Fat Freedom

Fat shame can be defined through many different perspectives. In media, for the most part being fat is looked down upon because society’s obsession with thinness has become so inclusive to only “thin” people; the war on fat became the war on fat people. The diet industries, also needing a lot of “food” prey on fat people who because of fat stigmas, sometimes fall into different diets that sometimes just don’t work. This obsession with being thin has been long lasting, effecting generations of families. The media has destructed the image of fat people so much so that there have been reality shows such as The Biggest Loser that exploit the negatives of being fat.

            Often, the contestants will come out looking a lot more thin and “healthy”. As most of them come out they just look more acclimatized to society’s image of beauty and health. Not that when they were fat that they were unhealthy, which is widely assumed by the viewers and others.

Here is a link to a depiction of one of the contestant’s before and after photo, from when they started they show on the left, and when they ended the show on the right.

depiction of the biggest loser

            Often the people who lose the weight on these diets, gain it back, which means more money for the diet industry and more contestants for the show. The diet industry influences a mass amount of people into believing that they’re not beautiful because of their body type. The basis that people who are fat are: lazy, gluttonous, wild and primitive, needs to be de-bunked and the truth of the fat “dilemma” needs to be put out there. The diet industries, along with the “war on fat” have been two of the most destructive forces against the image of fat in our media and society. We are obsessed with being thin, we can’t imagine gaining weight and if we did, we have to lose it or we won’t be “attractive” or our own self-image will no longer be accepted by ourselves or by society. This can be a perspective of fat shame and that is how debilitating these stigmas can be.

            Fat shame is more than just about losing the weight it seems. It also seems to be about losing the personality or the character of being fat. In many perspectives of fat, being fat is considered being lazy, or wild but this is just not so and accounts for one of the many stereotypes portrayed among people who are fat. In the show The Biggest Loser, the instructor forces the contestants beyond their physical abilities because these stereotypes are so widely assumed and accepted. So even though a fat person may not carry these stigmas that they are stereotyped by, it seems that these traits, pushed upon them, are the ones that are seen in society as most primitive. And primitive things must be sub-par to our own culture. A great example of this is Venus Hottentot, who, because of her large proportions around her chest and butt area was put on display as being one of the fattest people on Earth.

            Mainly the point is that fat shame shouldn’t exist. These stereotypes that society forces on people of different body shape doesn’t account for the fact that people are born different. Some people will inherently have different body shapes than others and this should be celebrated, not seen as primitive because it’s different. It’s never a choice to be lazy, wild and uncouth when you’re fat but if you are, these are all stigmas that lay with you until you “lose the weight” or the primitive stigma that we have constructed over the image.  

Breaking the Intersecting Barriers of Body Size, Race and Sex

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/howard-stern-gabourey-sid_n_492102.html

A couple of weeks ago in one of my history classes I read a book called “Ar’n’t I a Woman?” by author Deborah Gray White. The book details the experiences of slave women and compares the differences experienced by slave women to those of slave men. One of the author’s main ideas is that women experienced slavery more difficultly than men because the women were bound by two identities: they were black and they were women. In escaping one subordinated identity, they were faced by yet another, never having the option to raise themselves above some form of disenfranchisement.

In reading Amy Farrell’s “Fat Shame” it is safe to say that women of all races, but especially those of color, can add yet another subordinated identity to the list: fat. Farrell’s book unabashedly points out that the stigma surrounding fat mostly has to do with the idea of “primitive” bodies, which in the 19^th century translated into “black and immigrant” bodies. Beginning in the mid to late 1800s, the idea of a woman being fat started to take on the meaning of being part of a lower class. To a white, “civilized” woman (as well as white men of the upper class) of the time, there could be nothing worse. To be fat, in this era, meant that a woman was out of control, that she was unable to manage her urges, and that, essentially, she would never amount to anything so her standing as a partial citizen, not a real citizen, was justified.

