playing games outdoors or swimming, would be something I'd consider positive, but going to the gym to "shape up" comes dangerously close to "fitness vs. fatness for the whole family".

See, I'm not sure what the writers are saying here. This is a family show of a not-so-intellectual variety, and they usually aren't too subtle about stuff. I know DJ's downward spiral of dieting is supposed to continue until the middle or end of the episode, so the grownups can't make her eat before that. I'm just wondering if they're making some kind of commentary on parents and diets/eating disorders. Are they blaming the parents and guardians for not being observant enough? Do they think Becky and Jesse's attitude on DJ's body image problem - which screams for acceptance, not diet foods/gym advice - is the ideal, or do they think these two are being blind to the real problem and accentuating it? It's hard to tell. I'd hate to give the writers of this show too much credit, so I'm guessing they think Jesse and Becky are being responsible and trying to help. Which would make them as misguided as Jesse and Becky.

Before they hit the gym, we learn that DJ gives all of her food to Kimmy somehow. I know she lives next door and is always visiting, but I'm not sure if I buy that she's around that much. Kimmy refuses to eat it, because she's tired of the way Tanners make sandwiches. Specifically, there's too much ham, but I'm not sure if that's really relevant in any way. DJ feeds her sandwich to their dog instead. As he eats, she tells him he's lucky, because dogs don't have to be thin. Awww, neither do you, DJ! Little sister Stephanie sees this and is worried. The first time someone worries about DJ, and it's not one of the adults. DJ is able to make Stephanie promise to keep this a secret, because Stephanie is just a child and doesn't understand how dangerous it is to go without eating.

At the gym, we get some confusing gender politics. Becky takes Stephanie with her to an aerobics class, while DJ works out on her own and Michelle is taken to a children's gym. Stephanie, who is about ten, works out with the grown women and has no problem doing this. I'm not sure if I buy that. I'm also not sure I buy that the guys all go to a women's aerobics class so they can oogle the hot chicks, and then of course fail miserably because they're so out of shape. Har har! Out of shape women = tragic, out of shape men = hilarious. If you take nothing else away from this episode, let it be this.

Meanwhile, DJ is struggling to get in shape at the gym where, apparently, you have to be either a very slim woman or a very buff man to join. As "ideal" bodies walk past her, DJ weighs herself and finds she hasn't lost any weight in the ten or so minutes she's been there. Well, duh, but I can understand that a child would expect to have lost weight. DJ gets on the stairmaster and pedals for her life. Predictably, she soon faints. On any TV show where a girl goes on a crash diet, she will soon faint and alert everyone of the problem.

At home, Stephanie can no longer keep a lid on things, and the family gets to hear about DJ's diet. At this point, the grown ups are suitably worried and tell her to eat something right away. Well, about damn time. DJ gets mad and runs upstairs to her room so that the lesson portion of the show may now begin.

Each Full House episode had a lesson that was given by the girls' father Danny. It's really pretty tedious. I have very few positive things to say about either the lessons themselves or Bob Saget's acting skills. This time, though, DJ's plight seems very real. Danny compassionately tells her about his childhood and how he looked funny to others, but DJ isn't won over. She shows her Dad a fashion magazine - fashion! The great culprit in eating disorders and body image issues! She says no one there looks like her, with her "Charlie Brown cheeks". Somehow I found that line heartbreaking. Charlie Brown is cute, but if you feel you look like him, that can't be a nice feeling. It's probably a nod to Charlie Brown's self esteem issues too, coming to think of it. Danny finally finds the right words as he asks if anyone else DJ knows looks like that, and if she only hangs out with people who look like models. He tells her that people like her for who she is, and they don't care if she's chubby. She should eat healthy, exercise and just be herself. DJ agrees to stop dieting. After this, her weight isn't mentioned again.

I must admit that as a teenager, this episode would have touched me and perhaps made me feel a little better about my body. I would have liked how DJ is accepted as a chubby girl and how I could be too. So I do think this episode, all in all, sends a pretty positive message to young viewers.

However, as an adult, I must cringe at the hypocrisy of it all, especially in light of the later events. The message, as such, is true (although it has its limitations; some people will judge you for not being thin). However, the show writers/producers obviously don't really believe in it, if slightly chubby Candace Cameron had to go on a diet. The constant berating of Joey for his "weight problem" is another instance of hypocrisy, which interestingly wasn't touched upon in this episode at all. I also wonder if chubbiness would be OK for the show's only adult female, Lori Loughlin. And if they had known when casting Cameron that she would get a bit chubby in her teen years, would they have cast someone else?

