Fat People: You Don’t Have To Justify Your Existence

Dear fat people,

You don’t have to justify your existence to anyone. Not TV doctors. Not lapsed surgeons. Not authors of diet books. Not researchers running an ‘obesity’ center. Not your own doctor. Not your parents. Not your spouse.

When they ask, “Well, don’t you think being fat is unhealthy?” You don’t have to educate them. It’s not your job to give them reasons why you have accepted your body.

When they say, “You must justify your fatness. I’m paying for you!”, tell them they don’t have a problem with you, they’ve got a problem with the system and how it apportions dollars and care. If they’re so concerned about being able to control who and what they ‘pay for’ then they need to take it up with their elected representative or an actual economist, not you.

You don’t have to tell the fatphobes why they’re wrong. Why they’re creating a fictional narrative about your life that isn’t your life. Why threatening you with future health ills is absurd and childish. Why they don’t understand the economics of insurance markets. They probably won’t listen anyway. They’re not looking for reasons to be okay with you. They’re looking for reasons to feel better than you. To blame you for their slimmer pocketbook, or global warming, or world hunger. To absolve themselves from responsibility for those things. To justify their own disconnectedness and indolence. To soothe the guilt of their own consumerism.

Dear fat people: all fat people, of all colors and backgrounds, of all those varying ways to be fat and visibly so, even if you’re just fat in your own family circle or if you’ve been used as a headless fatty folk devil in a news article: you don’t have to justify your existence.

You don’t have to justify your existence by performing health. Or by subscribing to HAES. Or by having a list of studies on-hand whenever some ubiquitous fatphobe challenges your experience and threatens you with the deterioration of your health and even early death if you don’t agree with them.

Fat discrimination is wrong. Don’t listen when they say you’re “lazy, unfit, immoral, liars, burdens.” Sadly, you aren’t the first group of people to be labeled as the biggest sinners, the biggest losers, the folk devils that must be fought and vanquished at all costs, the root of all evil. It’s a formula, an effective one that most people don’t even realize they’re playing into.

There’s no conspiracy. The fat public health panic, known colloquially as the ‘obesity epidemic’ even though obesity is neither a disease nor an epidemic, emerged as a response to a complex panel of variables. No one person sat down one day and said, “You know what we should do? Pathologize fatness, stigmatize fat people, make a bunch of money off it, then sell fat stigmatization to governments and world health organizations so we can codify dieting in their health regulations.”

Timing is everything: an aging population means that diseases highly correlated with aging like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and strokes are going up, up, up. People are smoking less, getting taller and healthier, and also dieting much more regularly: all states of being that, in addition to aging, result in increased average weight. Fudge with an old statistical tool for insurance tables called the BMI and suddenly you’ve got a health panic on your hands.

Healthism emerged, partially as a response to an aging population afraid of death and convinced that if they ate the right things and did the right amount of exercise they could extend their lifespans to Auroran lengths (see: Asimov), partially as an outgrowth of modern Puritanism, partially because of the fat health panic outlined above, partially as a vehicle of elitism and classism and ableism, and for many other reasons not useful to go into here.

Dear fat people: you don’t deserve to be discriminated against. You were in the wrong place at the wrong time. You don’t have to justify your existence. You don’t have to buy into the myth of health, an arbitrary measure whose definition has not only changed throughout history but means different things to different individuals, to different practitioners of health, even.

You don’t have to justify your existence. If you do, you lose. You lose for yourself, and you lose for the rest of us. What is fat discrimination? Believing that fat people don’t have the right to simply be. That, if they exist as fat people, they are “lazy, unfit, immoral, liars, burdens.” The answer is not to argue that you are “active, fit, moral, trustworthy, generous.”

What right does anyone have to require that in order to live unabused they must live up to a standard the abusers don’t expect of themselves? It’s a lose-lose situation. Ceding to fatphobes the right to question your existence also cedes to them that if you as a fat person didn’t perform exercise, or didn’t count calories, or weren’t ‘healthy,’ or were disabled, or just didn’t adhere to the Healthistic model of virtue, that they would be justified in flailing and abusing you.

Dear fat people: you don’t have to justify your existence. You aren’t supervillains: if you don’t fit into the Healthistic box the fatphobes say you must the world won’t stop turning. Children won’t die. The landmass of your country won’t be swallowed by the oceans. You won’t suddenly get all the so-called fat diseases. You won’t bankrupt your government’s economy.