While we like to tell ourselves that today, shortly into the 21^st century, we have progressed beyond these ridiculous prejudices, it is obvious that the same stigma of fat that existed in the 19^th century still plagues our society today. A fat woman is just as ridiculed and excluded from the normal rights of American citizens as they were a hundred and fifty years ago. A white woman today is just as degraded today because of the stereotype that she has no self control, and that she has not mastered her urges, and so therefore, she is considered to be part of an inferior group of human beings, just like in the 19^th century. For a woman of color, the situation is even worse. Whereas a white woman is presumed to be able to exit her lower citizenship by becoming thin, a fat woman of color will always have more of a barrier to have to break through. Here, again, White’s and Farrell’s arguments connect: a fat woman of color will always be, in some way, subordinated by the stigmas of her identities: even if a fat woman of color loses weight, she will still be a black woman. And she will never be able to, or allowed to, (as assumed by people who still actually believe these insane ideas) be able to make anything of herself because she is not a full citizen.

A prime example of this is exhibited by the ranting of Howard Stern over Gabourey Sidibe in 2010. The link above shows an article describing Howard Stern’s disbelief and perhaps even rage, that fat black actress Gabourey Sidibe believed she would ever star in a movie after “Precious.” He even at one point lashes out as Oprah, calling her a “filthy liar” for encouraging Sidibe’s career. Stern’s prejudice and hatred against fat is obvious, but what most likely fuels that anger even more, is that Sidibe is not just fat. Instead, his anger seems to lie within the possibility of Sidibe stepping outside of the world she is believed by society to belong: she is a fat black woman who is making a name for herself and proving that being a fat black woman does not mean that she is any lesser of a person, or that she is more unable to work. She is, essentially, shattering the social class scale: she is putting herself on the same level as a non-fat white man.

What this article helps prove to me is that as a society, we are no more progressed in thinking about fat (especially when it comes to fat women of color) than we were in the times described in Farrell’s book. We still believe, as Farrell puts it, that “fat [is] not white.” (60) As depressing as this seems, I do believe that we can end these outrageous ides of “civilized” and “primitive” bodies and move beyond the stigma of fat. It’ll take a lot more women like Gabourey Sidibe, women who are willing to bring their bodies forward and break the barriers of body size, race and sex to get us to a point when fat bodies of all difference races and sexes are accepted as full citizens, with the full rights and respect that citizens deserve. Yet someday, hopefully in my lifetime, we will finally be able to move past these prejudices and leave the fat stigma where it came from: the 19^th century!

Revisiting the Fat-osphere

In my last post I discussed Tumblr's fat acceptance movement, which is composed of users that post words and images that aim to challenge popular notions of fat bodies' abilities and beauty. While I do believe that this movement is powerful and important, I know that I must address the obvious limitations.

The original "fat-opshere" post elicited two very important comments. Bridgette's comment addressed the movement's inability to change societal standards for beauty. Kimberly remarked on her surprise that the movement even existed, due to its lack of visibility in the portion of the Tumblr she is familiar with. Though very different observations, these comments seem to have the same underlying message -- the movement can be easily overlooked and therefore its message will be rendered ineffective.

In writing my previous approach to the fat acceptance movement, I may have been giving the Tumblr too much credit and power. I believed that in registering for the site, a user was granted citizenship into a unique community that provides a public space for the discussion of experiences, ideas and issues. I am now seeing that this community mimics our own society in the way that it can render fat experiences invisible.

Amy Erdman Farrell states that "the body signifies someone's fitness for citizenship," and I believe this to be true, especially in the Tumblr community. Users are allowed the right to speak, share and engage with other users on the site. When fat enters the picture, it seems that these rights disappear. This leaves the Fat Activist Movement preaching to the choir, being that their blogs aren't embraced by the Tumblr community as a whole.

Silly Shifting Stigmas

“You’re fat”. We’ve talked about it 100 times. When you hear that phrase you sink into yourself and immediately suffer a lower self-esteem. We all know that is from the negative stigmas we have built ourselves in the past years. In the past being overweight showed that you were wealthy and could enjoy a life of leisure, now it shows that you are disgusting and you have no self control. In Fat Shame it thought that the shift of views came during the suffrage when women were fighting for basic rights and the “poster woman” for that was a thin, healthy, “beautiful” person. I think there was then a general connection with being an ABLE woman is being a thin woman and the rest is history, literally. Now we go around calling people fat and using it as one of the most painful insults. Have any of you seen someone being called fat and you can’t help to think to yourself “wow, she really doesn’t look fat to me…”? I know I certainly have. So if people go around calling people fat and using judgments, who is the one to make the final call on who qualifies as fat or thin?

