On Choice
Amp posted about the issue of choice in both fat and gay circles, pointing back to this piece at Bitch Ph.D.
I wanted to post a nice and witty dissertation on why I agree, but I'll instead start with a comment by marmelade at Alas:
I think the problem is that some people want to have a screen-out for civil rights based on “choice.” That is, people can’t *possibly* change their race, therefore race should not be used to limit employment, public accomodation, etc. And that analogy is openly used against gay civil rights initiatives - because they see being gay as a “choice” (I don’t know if the same argument is used against efforts to limit weight discrimination).
This is 100% spot-on - and yes, it usually is used to limit fat rights.
But moreso as marmelade claims, lots and lots of people really want fat to be a choice. That way, one can be prescribed a way to Just Not Be Fat. Yesterday I had the news on in the background and there was an entire story about how to avoid weight gain over the holidays. Some of the tips included gems like, "Don't stand near the buffet table!" and "Drink more water!" That is exactly the type of awesome advice that we receive because fat already is seen as a choice by so many people. That's why the diet industry exists, after all. It's a choice. It's a way of living! And if you're choosing to be fat, you can be judged on your lifestyle, and then you can be deemed Bad.
If it's not a choice - if genetics are involved - then the argument changes a bit. Instead of being deemed bad, you may be pitied. And in some circles you may be considered ignorant. ("What? It's not due to genes! Look at all the fat kids around! And there are SO MANY fat people!") In this case anecdotal evidence is used to try to combat what may be a simple fact. This would be unthinkable if another group was substituted for fat people, in most cases. ("There are SO MANY women around!")
The scary thing is that in either case, choice or not, fat is seen as something that is correctable. If it's a choice, "just eat fewer calories!" If it's not a choice, WLS! The discussion really and truly needs to move above this notion that fat is something that is wrong, negative, and horrible. It becomes a bit of a broken record but that's why when discussions online and off start out at this level, I try to turn it on its ear. "Choice or not, you can be fired due to your size and have no legal recourse." "Choice or not, your child can be taken away from you." "Choice or not, you don't have equal access to public education."
These are the facts. Discrimination doesn't care if it's a choice.
Campos Goes After Michael Savage, Obama | Happy Holidays!
Posted by paul on December 20, 2007
What I love are the people who agree that fat *can* be genetic, but, for some reason, never think the fat people around them are fat because of genetics, so they still give little bits of "encouragement" ("you should try coming with me to work out!") and even comments of disgust ("no wonder he's fat - did you see him snarfing down that donut?!?").
"What? It's not due to genes! Look at all the fat kids around! And there are SO MANY fat people!"
I have had the conversation about "so many fat kids" twice in the past week, with two different friends who live in different cities - both telling me about "this school" they "drove past" and how the playground was covered in fat kids, and they didn't "remember that many fat kids" being around when they were in school. I can't seem to convince them that maybe they should look at some actual data before assuming anything.
I do find it interesting that even when you can get people to believe that fat is a hereditary thing, it's still a health condition that needs "treatment." That's what bothers me more...the framing of fat as a "condition" and not just another physical characteristic, a la hair color or eye color or the shape of your nose.
I keep going back to the argument that being fat is like having big feet. I mean, look at a shoe store - all kinds of sizes there, and nobody's getting judged (by anyone who's not an asshole, anyway) for the size of their feet (unless you're a dude, and then people are making assumptions). So, feet can come in a whole range of sizes, but not asses. Ludicrous.
I am a woman with large feet, and I have to say that your assumption about how people treat shoe sizes is simply not true. All kinds of sizes aren't there - all kinds of average sizes are there. There's also this stigma with women that we should have small feet, as with men that they should have large feet. I was teased a lot as a child about my big feet (and sometimes as an adult, too), and my mother was almost equally embarrassed about my shoe size as she was my dress size. I can hardly find any shoes in my size, and I consider myself lucky because people with even larger feet have far less of a selection. I only just recently found a store that sells women's socks in my size (a plus sized clothing store, in fact), so I've gone most of my life either wearing men's socks or trying to squeeze my feet into women's socks and ending up with the heel being somewhere under my arch.
People do make judgments about you based on your shoe size. It's somehow not ladylike to have large feet, and most stores wouldn't even think of accommodating the large-footed woman.
I am a woman with large feet, and I have to say that your assumption about how people treat shoe sizes is simply not true.
As a large footed woman who's two daughters also have large feet, I concur! It's extremely difficult to find shoes that fit - the one place I know of that does carry shoes of all sizes (including tiny) is incredibly expensive, too.
Wow, and I'd thought I was the only one who noticed that. I'm lucky that there's a Payless within driving distance of where I live; otherwise, I'd probably have to go barefoot, because that's the only place so far where I've ever been able to find shoes that fit my size 11 W feet.
I agree with the comments made by others with big feet in this thread. Finding nice shoes in wide and double wide widths has always been a problem. And the ones you do find are often quite utilitarian in look. Go to the amazon.com store, search for shoes or boots, then type in WW (or 2E) where they mention narrowing (hah) the search by width, and you'll see what I mean.
This raises an important point. If you're not a member of a group that suffers prejudice, then you often aren't aware of it. This is why some nonfat people get the notion that we're unaware of being fat, or don't know that fat is unhealthy.
TariRocks, I am absolutely NOT saying anything like, "you should have known better", because I'm sure I miss a lot of things, too. Other things I've had trouble finding: jewelry - rings, bracelets and necklaces are usually too small; hats (my hat size is larger than that of the average woman), and glasses frames.