You will be one precious person saying, “No. Healthism is wrong. Health is bullshit. You’re creating a hierarchy of acceptable, codified discrimination with a bullshit arbitrary measure. And I’m not buying it.”

One precious person, going against a seemingly irresistible tide. You won’t be the villain. You’ll be the hero.

Other reasons why fat person cost calculations are bogus

Ragen has a great article out today, please take a look if you haven’t seen it already:

The True Cost of Fatties

In her post, Ragen talks about how the back of the envelope ‘study’ done a couple of years ago that suggests fat people are killing the planet with all the extra gas we consume, and the usual shady numbers we see about how much extra healthcare dollars fat people consume. Apparently fat fatties eat money just like they eat Twinkies — in excess, and uncaring as to how it effects anyone else in their lives. We’re truly terrible people, a costly evil scourge that must be eradicated…at all costs.

Which leads me to my first additional point to Ragen’s post:

When we hear fat person cost calculations, there’s an ever-present underlying assumption that if fatties were thinnies or normals, we wouldn’t consume those extra resources. However, overwhelming evidence shows that in order to maintain a significant amount of weight loss down from a natural setpoint of significantly higher, individuals need to dedicate something like a part-time job to it: exercising for several hours a day, paying for expensive diet plans or special meals or therapies, measuring and weighing and planning and special shopping trips and scribbling in a journal–you get the picture. There’s a $60 billion dollar diet industry that derives most of its income from people going on and off temporary diets. If fat people were to do what the above ‘experts’ claim and go on mandatory, permanent, life-long diets, imagine how that number would explode. It would likely eclipse the (shady) amount (badly) estimated spent on fatty healthcare ($147 billion in 2008).

The next part of the fat person cost calculation has to do with absenteeism and the murkily-defined and -exampled presenteeism. Presenteeism is, as defined, when workers show up to work but have much lower levels of productivity than a coworker doing the same job.

…presenteeism was measured and monetized as the lost time between arriving at work and starting work on days when the employee is not feeling well, and the average frequency of losing concentration, repeating a job, working more slowly than usual, feeling fatigued at work, and doing nothing at work. [2]

From what I’ve seen, fat people are accused of presenteeism because they’re assumed to have greater health-related obstructions to doing their job. This would be most pronounced in markets that rely on physical labor. However, the studies I’ve seen that show a ‘significant’ (1% difference! Le gasp!) increase in presenteeism as defined don’t correct for age, which is strongly positively associated with both fatness and decreased productivity in manual jobs.

Fatty presenteeism and absenteeism is estimated to cost employers $73.1 billion annually. My question is, naturally: how much more productive is a starving person? (dieting is indistinguishable from a famine state) How much more productive is someone who spends a part-time job in addition to their full time job keeping off weight? How much would it cost the economy as a whole if we estimated the lost productivity of fat people due to the fact that in order to maintain a thinner state, they would have to dedicate something like 15 – 20 hours a week they could have spent working additional hours, raising up a new generation of workers, or supporting their community and the productivity of others? Methinks that would be a hella more than $73.1 billion a year.

Now for the second point I wanted to add to, or rather stress, in Ragen’s analysis:

You can single out practically any group of people you want and find additional ‘costs’ associated to their ‘lifestyles’ or genetic differences. Thin people are the awesome du jour, but they’ve got their own set of associated costs (if you believe the hype that they’re more active and so on): cost of gas getting back and forth to the gym, athletic injuries, diet plans, they live longer and hoo boy is that expensive, they take more vacations, they tend to be richer and hence de facto consume more resources, and so on. Let’s add that up.

Or parents, as mentioned by Ragen and by me in another forum: parents, especially of unfashionably large families, consume mountains more resources than childless people, have high levels of absenteeism in the workplace, and cost their employers much more in family insurance plans, childcare benefits, and so on. Let’s add that up.

Or people who get tattoos — let’s go after them, shall we? They get sicker more often, as a new tattoo is the same as an open wound. They tend to hang out in edgier clubs, are exposed to the possibility of more violence, and are probably more likely to be drug users (a purely correlative assessment, of course). Let’s add that up. And don’t get me started on people with psychological disorders like depression, bipolar, or those who’ve had traumatic backgrounds, or who are part of prejudicial groups — the extra health costs associated with their therapies and prescriptions and their decreased productivity is nigh-on criminal(big flashing sarcasm meter on all these points, of course)

And so on, and on, and on…

So why fatties? Because we cost so much more than other groups? Nope. Because our costly status is preventable, or cheaper to treat? Nope (see my Truth About Fat: References page). Because:

Fat people are scapegoats.