Many people are at a healthy weight but dance on the fine line of what society call “thin”. Fat Shame notes that the balance between thin enough and too fat is hard to attain because of so many people’s differing opinions(34). Farrell calls it the “medium between leanness and obesity”. This is something that has always, ALWAYS blew my mind. How am I supposed to attain this perfect body that society makes me want so bad if I do not know the fucking standards because they are always changing? And even if I feel like I have finally fit into this perfect body standard, someone can still make their personal judgment and call me fat, making all my hard work worthless, because I still did not become this image that I have wanted so badly. Then, for someone to think I have no self-control, like Ferrell says, just because I have “few extra pounds” is very insulting. One person thinks I am not thin enough and then I get all the connotations that go along with it. “I lost the battle with fat”, “disgusting and huge”, “lower status”, “uncivilized”, “abnormal”. Bodily fitness became a key sign of “fitness for citizenship” (95). Now we all have to fight this stigma that has been placed on us. Someone PLEASE help me understand this.

I would like to imagine one day not having these stigmas hanging over our society’s head. I wonder if we could have another shift in our judgmental society as we did during the suffrage. Will another feminist movement, like the suffrage, cause a shift in the way we see the female body, or are we too stuck in our ways and stigmas related to the “fat body”? For example, if we make a revolutionary change of gaining equal pay in the job market in the future, would that begin the new shift of stigmas of the female body? Give it a thought!

Does this Make My Butt Look Big? (And do you want it to?)

BIG or SMALL? Mixed Messages and the Ideal Body


I hear people say “my butt is too big. I want it to be smaller” and I hear the same number of people say the opposite “my butt is too small. I want it to be bigger.” The media seems to be filled with mixed messages about the way female bodies should look like. Magazine articles that espouse workout tips alternately switch from topics of how to make ones big butt disappear to how to make one’s butt look bigger. One such article from Women’s Health Magazine is titled “4 Moves to Boost your butt” another from the website Real Women’s Fitness has an article called “Lose that Fat Butt.” How can these two seemingly opposite goals of body appearance be in existence at the same time in our culture?

The difference here may be the qualifying word “fat.” It’s alright to have a large, curvy butt, as long as it’s not fat that stored up in your rump. I’ll use an example of two celebrities, Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Love Hewitt, to illustrate my point.


Kardashian is known to the public primarily for her curves, and by that I mean that she is known for having a large ass. Hewitt has been a famous actress for a longer time than Kardashian, with her fame starting from the age of adolescence with TV and movie appearances. For most of her career Hewitt has appeared to be very skinny. However in 2007, Hewitt gained a few extra pounds. When pictures were released of Hewitt frolicking on the beach the media caused a fire storm by calling her “fat.”

Comparing her picture with Kardashian’s however, I see little difference. Hewitt responded to the criticism by saying that still wore “size 2” clothing. So if these two girls weigh and look relatively the same size why was Hewitt’s body shamed?

Jennifer Love Hewitt, Kim Kardashian

We are supposed toadmire the “curves” of Kim Kardashian. But then criticize like Jennifer Love Hewitt who has hips and a big butt? At first, if one thinks these two women areroughly the same body weight, then the treatment to Hewitt and dismissal of Kardashianseems unfair. But I think the reason Hewitt was attacked was because she wasseen as being unnaturally overweight. In previous years Hewitt had alwaysappeared smaller and leaner. Therefore the conclusion was made that she startedeating more and exercising less and that is the reason why she got bigger. “Tobecome fat” as Farrell suggests, “meant that one had moved down –had degraded –on the scale of civilization,” (64). However, for the entirety of Kardashian’s fame she has stayed the same size and thus has not declined on the civilization spectrum.

Are there even someracial components at play here? Kim Kardashian, with her dark features andAlbanian ancestry, is considered, in comparison to white Jennifer Love Hewitt, tobe “ethnic.” So do we expect Kardashian, as being a representative of “ethnic”or “exotic” physique to be larger than white Americans?

