Is being called “fat” the ultimate insult?

For the past few months there has been much speculation in the news media as to whether or not New Jersey Governor Chris Christie would run for the Republican nominee for President. Normally following such speculation on the individuals potentially running for office are jokes and criticisms from political commentators and late night comedians alike. This has surely been the true for Chris Christie. But the comments about Christie have, for the most part, been related to his weight, or to put it bluntly, his fatness.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard jokes coming from the media, my friends, and my acquaintances comparing Chris Christie to Krispy Kremes, the donut company known for having deep fried foods filled with calories. While perhaps considered witty, what with the alliteration and allusion to his heftiness, these jokes were funny at first their continued repetition has left them stale. (Used that word to go along with the donut pun!)

The following video is a clip from the Late Show with David Letterman. In this clip Letterman challenges one of the writers on his staff to come up with jokes about Chris Christie that are NOT in reference to his weight.








Of course, the joke here is the tongue and cheek humor of that people are primarily making fun of Chris Christie about his weight. But Letterman achieves in making the statement that mostly everyone goes after Christie for his body. But why? It isn’t because Christie has no other faults to criticize and tease. Trust me, merely examining his political career, as with mostly every politician, provides enough fodder for comedians and the 24 hour news media to discuss. There are plenty of ways to attack and degrade a politician that don’t rely solely on a, I would argue trivial, aspect of a person such as their physical weight. So why chose to go this route? Does being “fat” trump all other qualifications one may, or may not, possess?

What does being “fat” have to do with being president? Historically, being “not fat” isn’t a prerequisite for the American presidency. William Howard Taft is probably the most well known fat president in United States history. But Theodore Roosevelt and Grover Cleveland were also, by today’s BMI medical standard, “obese.” (See article link below). Clearly though, even in situations like the Oval Office where a person’s physical body might not be an issue (that is, as long as the person holding that office has a penis and not a vagina) seems irrelevant. But in the minds of Americans who feel so strongly and passionately about who is elected into office any critique might not be unconnected.

The notion of “being fat” is strongly rooted in the personal characteristics and attributes tied to that individual. People seem to think they can tell a lot about a person by their physical appearance. Even the minds of the people that claim to not care about being thin, and don’t diet, and that don’t criticize overweight individuals may still not be immune by society’s connotations with fatness. Take a look at some of the common implications being fat in the American culture. A fat person is commonly thought to be lazy, incompetent, and unable to take care of themselves. Now take these exact points and relate them to my earlier comments on Chris Christie and the presidency:

(1.) If a person is lazy they won’t put in the time or the energy to be healthy and exercise. If a President is lazy they won’t put the time and energy into making sure they fulfill their presidential duties to the best possible human abilities.

(2.) If you’re incompetent when it comes to keeping the fat off your body it means you cannot achieve the physical model expected of you. If you are an incompetent President that means you cannot carry out the tasks that are expected of you.

(3.) If you are unable to remain thin that means you cannot take care of yourself. If a President cannot even take care of his own body then how in the world is he going to be able to take care of the country?


Maybe calling Chris Christie “fat” was the easiest, though not as straightforward, way of saying all of the above. It could have been said that Christie is not qualified to be President because he is incompetent, unwilling to do anything, as well as unable to take any positive action for the betterment of the country. These descriptions however are probably too wordy to be condensed into a sound bite or fit cutely into a punch line. “Fat” on the other hand, is a short, three letter word that immediately causes a negative reaction in people.

Considering all the negative connotations that come along with being identified as fat, it seems to me that to be called fat is extremely insulting. The word “fat” does not only impose classification among an individual in terms of body size. Instead, being “fat” creates the concept of a deeply flawed individual with numerous characteristics generally considered negative. Laziness, incompetence, helplessness, uselessness, worthlessness, and valueless are all words that are readily attached to people deemed “fat.” Even Regina King in Mean Girls felt the need to tack on “fat” because she felt “whore” wasn’t insulting enough.













Short article on Fat American Presidents:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/28/a-history-of-fat-presidents/