For what? For a breaking healthcare system, a broken health insurance paradigm, a slowing economy, global warming, hunger in non-Western countries, the declining standard of Western beauty, and pretty much anything else some random person doesn’t like and doesn’t want to either understand or tolerate.

We are in a moral panic, not an epidemic. Fat people ‘cost more’ because we are hated. Fat people destroying the earth, or anything else for that matter, is a proxy for how the moral crusaders believe we are destroying humanity.

References

1. Rising obesity will cost U.S. health care $344 billion a yearUSA TODAY, November 17, 2009.

2. Obese Workers Cost Workplace More Than Medical Expenses, Absenteeism. Duke Global Health Institute, October 7, 2010.

3. Obesity Promotes Global Warming? John Tierney.The New York Times, May 16, 2008, 9:49 AM

4. Wrestling with the ‘Double Burden’: Hunger and ObesityWorld Food Program USA. By Sara Draper-Zivetz  Published on February 18, 2011

Why language is important

Can we laugh at this quote a quick moment?

Some experts say these new findings raise questions about the effectiveness of efforts to combat the obesity epidemic simply by improving access to healthy foods. Despite campaigns to get Americans to exercise more and eat healthier foods, obesity rates have not budged over the past decade, according to recently released federal data.

The language of the so-called obesity epidemic has become so unquestioningly ingrained in journalistic circles that the writer of this article can’t see the contradiction between an obesity rate that hasn’t ‘budged over the past decade,’ and stating in the previous sentence that we’re in an ‘obesity epidemic.’

George, you old bastard, you’ve won this round. Now please stop haunting us with your lessons about propaganda. It’s getting eerie to see doublespeak in the news as a matter of course rather than a soon-to-be-retracted error, or a sloppy intern-level mistake.

The article from which the quote is pulled is worth a read: Studies Question the Pairing of Food Deserts and Obesity

It’s a report on the findings of a study that conclude there’s no relationship between poor urban neighborhoods and lack of access to ‘healthy’ foods, and then concludes that increased levels of obesity in poor urban neighborhoods mustn’t be connected to what people were eating. Well, no kidding; it’s been known for a while that fat people in general don’t eat differently than thinner people in general. So blaming relative fatness on the assumption that fatness is related to what poorer people eat compared to what richer people eat doesn’t make sense in the context of what we know about how fatter and thinner people eat, in general. Still, the food desert argument has been used to stigmatize poorer fat people under the guise of concerned progressivism, especially on sites like Jezebel, for a long time. It probably has its root in some book by Pollan or one of those folks — I wouldn’t know, I don’t read that stuff.

10,000 Big Liberty points to anyone who guesses the next trend in weight-control-by-nannying via the vaunted elites (of both the governmental and corporate variety) of our respective societies. Tax breaks for weight loss surgery and fat camps for the kids? ‘Sin’ taxes on sugar and carbs (since everyone’s nuts about Paleo these days)? Required ‘extra’ PE or after-school PE/sports for kids who ‘fail’ on their BMI ‘report cards’? (sorry for all the single quotes, but I can’t stand talking in the bastardized language of the bigoted panic-drivers)

EDIT: withoutscene pointed out to me on Twitter that the writer of the article is no other than Gina Kolata of Rethinking Thin fame. Rethinking Thin got me to quit dieting. About six months after I read it I stumbled across the fat acceptance movement. I can’t believe I didn’t notice she wrote it. Chalk it up to cynicism, but I don’t even check author names of articles anymore — I expect them all to be anti-fat biased, no matter their credentials.

The 95% Problem

A much-touted number around the Fatosphere is 95%. 95% of diets fail to keep weight off long-term, and many diets add weight onto the baseline by the end of the diet cycle, and repeatedly as many times as a dieter cycles over his/her life.

I see this argument in comments on articles that bring out the fat-haters and concern trolls; I see this argument in blog posts; this argument has been used in fat studies and HAES literature.

What I’m going to address today is what I call the 95% problem. That is, why the 95% number fails to convince many people of the ultimate futility of dieting and the relative impossibility of making a fat person permanently thin.