Whatever the underlyingreasons, the different reactions people have to different people’s bodies are sending out mixed messages. Some people are praised for their big backsides whileothers fall victim to harsh comments and scorn. Is there a happy medium groundwhere a person can have the “right” amount of weight stored in the behind?



But why does a desire to have a curvy butt exist at the same time the desire to be small and lean exist? Farrell suggests that this has always been the case.“the connotation of fat as female, primitive,and sexual has often evoked a mixture of attraction and repulsion….The popularity of the bustle in women’s fashion in the second half of the 19th century is a prime example of this attraction and repulsion. The bustle can be seen as a false ‘steatopypia,’ an artifice that creates an excessive protuberance of the buttocks. On the other hand… it was a false set of buttocks that was fashionable, an allusion to the shape of the iconic Venus Hottenhot but not an actual development of real fleshy buttocks.” (Fat Shame p. 74. Emphasis added.)

This is extremely obvious when the image of the “Venus Hottentot” and a image of a woman wearing a bustle are placed side by side.

Venus Hottenhot , 19th century bustle style dress

Strikingly similar to the 19th century bustle are contemporary products made to enhance booty size.

Bustle worn under female dress, Deluxe Hip and Padded Panty by Feel Foxy

There is an entire website called Feel Foxy that is dedicated to selling various products all designed to make the butt look bigger. There are padded panties, hip booster padded panty, formed hip enhancer, and many, many, more butt enhancement clothing articles. Feel Foxy’s products have been featured on the daytime televisions Today, Tyra Banks, and Rachael Ray shows, and also on the “medically focused” (as the titles of their programs suggests at least) Dr. Oz and The Doctors.

Perhaps people naturally want to have a Hottentot like body. Likely, people want to avoid the negative connotations that come along with having a big bottom: that you are primitive, lazy, and out of control. Yet, the image of a rounder backside is appealing so maybe there are ways to gain that aesthetic without actually getting fat. The bustle and the padded underwear are things that can just as easily be taken off as put on. When one slips off the undergarment meant to produce the image of a larger posterior they are also able to shed the negative connotations associated with having a naturally large behind.





The question is: how does society want our behinds to look like? Does it want them to be large or small? Moreover, is there any way a person can ever reach society’s standard of beauty? For me, it seems to be a no win situation. And maybe it is purposefully unattainable. Without magazines telling us what to do to make our butts look good, and without products specifically designed to make our butts look good, how would those companies make money?




Links:

http://realwomensfitness.com/lower-body-exercises/lose-that-fat-butt/
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/butt-shaping-exercises
http://www.feelfoxy.com/default.asp

Let's Play Devil's Advocate

WALL-E. Great movie. Full of sounds vs words--challenging communication in a time where human interaction is null and void. Very cyborg-like, which is a topic of its own. WALL-E demonstrates the dangers of living in a tech-only world, where everything is done electronically: relationships, games, activities, talking, you name it. Guess what happened to the humans when they relied on technology alone to live? They got fat. Really fat. So fat they couldn't move on their own, and if they tried, they would wobble and have a hard time recalling the strength in their muscles that slept while idle.

Farrell mentions that reviewers applauded the film for its "good message about the dangers of an overreliance on technology, encouraging kids to turn off the computer and go outside and play" (118). This is true. I too believe that good ol' fashion outdoor playing can lead to a lot of good: meeting new friends, learning games you wouldn't have before, using your bodies in ways you didn't know you could, understanding your surroundings and the world you live in... These are not bad things right?

Well, Farrell focuses on its portrayal of fat people instead, which does make sense for her book. She says that reviewers were blind since they obviously didn't care about the "depiction of fat people and the humiliation they face" (118). Hmm, I wonder what happens in a world were no one moves. Oh that's right, they gain weight. It makes sense. Everyone was fat. Not just select few, not just the tall ones or the black ones or the rich ones, but everyone. The biggest problem with the people in WALL-E was their lack of human interaction, not their weight. But Farrell thinks that this film shows fat people as a "devolution", as proof of a uncivilization (117). I understand this. I can see how fat people not doing anything themselves can be seen as a regression. But isn't there some truth behind this? Their actions (not weight) does give the impression that we shouldn't want to be this way. And perhaps being so fat that you can't move can be unhealthy. This is me playing devil's advocate.