The show could have redeemed itself by revisiting the topic from time to time, making Kimmy as insecure of her thin body as DJ is of her chubby one, and having Stephanie and Michelle also develop weight-related self esteem issues even if they have a slighter build. Using one episode to focus on something that touches most young girls' lives is a bit of a cop-out, because 20 minutes is simply not long enough to really deal with the issue. You can't fix someone's self esteem with one pep talk, and the pressure DJ feels at 13 might only be a fraction of what she feels later on as she realizes she isn't going to grow up to be skinny like models. That, at least, was my story.

Isabelle on Weeds

Originally posted at Fatly Yours on Tuesday, June 3, 2008

(sorry, couldn't find any decent-sized, saveable images of Allie Grant. You can check her imdb page.)

Weeds is one of those shows I watch periodically, trying to "get into it". It's not really my brand of humor - everyone's so sarcastic all the time and people seem much more confident than they would be in real life. Then there's the constant need to shock viewers, as if the premise of a housewife selling weed wasn't shocking enough on its own. It all leaves a sort of artificial taste in my mouth.

But there's something I think they depicted pretty well: the character of Isabelle (Allie Grant), a chubby girl of about 11-13, and her relationship with her mother. It's so far from the "fat families" cliché that I found it very refreshing.

Isabelle's mother Celia (Elizabeth Perkins) is one of those acid middle-aged lady characters who sees the whole world with a mixture of contempt and opportunism. Some people adore this kind of character for comedy fodder, while I always come to despise them. I'm not sure how realistic the depiction is; maybe intelligent women who have nothing to do but be rich housewives grow bitter and manipulative, because their brains are being wasted. Either way, Celia doesn't act like she has any warmth in her whatsoever, and on a show like Weeds, redeeming qualities are not needed. She is, as one might guess, not the most loving of mothers as it is (she even regrets not aborting Isabelle's older sister), but her way of dealing with a chubby daughter is interesting.

In the first episode, we see Celia in the audience of Isabelle's soccer practice. During the break, Isabelle comes to her mother, proud of herself and hoping for some support, but instead she gets, "I'd like to see more running, Isa-belly! That's what burns the fat." Isabelle's face falls and she goes away to get something to drink. "Water or sugar-free soda only!" Celia calls after her. All of this in a loud voice in front of Isabelle's team mates.

In a short scene, we've established several unusual, even cliché-breaking, things:
-The mother as a bully
-Slim, weight-conscious mother with a chubby child
-A mother who does all she can to keep the child slim, but clearly doesn't do it out of love for her

This kind of behavior is often restricted to TV mothers of skinny overachievers who turn out to be anorexic. Mothers of fat children are usually depited as fat, clueless and/or junk food addicted. By having a chubby child in the role of Isabelle, the writers of this show might actually be saying that sometimes, even if the child is considered overweight, the mother might in fact be a slim, appearance-obsessed woman who wanted a skinny little princess. In other words, Isabelle's weight isn't shown to be her mother's fault, and the criticism of the mother's behavior is not tied to the child's weight, but rather to her behavior. It could even be read as a criticism of putting children on a diet.

In another episode, Celia finds a chocolate stash from Isabelle's room (cliché, but understandable - I'd hide chocolate too if I were her daughter). Instead of confronting her daughter about it, Celia decides to switch the chocolates with chocolate-flavored laxative bars. This causes an unfortunate incident at school, which leaves Isabelle feeling completely humiliated. Her father Doug is caring and compassionate, while Celia stays distant. She tells Doug in private that Isabelle got diarrhea because "she is a little pig", and admits her deed without any shame whatsoever. Doug is furious and horrified at his wife: "They called her shit girl!" This doesn't faze Celia. "Better shit girl than fat girl," she says. She tells him that, unfortunately, they live in a world where skinny is admired, and she doesn't want her daughter to live her life scorned for being fat. Doug takes his pillow and blanket and goes downstairs to sleep, quipping at her, "I hope our children survive you!" In her room, Isabelle has heard everything. The morning after, she's shown changing her mom's laxatives into something else. At the breakfast table - Isabelle's breakfast: half a grapefruit -, Doug asks her compassionately if she's feeling better. "I am now," Isabelle says meaningfully, a line always used to show that a TV character is up to mischief. When Celia gets constipated, Doug is openly glad to see her suffer and calls it karma. Isabelle is shown grinning in her room that her plot was a success.

While there are some things about this episode that I'd criticize - the focus on defecating, Isabelle's unrealistic confidence in her revenge (or is it just meant to show she's her mother's daughter?) -, it stands out as another, more obvious example of parental cruelty. Celia is not happy with Isabelle's body, and is willing to manipulate her through humiliation. Perhaps she was hoping to wean her daughter of chocolate through this incident. It would be hard for even the most diet-minded person to defend her behavior with a concern for the child's health. It becomes obvious that Celia is concerned with appearances - not necessarily Isabelle's either, but her own. She sees her daughter as a reflection of herself; she does not want to be the mother of a "fat girl", and if Isabelle were bullied for something, she'd rather it be for shitting her pants than for being fat. Obviously, to Celia, there is nothing worse than a fat girl.