The set of characters I tend to run across, enumerated below, accept and believe in the 95% number to some extent. They just don’t think that it’s a reasonable argument (or excuse, as they put it) for why the diet is failing, and not the dieter.

1. The anecdotalist. Sure, it’s hard to lose weight. But I personally (or a friend) just spent X weeks eating healthy/paleo/vegan/low-carb/low-cal/cleanse, and I’ve lost Y lbs. It was easy, and I don’t see any problem keeping it up. 

The implication being: that current dieters in the honeymoon part of their diet, or first-time dieters, or non-dieters (with the friend who lost weight) are part of the 5%. The 95% are all those inferior people who didn’t have the superior willpower/diet plan/education of the person who lost weight successfully.

2. The social engineer. Sure, it’s hard to lose weight. I’m not fat and I can afford to eat paleo/low-carb/etc, and the membership fee to a nice indoor gym. So we need to make it so everyone else can afford those things. There’s a reason most fat people are poor!

The implication being: that 95% fail their diets because they don’t have enough money to buy superior food, or that they don’t have access to superior food/exercise, and so on. The belief is that fat people can be made permanently thin if only they could eat a superior paleo/low-carb/vegan/low-cal/etc diet and exercise X min a day on socially-approved treadmills.

3. The moralist. No, it isn’t hard to lose weight. Fat people are just lazier than regular people. It isn’t surprising that 95% of them can’t manage to pry their butts from their couches, or bother to learn to cook vegetables. I mean, how hard is it to eat an apple instead of a Twinkie? Seriously. Oh, and those fatties who say they work out and eat right are obviously lying, or think that ‘eating right’ means snarfing S’mores on whole wheat graham crackers or something.

The obvious implication (the moralists don’t tend to mince their words as much as the others): that 95% diets fail because fat(ter) people are morally inferior to ‘normal’ people. It’s an argument from uninformed, bigoted logic that ignores all scientific points thrown its way. Moralists are also good at projecting their anti-scientific beliefs on others: when someone responds to their ‘lazy’ comment with a study or article disproving something they said, they claim the responder is ‘cherry-picking,’ then link to the CDC stats on obesity like this is an end-all refutation. Moralists also like to connect fatness to social ills like global warming and consumerism (if progressive), or lack of self-responsibility and bloated social entitlements (if libertarian).

4. The self-loather. Well, I’m fat (or recently gained weight) and I’m tired/lethargic/short of breath/in pain, and I know personally that I eat too much/eat emotionally/binge eat/am addicted to food/eat too much sugar/(reason du jour). Though it’s hard to make changes, I have to if I want to feel better.

The implication being: that all fat people are just like this person—they feel generally unwell, out of shape, they eat junk, and so on. The commenter is faux-sympathetic to their plight, but is certain that most fatness still comes down to bad behavior/brokenness/stupidity/ignorance, and not to any kind of biological mechanism. This person believes in the 95% number but still think they should forge ahead with their plan to ‘fix’ themselves. They believe that healthy/normal/smart/educated people are naturally thin(ner), or at least not as fat as they are/were.

5. The immortal. Well, X disease (correlated to fatness) runs in my family. So I need to diet constantly, or else there’s a good chance I’ll get fat and get X disease. Or: I have X disease correlated with fatness. I have to lose weight in order to deal with my condition/have the best chance of living normally.

The implication being: that fat causes X disease (not just correlated, and not the other way around), and that weight loss is the main treatment/preventative measure. These individuals might agree that 95% of people fail to lose weight and keep it off long term, but still maintain that they personally are required to. This attitude subtly implies that willpower and desire is the key to entering the vaunted 5%, and further, that those in the 95% must have less willpower and desire to lose weight than those who “have to.”

6. The genetic superior. Well, sure it’s hard to lose weight and I personally don’t have to worry about it, but you should still try to lose weight. Even if it takes the equivalent of a part-time job, loads of cash, and constant vigilance. Even if it makes you sad and crazy. Sorry. Them’s the breaks (dear gosh I’m so glad not to be you!). 

This one kind of explains itself. And yes, I was involved with someone once (a thin guy) who said I had to lose 50 lbs to be ‘hot enough’ for him, and when I cried, he said, “We all have our trials and tribulations.” This was also when I was near my thinnest.

What about you—what kind of arguments do you come across that try to refute the power of the 95% number? And did you have trouble accepting this number at first, or was it (like it was for me) a lightning-bolt to the brain of sudden, joyous, clarity?