An uncivilization. I think WALL-E does represent this well, it's a shame that everyone being fat renders its meaning in a different light. I'm not sure I can buy into either side, yet. Can you?

Sneetches and Citizenship

In Fat Shame, Amy Farrell talks about citizenship as more social than constitutional. It’s all about belonging and contributing in the eyes of society, and the biggest problem is looking the part.

The differences between fat and thin in society reminds me of a Dr. Seuss story about star-belly sneetches. There were two types of sneetches on the beach, plain-belly and star-belly sneetches. The absence of a star meant that those sneetches were discriminated against and excluded from events run by the superior star-bellies. One day someone came along with a machine that could put a star on the sneetches bellies, so all the plain-belly sneetches signed up right away. Immediately following, the star-belly sneetches got their stars removed in order to keep their high-class status. The cycle continued until nobody could tell the difference between the star-belly sneetches and the plain-belly ones. Eventually they just decided that it didn’t matter who had stars and who didn’t, they were all equally awesome.

The story of the sneetches relates directly to one of the reasons that thin started to become in style. Fat used to equate to wealth and status. It meant that you were well off and you could afford to eat rich, calorie-packed food and not work off extra weight you were able to put on. With the industrial revolution and the rise of the middle class, the nouveau riche was able to become fatter and more on level with the upper class. People from old money thought that the excess weight was because the social climbers were of a lower state of mind and inadequate breeding and therefore were unable to control themselves which is why they were gaining the extra pounds. With that comes the switch. Fat is no longer something to be strived for, but a sign of lower class and thin is the new normative. It’s like the difference between the sneetches, as soon as the sub-par ones are on the same level as the superior sneetches; the star-belly sneetches change the rules.

By the end of the story, the sneetches have changed their physical appearance so many times that they no longer remember who had a star to begin with. They finally realize that they’re wasting their time and money with the machine instead of just accepting each other, which they ultimately do. Dr. Seuss and Amy Farrell are arguing essentially the same thing. They’re preaching tolerance and acceptance no matter what your body looks like, having a star on your belly or being thin does not automatically make you a better person

Humanity has most definitely not reached the point where we as a people are ready to declare our equality with one another. We live in a Euro-centric world. Everything is based of the European standard of living. The thin white body is civilized, whereas a fat and dark one is considered primitive. Even the way that the rest of the world is commonly talked about it European. For example, first world countries are civilized, and third world countries are considered under developed. Second world countries are never talked about which makes the difference even more pronounced. It is our duty as a civilized people to help and contribute to the advancement of the uncivilized populations. It’s directly comparable to talk shows with celebrities like Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz. They preach health and have overweight people on the show to help them ‘better’ themselves. However, whether it be TV doctors or sneetches we need to take Farrell’s advice and get rid of the stigma placed on bodies for physical differences.

Fat as Spectacle

Fatness has been seen as a freak-show phenomenon since the late 18^th century and early 19^th century. “Fat Dan” was an attraction featured in Piccadilly’s “Hall of Wonders” in London during the late 18^th century. Daniel Lambert (“Fat Dan”) weighed 900 pounds, supposedly the fattest man of that time. His fatness drew a crowd because it was so “rare,” “odd,” and differed greatly from “the norm.”

Living in the 21^st century the very concept of fatness as a spectacle in the sense described above, seems a bit far-fetched. In Fat Shame, Amy Farrell modernizes this concept to television shows such as The Biggest Loser. The Biggest Loser is a television show that has many variations around the world in various countries. In the United States, The Biggest Loser features overweight contestants who are competing against one another in an attempt to lose the most weight for a cash prize. These contestants have been brainwashed to believe that the people on the show are mainly concerned with helping them transform their bodies in order to live a healthier lifestyle. If that were the case, why would the show be a competition? Wouldn’t it just be a show following the journey these individuals and their efforts to reach that healthy lifestyle? Granted the summary of The Biggest Loser seems more beneficial than harmful but after hearing in Shaw’s Bodies in American Culture class, how the show is actually executed, it is clear that this is definitively not the case. Apparently, contestants are weighed on this absurdly huge scale wearing practically nothing, in front of a crowd. Contestants endure verbal abuse as “encouragement” to strive to lose more and more weight. To me, this sounds like these people are being made a mockery of. Various aspects of the show are just unnecessary for The Biggest Loser to be healthy for contestants.