One of the most egregious examples of the "everyone's an expert" phenomenon that I've seen is the "well maybe SOME people are fat genetically or because of a disease, but the VAST MAJORITY just eat too much." Um, says who? And thank you SO much for absolving those of us who are fat for reasons beyond gluttony; I guess we're still allowed to live in Oceania.
As a fat acceptance activist, I wrestle between the issue of dispelling the stereotype that fatness if a lifestyle choice with that of the argument of who cares if it is a choice, fat people still deserve the same rights and courtesy as anyone else. Unfortunately, the only way to convince some people that fat people are deserving of human rights is to remove the choice element and focus on the genetics of fatness, while with others, you will never convince them that fatness isn't due to lifestyle, so I focus then on the "who cares" aspect. It's a balancing act, and I have yet to learn how to juggle the two effectively.
This is the way I see it:
Some people are heavier by choice. Some people are heavier due to genetics. Some people are heavier due to a combination of the two.
But you know what? Who cares WHY you are bigger? These factors don't make anybody LESS deserving of the basic dignity and respect due toward people.
So what if somebody eats too much? Why is that consider a matter of public policy? People are responsible for their OWN bodies - my body is NOT public property!
And you'll note that thin people who "eat too much" rarely, if ever, get picked on. It's just the fatties.
That post was actually created by m. leblance at Bitch, PhD. Predictably, it brought out the concerns trolls and the folks who were grossly offended at having gay people and fat people mentioned in the same sentence.
Interesting, Sniper. The analogy between fat and gay is one I always come back to because of similar elements--the idea it's a choice, the idea it's a moral issue, the possible feeling of disgust one might feel towards someone either fat or gay, and the "glad it's not me" kind of vibe I get. I usually seem to be talking about fat positiveness with people who are supportive of gay rights, but have a dim view of fat rights, so it can help to point out some similiarities. But like any analogy, less is more and I try and tread lightly.
Which you had actually pointed out. Sorry. I'm on a lot of cold medicine right now.
The problem with the "I see fat people" argument that folks like to use to justify their panic over the "epidemic is that it's essentially the Fnord effect. If something is pointed out to you, you will notice it more than you naturally would. That's because out of all the things our brain sees each day, a filtered selection actually makes it through to define our own particular paradigm. If someone says, "hey, did you know that there are more blue cars than any other color on the road," you'll suddenly notice all the blue cars you never made note of before, and might even come to the conclusion that there is an epidemic of blue cars. If you buy a certain vehicle, you start to notice every other vehicle of your make and model on the road. It didn't suddenly get record sales that year; you just didn't notice until it was made important to you. People who use the argument that they are suddenly seeing more fat people are letting the news and the diet industry define their paradigm for them by telling them what's important. The only way to combat it is with facts, but I don't know how much of a dent it makes.
I give up....fat is a choice, fat is a lifestyle. OK, ok!
OK Richard Simmons, Susan Powter, Dr Atkins and all of you guys...it's a choice.
My question to you is......
So what?
Fat people have the same hearts, minds, dreams and ambitions as thin people.
Hey kids, I have a size 12 double-wide foot. I have bigger feet than my dad and my brothers, and some of the men I've dated. I've heard all the jokes, and I've been wearing mostly dude shoes since I was 11.
I know all about the shock and awe that comes with having giant feet, but I pull that analogy out because - while I have had shoe salesmen say shit like, "That's a big foot for a guy!" - I am fairly sure that discrimination in health care, housing, employment, etc. based on foot size is a rare occurrence.
Nobody (sane) is going to suggest I should cut off my toes or bind my feet or eat less so my feet won't be so big. It's generally accepted that feet naturally come in a wide range of sizes (though shoe manufacturers seem to disagree), and that foot size is not something reasonably alterable. I'm not trying to diminish your difficult experiences of having large feet (I share them!), I'm just saying that I think the kind of complications that come from having big feet are very different from culturally-endorsed wholesale denial of basic human rights.
Besides, as my granny used to tell me, they put bigger foundations under banks than they do outhouses.
I believe that the complications from having large feet are more a result of society's abhorrence of most anything large about women. The point is not just that they're hard to find and overpriced (that happens to small women too), but that when you do find them, they tend to be uglier. Now I've been to shops which sell shoes that are on the fringes of the typical shoe availability chart - exceptionally short, long, wide, narrow. The narrower shoes, both short and long. usually have more interesting styles than the wider ones.
12 WW ( 10 1/2 W in men's sizes) is big for a dude? There's no shortage of big-footed dudes in this world - where the heck do they shop?
Back to the topic - foot widths ARE surgically alterable. I heard of someone who did this - got about two widths narrower. IMO, she had more money than sense, since she went from a perfectly decent B width to a double A or less. I would not do that to my feet. Shades of Cinderella's stepsisters!
People can't change their race...but why should they WANT to? It's hardly enlightened or generous of others to say "it's OK that you are race X because you cannot help it." Um...what is there to help? I'm looking forward to the day when people come around to this...and then apply the same logic to fat.
I'm reading Michael Warner's book The Trouble with Normal right now, which I highly recommend to people in fat acceptance. Not 11 pages into the book he starts talking about how society is only willing to legitimize immutable genetic variances from "normal", and that if anything outside of the narrow range of "normal" can be found to be a choice society is unwilling to legitimize it. He could have been talking about fat people instead of queer folks and very little would have changed.
Halfway through the book he goes into a tangent on gay marriage which isn't as illustrative of the parallels between fat acceptance and the struggle for queer rights. That's the section I'm reading now, so I can't tell if the rest of the book is quite as useful to FA, but he does make a lot of cutting observations about the absurdity of legitimizing "normality" over all other walks of life.