Unpacking the Fat: People Like Me

1. People like me get thrown off flights, especially if they’re too full, and asked to pay double for the privilege of waiting for the next one.

2. People like me can’t shop in most malls. We get strange looks and downright condescension if we go into certain stores.

3. I can’t turn on the TV and expect to see someone like me, in general. If I do, then that person is almost always being portrayed as something broken to be fixed, or otherwise in a negative light.

4. When I see people like me talked about in the news, it’s about how horrible people like me are, and what is the best way to get rid of people like me.

5. If I go to an adoption agency I will be told that people like me shouldn’t be parents.

6. If I go to an infertility clinic I will be told that people like me shouldn’t be parents.

7. If my child is someone like me (which they have a good chance of being) I will be told I shouldn’t be a parent. My child might even get taken away from me.

8. I can’t open a magazine and expect to see people like me. However I can expect to see ad after ad for products on how to prevent becoming like me, or how to ‘fix’ someone like me.

9. If I ride the subway/bus, I get dirty looks. People don’t think someone like me deserves to sit. If I stand, they tell me that I’m in the way of everyone else.

10. If I take a walk down the street in a populated area I can expect to be told how horrible I am from passing cars, pedestrians, people in shops — anyone I meet. I might even get things thrown at me, like garbage.

11. If I go to the gym I can expect to get talked down to, and treated like the reason I’m there is to ‘fix’ myself from being so broken and horrible.

12. If I drive my car instead of walk it’s taken as proof of why people like me are horrible. If I don’t go to a public gym it’s taken as proof of why people like me are so horrible.

13. There is big money for people who are trying to eliminate  people like me. They especially want to eliminate children who are like me. Most other people, even some people like me, think this is a wonderful thing. They hail an ‘enlightened’ future world that no longer has people like me in it.

14. People like me are blamed for the broken healthcare system.

15. People like me are blamed for global warming.

16. People like me are told that we can’t do certain things, and when we do, we’re told that we’re the exception that proves the rule.

17. I pay three times as much as what other people do for clothes, and it’s often much worse quality, style, fit, and selection. Clothes for people like me are segregated in stores and online, if they are available at all.

18. With some regularity the media debates on morning and news shows if people like me should exist, and how best to get rid of us if not.

19. People like me aren’t in trendy establishments. We are either barred from going, or the place can’t accommodate us, or we get condescended to and pressured to leave as soon as we walk through the door.

20. I can wear the same style and cut of clothing as someone who is not like me, and told that while it is perfectly decent on her, it is indecent on me.

21. People like me are told that we shouldn’t leave the house because of how awful we are, but that we are so awful because we never leave the house.

22. People like me are denied life-saving surgeries and the opportunity to donate organs unless we change.

23. My friends and family think it’s their duty to tell me how horrible I am, and how I should change.

24. People like me are told that we are stupid, lazy, immoral, and broken with regularity. I can expect to hear this several times a day.

25. People like me are never the heroes of books or movies. We are usually cast as the villain.

26. People like me have a harder time getting hired. Employers believe that people like me aren’t good representatives of their company, regardless of our skills, work ethic, experience, or talent. People like me are much less likely to appear in employee circulars and marketing materials. There are even workplace groups and contests where people like me are rewarded for altering themselves, and people who aren’t like me are rewarded for not being like me.

27. People like me are told that we aren’t as intelligent as other people. We are told that it is impossible for us to be economists, health care workers, or honest debaters.

28. People like me are told that we are the worst witnesses to our own experience. We are called liars if we relay experiences that do not hold true to what mainstream culture says about people like me. People who call us liars aren’t just our enemies – they are doctors, nurses, teachers, and our own family.

29. For people like me, social events like family gatherings and class reunions are often battlefields.

30. There is a whole month of the year dedicated to eliminating or preventing people like me. It’s called “Resolution Season” and is widely viewed as a positive and constructive, rather than negative and destructive, phenomenon. During this time of the year it’s nearly impossible to watch television, open a newspaper/magazine, read online media, or walk down a city street without being reminded that people like me are undesirable.

31. Many Western countries have publicly funded campaigns which claim people like me are a problem to be rid of.

32. The very existence of people like me is called one of the top problems of our modern age.

DISCLAIMER: Not complete, nor in any particular order. A list like this is always a work in progress. I might edit to add more later. Feel free to add your own in the comments, and I might add them to the list. Thanks to the authors of the many privilege-unpacking lists I’ve seen in my time.