These bodies featured in The Biggest Loser and other shows similar to, are ultimately exposed and undignified in an effort to attract an audience that will inevitably bring higher ratings to the show. They exploit the “embarrassment of the fat body- how it literally and figuratively does not fit in with the built environment of chairs, doors, and vehicles, and with the world of other “normal-sized” people" (Farrell, 34). Take a look at the before and after picture of a previous contestant on the show. In the before picture this women looks ashamed and miserable and in the after picture she looks like she couldn't be happier. Viewers are engaged because of the pre-conceived, socially constructed notion that fat is so much different and abnormal for the “average person.” These shows continue to encourage the mind-set for every person fat or thin, that “fat is bad” and that if a person is fat they must be ashamed and act quickly to change their fat image.

Our society has put this label on fat that it is a terrible attribute, is not acceptable, and actions must be made at once to rid it from existence. Millions of viewers tune in weekly to watch contestants battle to become “The Biggest Loser.” It is unfortunate that the media ultimately profits by exploiting people who struggle with their fat identity. It makes me wonder, “What is the psychological impact that shows such as The Biggest Loser have on people who are fat? Do these shows impact skinny people as well? If so, in what way?”

Village Voice Gives Voice to Fat Women and Their Admirers

Dan Weiss and his girlfriend, photographed for the Voice in April 2011

This week’s blog again starts with a personal anecdote about a troubling conversation I had with someone I know. Friends Meagan and Scott and I were walking down the street one night when Meagan, a fellow feminist, got me onto the topic of body image and how important it is in our culture. We were talking about fat women and the men who love them when Scott interjected, saying, “Guys are only into fat chicks because they’re insecure.” “Do tell?” I asked, surprised. “Yeah, they think they can’t get anyone else so they go for someone who’s desperate and probably willing to go for them.” “Oh yeah? What about men that simply find their size attractive?” Scott argued that while these freaks existed, most men that chose fat women as partners were simply aiming low. When I tried to get him to entertain the possibility that a man (or woman) could truly find the fat body beautiful, he told me that while this attraction did occur the majority of “chubby chasers” simply didn’t feel worthy of a skinny (and therefore), beautiful woman.

If only Dan Weiss were with me, he could serve to defend my point. Dan Weiss is one of the subjects of the Village Voice article “Guys Who Like Fat Chicks” (he and his girlfriend are pictured in the newspaper’s cover pictured above). I highly recommend that you read this if you get the chance, it’s a good read and pretty enlightening, focusing on the personal experiences of both men and women involved in these relationships. The piece is a beautiful example of fat bodies being admired and appreciated, and not just in a manner of self-love. It serves to show that there is nothing particularly off or strange about men who love a good, fleshy woman, and that being an FA is as much of a fetish as, say, being attracted to blonde women.

However, because of the present stigma against fat and the people with an abundance of it, those who admire and are aroused by them are stigmatized as well. Fat shame extends well past the bodies of the shamed and into the lives of their lovers and friends. This excerpt from the article sums up this concept pretty well:

[Kevin N.] was five-foot-10 and 131 pounds at his Coventry high school. Meanwhile, his “pretty” girlfriend was an all-state softball player—size 16, five feet nine inches tall, maybe 200 pounds—but could bench more than her scrawny boyfriend. A rumor spread that he was gay, which he didn’t bother to refute. Liking a fat girl was so much more of a preposterous scenario that he worried the truth would “make it snowball even more.”