While the show itself seems shocking in a forced way, and there's certainly an element of that in these scenes too, I must say it's one of the most real-seeming depictions of a slim domineering Mom. Real life Moms like this might be less obvious, less willing to give their daughters diarrhea as a lesson - but the underlying issue, the need to have a "normal" daughter, is the same.

Isabelle is also apparently a lesbian. Awesome. Maybe I should start watching the show again.

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.

"Palindromes" - Reversing Fat and Skinny Roles?

Originally posted at Fatly Yours on Saturday, July 28, 2007

Todd Solondz has made some of the sickest, funniest movies around. Check out Welcome to the Dollhouse, Storytelling, and Happiness. And most of all, check out Palindromes, a movie about twelve-year-old Aviva whose biggest dream is to become a mother. When she gets pregnant, her parents force her to have an abortion, and she runs away from home. This sounds very tragic, but it's humor at its blackest. Probably many viewers don't like this sort of thing - after all, we see a born again pedophile falling into the old habit as Aviva wants to carry his child. But the movie is brilliant, just brilliant.

And why am I bringing it up in this blog? Well, the interesting thing about Aviva is that she's played by four [edited: five] different women. One of them plays Aviva as a child (she's black and fat). One of them is a skinny redhead. Another is a chubby brunette of about 15. The most interesting one is a supersized black woman. I've never seen anything like this. It totally breaks the viewer's expectations of what a woman looking a certain way can and should experience, and I must admit I had trouble forgetting about Aviva's size, while the movie made absolutely no mention of it, and it had no bearing on the plot. Which is really a first. I don't think I've ever seen a more weight-neutral movie.

Palindromes made me question how neutral I can be about a character's weight. I'm used to the skinny girl being the attractive one, or the norm girl with no visible flaws, while the fat girl is usually the pathetic loser who can get no man. Which is offensive to both fat women and men who admire them. How many times have I said that I'd like to see a movie with a fat girl in a role that could have been written for a skinny girl? That's my definition of a good fat role - "could be a skinny girl". I've only seen a handful of those, and never in the main role.

However, this movie made me constantly question how this all could happen to a supersized girl, exposing my underlying expectations. In the movie, Aviva stumbles into a house inhabited by Mama Sunshine and her family - a mishmash of children handicapped in one way or another, all taught into a shiny happy, if slightly disturbing, fanatic Christian faith. Mama Sunshine is quick to adopt Aviva as one of her children. She just happens to have a dress in her size at hand, even if no one else in the family is supersized. We see Aviva sleeping in a children's cot bed. We see the pedophile men craving her, and a little boy - one of Mama Sunshine's many children - falling for her. Her weight is neither the reason nor an obstacle for the men's and boy's feelings. There are no fat jokes, no eating scenes, no references to her size whatsoever. Yet I kept expecting some.

In the sex scenes, the chubby 15-year-old always takes over. Perhaps she was the oldest one and there was some rule about not being able to show a really young girl playing that role. Of course, the chubby one is closer to conventionally pretty than the supersized girl, but she's still "Hollywood fat", and wouldn't be attractive to men in a mainstream flick. In the final sex scene between Aviva and a boy some years older than her, we see Aviva turn into all the different actresses in turn while they have sex. In the very last scene, we see child-Aviva again, saying: "This time I'm sure I will become a mother!"

This type of reversal of skinny and fat roles - or combination of them? - is, of course, quite intentonal and self-conscious. Was it meant to draw attention to the weights of each actress, or take focus away from it? Is Solondz saying that what matters is who you are inside, or is he simply playing with the viewers' expectations of fat and skinny girls? Maybe he's drawing parallels between what is expected of white and black vs. skinny and fat actresses. The movie makes you think, but it doesn't give you any straightforward answers.

Palindromes makes constant references to Aviva's cousin, Dawn Wiener (the protagonist of Welcome to the Dollhouse) who has killed herself. One of the reasons for this is her weight gain. Dawn's brother Mark has a different explanation: he believes that people can't change. "You can lose weight and your skin might clear up, but you're still yourself." This is underlined with Aviva's constant skin color and body type changes. Your weight, age, or even the color of your skin isn't as significant as the person you are.

I enjoyed seeing a supersized girl in the only weight-neutral role I've ever seen. However, I couldn't forget her weight because of the juxtaposition with the other girls. I'd love to see a movie that goes one step further, with a fat female protagonist whose weight is never an issue more than it is in real life. That could really make people think.

A trailer showing all the Avivas - yes, all the girls in the clips are her.