EDIT (2/9/12): Added #26 – #31. 

Harvest the Fatties as Horse Meat, and Other Gems of the Moral Panic

Today I saw one of the most inflammatory articles about the ‘obesity epidemic’ that I’ve seen in a while. It is an article that talks about how the ‘overweight and obese’ are more numerous than the hungry, planet-wide.

What’s truly alarming is that the International Federation for the Red Cross, a well-known humanitarian group, is taking this angle in order to — I don’t know what, get more donations for hunger programs by shaming the fatty-countries about our horrible fatness? Secretary Bekele Geleta gives a statement:

“If the free interplay of market forces has produced an outcome where 15 percent of humanity are hungry while 20 percent are overweight, something has gone wrong somewhere,” secretary general Bekele Geleta said in a statement.

What, pray tell, is wrong with that? Yes, it’s horrible that 15 percent of humanity is hungry. But why bring in the arbitrarily-defined overweight-and-obese in there, except in an attempt to indirectly correlate the prevalence of fat(ter) people with hunger? That is, it would seem this article implies that fat people are taking all the food and leaving nothing for the hungry people who need it more than those fat fatties. By the way, it’s not evil ‘market forces’ driving the a portion of the current spike in food prices — the subsidization of food like corn and demand for ethanol has a substantial effect on global food prices, making previously accessible foodstuffs inflate in price:

C. Ford Runge, a University of Minnesota professor of applied economics and law, argues that ethanol from crops has many “hidden costs” that should dissuade the government from subsidies.

Runge, who raised concerns about ethanol policy as early as 2007, says his research suggests some 30 percent of food price increases come from diversion of US corn for ethanol.

Blaming the ‘overweight and obese’ on rising food prices or hunger in the world is inflammatory at bottom. There is no correlation. Fat people are not taking the food out of the mouths of hungry infants. Yet an article which talks about the statistics of both would seem to suggest that very scenario. Shame on IFRC for resorting to such inhumane strategies in order to further their agenda. Guess fat people are okay to hate on, is that right, IFRC?

But they don’t stop there. The Asia-Pacific director of the IFRC goes on to say (without any references):

Asia-Pacific director Jagan Chapagain called [more overweight people than hungry people] a “double-edged scandal” at a press conference in the Indian capital, adding that “excess nutrition now kills more than hunger.” [clarification mine]

While “double-edged scandal” has a nice ring to it, that’s all it has. Could you use more moralized language than “scandal” to describe the prevalence of fat(ter) people? And I would love to see the stats on hordes of people dying because they’re choking on their own fat. Or any article that doesn’t conflate diseases for which fat is a risk factor (and usually a much, much smaller risk factor than, say, family history) as the cause of those diseases, hence counting death due to heart disease, cancers, and diabetes as deaths by fatness (which is usually how the ‘fat deaths’ numbers are generated).

This article was meant to inflame. The words of the individuals at the IFRC (shame on you!) were meant to inflame. And that’s just what they did.

I haven’t seen such blatant hate in comments on an article…well, ever. And I’ve read a lot of comments on public sites shaming fat people. I know this is Yahoo News. I know they have some of the worst reporting and moderation in the biz. Still, I can’t believe some of the stuff I’m reading. I felt the need to record it here, so that fat-hate deniers—and don’t we all know one of those, who says we just need to buck up and there’s no such thing as fat oppression and it’s just all in our fatty fat-filled heads?—can see for themselves just how bad it is. Just how deep it goes. That fat-haters really, really do want us to die. Sometimes they want to kill us themselves.

TRIGGER WARNING. Don’t go any further if you can’t stomach some of the worst fat-hate I’ve ever seen.

Please. Turn back now, if you’re at all sensitive to this stuff.

Okay. Here goes. Quoting from the comments in no particular order, without attribution or linking. I’ll link to the original article at the bottom of the post, if you really, really want to see these things for yourself.

Fat lazy pigs will bring this country to it’s knees. When I’m in the grocery and I see a fat mom with her fat kids with a cart full of soda,chips, frozen chicken ect……… I just want to smack ’em all right in their fat faces. I am a fataphobe. My girlfriend of 11 years just decided one day to stop exercising with me and started fast food -FAST FOOD people! Who the F eats that crap? She gained weight—quickly. I dumped her ass. If she wants to get fat and lazy she ain’t gonna do it around me.