Although this quote is pretty heartbreaking, the rest of the piece focuses on the glorious and happy lives of a few fat women and their admirers. It does this without ridicule, villanizing, or presenting this relationship as any sort of sideshow freakery. Something that moved me was the author’s explanation of what it meant to be “out” as a fat admirer in our culture, as opposed to “in the closet.” To be in a closet implies shame, secrecy, something forbidden. This shows that we’ve reached a point in our cultural narrative where fat is urged to be abandoned at all costs. To many, allying yourself with not just the adipositive movement but with fat people as lovers implies a twisted side to your sexuality, and so these desires are repressed on a larger scale. The lovers and partners of fat people are often not given a space in which they can justify their attraction, and so this leaves room for the public to develop myths and stereotypes about them. It’s another example of society’s (successful) attempts at normalizing us, and most, I’m assuming, don’t even realize this, accepting this as the norm. This is why I’m such a fan of this article (and of the Village Voice in general), because it works to give a voice to the marginalized.

Also, here is a link to Dan Weiss’ blog, Ask A Guy Who Likes Fat Chicks. It’s worth checking out!

Nobody's Getting Fat but Mama Cass

My favorite reference in Fat Shame was the story of Cass Elliot. “Mama Cass” was a successful performer and member of the 1970s folk band The Mamas & The Papas. Famously overweight, she served as a poster child for the fat activism movement. Her band mates, who were not oblivious to the social critique she received, were worried about including her. “They believed her obesity might be considered unattractive”*. With an incredible voice, she was being deferred from pursuing her passion. The band eventually got over it and included her in the group. In a song about their formation, Creeque Alley, the verses close “and no one’s getting fat but Mama Cass”. This play on her size was used to symbolize her rapidly developing career; her voice sky-rocked the band to fame, (which is an interesting connection because it shows fatness as success like in the 1700s! (27-30)).

In 1974, after crash dieting, Mama Cass passed away of a heart attack. Upon hearing this, the public assumed it was because she was fat. The plethora of rumors started when someone said she died from choking on a ham sandwich. In reality, she had died trying to appease those that made the judgments about her weight. The early fat activism movement took on her case as an example to show the public of how great the pressure really is to be thin (144-145). Her “Mama” status was another appeal, showing outward confidence in a curvy and “matronly” body. She was described at a Fat Underground event as a “fat woman who refused to hide her beauty” (144).

What does Mama Cass’s story say about the social pressures on the thin body? She may have been a preview of what was to come with celebrities dying to be thin. Endless are the lists of celebrities who have resorted to eating disorders, drug use, and drastic surgeries in order to lose weight or stay thin. Also, it shows what stands in the way of fat people when they have a talent to show. She got frequent judgment - not on her lovely voice, but on her body. Nowadays, the media almost never shows fat and happy women. The only time overweight people appear is when they want to “improve themselves” and lose weight. Gone are the days when a woman can be confident in her body when placed in the public eye. For example, Mama Cass often wore large mu-mus that made her look larger than she actually was. Her fans accepted her for this, and even learned to love it. Today though, nobody would be caught dead wearing something that made them look even a sliver bigger.

Maybe the days of body confidence will return and fat people who are ok with their size will be seen as beautiful, not unfortunate. I hope someday ladies will accept that they can be like Mama Cass, “beautiful as a fat woman, not despite the fact that she was fat” (145).

*http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/mama-cass.html

Hey kids, Move Your Body

               “Eighty percent of children have been on a diet by the time they hit fourth grade”, both an overwhelming number and a believable statement. Children these days are becoming more and more overweight; fatter. America has come a long way in the need of making sure our kids are as healthy as the ‘average weight’ for their age and size. As a child, I was overweight, I too was fat. My doctor told my parents that I needed to pick up a sport in my spare time. Where has this need come from to keep our children ‘healthy’, to make sure that they’re at their physical best?

                On page 35 of Fat Shame by Amy Erdman Farrell, she states that “records from the American Medical Association indicate that many doctors needed to be convinced of the relevance of weighing children”. This was in 1949. In current time, 2011, doctors are obsessed with weighing those of adolescence. “Oh, you’ve seemed to have gained some weight since our last visit.” “Are you eating healthy?” “Do you exercise?” All the seemingly innocent questions or remarks can be hurtful and damaging to a child that age. Society has us, as Americans, conditioned to believe that stepping on a scale is the right thing to do, that losing weight is important, that being thin is superior. This societal movement towards being thin has been conditioned in our brains to attack those who may struggle with their weight, causing a chain that leads down to children.