I’m glad she dodged that bullet.

The next are a collection of comments that suggest we resort to cannibalism:

1. Cut slabs of meat off the fat people, and feed it to the skinny people.

2. When things get really bad, a starving person should be allowed to eat one obese person per year.

3. Ultimate Robin Hood: Liposuction the fat to feed the skinny.

4. So, harvest the fatties; ship them to the Third World; and sell them as “horse” meat.

5. Oh good. The potential food supply (fatties) now outnumbers the hungry.

6. Let the hungry people eat the obese people. Problem solved! [there are about a dozen of these that say basically the same exact thing, not going to mention them all here]

Lovely. Let me observe that the people who make cannibalistic comments aren’t getting a thrill from the idea of eating fat people — I’m sure they think we’re disgusting and riddled with disease. Rather, it’s the murder and torture of fat people that gets their rocks off.

But remember, we’re not just good to eat. We’re also a next-generation fuel source!

In terms of Karma, maybe the obese are the poor’s food supply when collapse happens, or in light vege-oil diesel, maybe a new energy supply? I wonder how far you could drive on one fat person?

By the way, did you notice the moralistic use of “Karma” in the comment above? Fat people are sinners by virtue of existence. We have done wrong, and we’re going to get our comeuppance one of these days, isn’t that right? I suppose that implies the thin are sainted by virtue of existence. Good to know!

Goes hand in hand with a record 48 Million getting food stamps that they don’t need!

Oh yes, let’s add people to the numbers of hungry on this planet. It’s good for them. They committed the sin of fat and hence need to atone, while the sainted thin can eat as their reward for being thin.

Of course, there is the perennial tendency to conflate the stats of ‘overweight and obese’ — which are relatively large — with the prevalence of the kind of very fat people used as strawmen in pictures on these articles, who comprise far less than 10% of the ‘overweight and obese.’

I have 2 words for the morbidly obese: STOP EATING!!

Which translates to: Die, fatty! Clever.

Here are a few comments to illustrate that the inflammatory rhetoric of the IFRC, and indirect implication that fat fatties are taking food out of the mouths of hungry babies, has achieved its intended effect:

1. So if the obese cut back on eating and gave this good to the hungry we would solve two problems.

2. So the obese people are numerous and pressuring the food supplies needed by the truly hungry. food stamps is really working. How come so many so fat with no job? Wonderful.

3. Sounds like the obese need to give some food to the hungry.

And remember, there are no fat people in concentration camps:

Why can’t we do an “exchange” program with countries like Ethiopia and Somalia. We’ll send a bunch of Fat Americans to poor countries with no food so they can go on a “boot camp survivor diet” and the starving Somali’s can come here and eat McDonald’s and get fat.

Also make sure to snark the standard headless fatty on the article, and link fat people to yet another social problem, this time to the failure of the Post Office:

Hey, thats a picture of my mail lady! I can tell because her thighs always rub together as she waddles down the street at a snails pace! I wonder why the Postal system is in the trash can?

Another gem:

Force the obese people to take the positions of the hungry and the hungry the positions of the obese. Switch their jobs, homes, money, everything. The hungry could use a bit lifting up and the obese could use a very large lesson of humility instead of wasting all their money and time on food!

Those goddamn uppity fatties! Their problem is that they’re not humble enough. We need to teach those fatties a lesson. How dare they spend their own money and time on food? How dare they smugly eat while people are starving, people who deserve to have their jobs, home, money, and time more than those horrible fat fatties who are so horrible because they are fat? Skinny hungry people wouldn’t spend their money and time on food! Oh, no. They’d all go jog in the park and each single leaves of lettuce for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and think it was a feast! Goddamn fatties.

Also, did you know thin(ner) people can predict the future? It’s BMI-tastic!

Life expectancy has increased every year since 1900. It’s expected to start going down for the first time in a long time. Why? Obese people. How you can let yourself get to 300 pounds is unfathomable to me.

Everyone over 300 pounds is a broken, horrible person who is killing us all and inflating my healthcare costs. Why? Because I said so, dammit!

For those who just need to be benevolently “nudged” away from their disgusting immoral expensive child-abusing fatness:

Solution – Give doctors incentives to help patients lose weight, give tax breaks to joining a gym. Tax bad food based on sugar content, calories and trans fat. No food stamps for crackers, cookies, candy. Remove all coke machines from all our schools. Require P.E. in all our schools. Charge higher insurance premiums based on obesity level.