                Last year, Beyonce was asked to change her song “Get Me Bodied” to “Move Your Body”, a weight-loss song for kids. (See video at bottom of page.) In the song, the lyrics are all different dances that were popular, and still are, at the time, such as ‘The Dougie’ and ‘The Catdaddy’. Throughout the song there isn’t a point where you aren’t moving. Last year in school, we decided to try and learn the dance and our results show that it definitely makes you sweat. This song/dance was partnered with First Lady Obama’s Anti-Child Obesity campaign, and was performed by a group of kids at a neighboring school.

                The fact that our First Lady and a popular music artist are both encouraging kids to get out and move their bodies shows just what our society has become towards the ways of fat shame. However, these two influential people aren’t the only ones pushing children to explore other possibilities. Every year for an entire day Nickelodeon doesn’t play any TV shows and instead has a scrolling screen telling kids to get out and move. When I was younger, I would just change the channel, and I’m sure I’m not the only person to preform this act. Yet, the purpose behind this day shows that even television companies whose main goal is to have child viewers put aside days each year to make kids move away from their TVs and exercise or just get outside.

                In the book, Farrell also touches on the movie Wall-E. Although she doesn’t aim her points at childhood obesity and the culture’s obsession with correcting children’s weight problems, which is what I thought of while reading about Wall-E. This Pixar movie shows what our society can become if we decide to let our weight go and allow machines to take over for us. We too could be carted around on machines and not have the correct muscles to stand. Wall-E shows kids that 'letting your body go' isn’t the right way to go about things and therefore should make sure to get physical exercise.

                Our obsession with children’s weight has increased a lot since the days where doctors didn’t even want to weigh them. In doing this, are we helping children and sculpting them for their futures? Or are we just helping our own opinions and making ourselves feel better?

Fit for Citizenship?

Amy Farrell’s book Fat Shame breaks down the ways ‘fat shame’ plays out through race, class, and gender. Her unique theory on the relation between fat and citizenship shines light on how fat acts as an umbrella for feminist issues that address race, class and gender. Fat as a theoretical contemporary feminism, and perspective provides space to launch discussions that address intersectional identifiers (race, class, gender). Fat discussions are an important aspect to feminist discussion because they address power relations by challenging societal norms of citizenship. Citizenship is often understood in constitutional terms but the citizenship that Farrell addresses is a citizenship of belonging and often becomes a citizenship of exclusivity. To clarify a definition of citizenship Dictionary.com defines Citizenship as,

the character of an individual viewed as a member of society; behavior in terms of the duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen: an award for good citizenship.

The keyword that hits me is, “obligations”. Society has constructed humans worthy of citizenship when they fulfill and adhere to specific obligations. Obligations In normative American culture this obligation plays out for women as an obligation to be thin, yet curvy. To fulfill normative societal constructed obligations is to be worthy of power. Citizenship equates to power. When fat people are denied citizenship they become marginalized, fat becomes an alienated demographic, a other. In essence women’s studies, studies power dynamics and exploitation of those constructed as others. Historically feminism has played into cycles of fat shame as seen in suffragist rhetoric reinforcing ideas of fat bodies as humiliating, “certain people were simply more fit for citizenship than others” (104). Feminists histories’ undermining of fat bodies has carried over into contemporary feminism creating challenges for feminists in dealing with women and standards of beauty. I believe fat studies has a lot to teach feminists about fighting mainstream dominant culture because fat spans all identifiers. I am curious to know more about how fat plays out in masculine identities. Fat men are stigmatized differently than fat women. I can think of a lot more men who are fat in popular culture than I can women. Does this mean their bodies are more accepted than women’s fat ones? Is there something for us to learn in the acceptance of fat men’s bodies or is this just because their sexuality is constructed differently?

Citizenship should be about obligations to social justice, and equality of society. If one does not belong, they are marginalized and this is seen through the multiplicity of stigma’s surrounding fat. It is a shame fat discussion does not occur more often. Fat needs to be discussed in positive ways, especially by feminists but also by the general public. Perhaps fat talks can teach us new ways to understand what citizenship is and allow us to understand what the ultimate purpose and goal of citizenship is in the first place. My ideal citizenship would be one that uplifted the entire community by including and valuing people’s differences, even fat.