Finally, a few sane comments, too-few, in the din of hate:

This is great news. Finally the over fed outnumber the under fed. Maybe we will see an end to those photos of undernourished children and maybe they will be replaced with sad pictures of chunky kids with chocolate on their faces. Success!

A decent comment about how inflationary tactics taken by many governments throughout the world increase the price of basic commodities like foodstuffs:

This article is truly unbelievable. They ignorantly try to blame speculative trading and Global Warning for the rise in prices while ignoring the direct cause and effect realtionship of countries weakening their currencies. Put simply, printing more $’s without production gains is simply inflation and commodities such as fuel and grain are the first hit. I guess it just doesn’t fit their model. The heck with the logical correlation, let’s just blame global warming and speculators…. the Big bad people. Wow!

Someone finally observes that obese people can be malnourished/hungry:

Believe it or not, an obese person can also be malnourished at the same time. I am slightly obese, and prior to having a hysterectomy due to years of monthly hemmhoraging, my hemoglbin level was 10, my vitamin D, B12, folate and chromium levels were low – most likely, I was bleeding out everything but calories while I was having unstoppable carbohydrate cravings and consuming too many empty calories. Now my sweet tooth is gone, and my appetite and energy levels are normal. Now I wonder how many other women are experiencing the same thing and why doctors are not diagnosing and treating it.

The glass is half-full, not half-empty:

“Obese now outnumber hungry, says Red Cross”… Let’s think about this for a moment. We have made history… Now if this means there is less hungry people these days, then great! The glass if half full, huh?

My favorite one:

You know you live in a great counrty when people are complaining that the poor are too fat.

Word.

The original article is here. Shame on you, International Federation of the Red Cross.

EDIT: As of right now, Yahoo has been removing some of the worst comments (including some that I copied here). I’m glad I was able to capture the vitriol early-on, though I’m also glad that Yahoo is doing some moderation. Better late than never, I suppose.

EDIT 2: Nope, the awful comments are actually still up on the Yahoo article…read at your own risk. Yahoo, I take back any love I gave you.

“Better Human” = Not Obese!

Take a lookie at this steaming pile of Healthistic smugness:

Can Running Make Us Better Humans?

Yes, it does suggest that avid exercisers are objectively better moral humans. Yes, it does suggest that fat people, who obviously don’t run, are objectively worse moral humans.

The Tarahumara, he avers, know something that those of us living in modern western culture have forgotten: we too are Running People. It is a truth encoded in every human’s narrow pelvis, upright stance, and abundant sweat glands; in our big toes, Achilles tendon, and muscular arches; and in the joy and love we feel when running as we were born to do. Honoring this fact, McDougal contests, would move us modern folk far along the path toward healing many of our most debilitating cultural ills and obsessions, from obesity to chronic depression. Running can make us better humans. [emphasis mine]

You know what would make the author of this article an objectively better human? By not, say, putting down an entire class of people as below her based on her assumption (not even reality) that they don’t engage in an activity she holds in high esteem. There are lots of things humans have Done Throughout History that are value neutral. Just because we used to cure furs doesn’t make fur-curers better people. Just because we used to migrate on foot doesn’t make those guys that walk the Appalachian Trail better people.

Stop using fatness as a scarlet letter. For something published in a psychology magazine, I’d expect a little better (though Psychology Today publishes a lot of fat-hating articles, they have had a few pro-HAES features).

After admitting throughout the article that the author injured herself while engaging in her vaunted athletic activities, she unleashes this gem (referring to immobile, sitting, lazy Westerners who are afraid to leave their houses…sigh, I know):

Riddled with injury and illness, paralyzed by fears, and dizzy with exhaustion, our bodily selves call us to remember that where, how, and with whom we move matters.

I’ll give you two guesses as to what she means when she says “riddled with…illness” (hint: It rhymes with cat!). Also, erm, aren’t we healthier and living longer than ever before? I don’t have to worry about scurvy, scarlet fever, or dysentery (for the most part). So, whatever past the author is fetishizing, I think I’d prefer to live now, thanks though.

Otherwise, the article is just fluff –fetishization of exoticism a la Eat, Pray, Love, privilege and elitism,  rank ableism (thanks to Tehomet for pointing this out in the comments), and staggeringly broad generalizations based on zilch evidence.