LOL at Dan Savage
Just... LOL.
Think Tank II: Chicago, February 23rd! | 2008 is our year!
Posted by paul on January 13, 2008
Members, Welcome Back!
Fresh Comments
Get Your Feed On
BFB
Notes from the Fatosphere
That's some pretty crazy spin — it's not that he's a weight, bigot, ohhhh noooo. It's that he makes fun of a fat Englishwoman and then big, bad evil Kate Harding takes it "out of context"! I mean, how COULD she just assume from that that he doesn't like fat people?! The nerve. Oh, and she's sooo humorless for objecting to being signed as "LARDASS." While he's just the soul of reason.
He's not worth our time.
Seriously, Savage has issues. Quite frankly, I feel sorry for him. It's just too bad that he deals with his emotional problems by beating up on others around him.
Oy. You have to love just how aghast he is that someone could weigh *gasp* 400 pounds!
I'm 5'10 and I weigh 350 pounds AND I'm pregnant and I get around just fine and with perfectly healthy blood pressure, heart, and etc. People are so afraid of big round numbers...
I said it in a comment there, but I'll say it again here. If he's so sure he's right, why does he bother engaging Kate and the FA Movement at all instead of just sitting back and waiting for us all to die? Talk about protesting too much. Sheesh. What a dick.
Also - it's real f'n professional to call someone a "dishonest, paranoid douchebag" like that. But I guess Savage's schtick is that he's "edgy." You call it edgy, I call it asshole.
To be honest, I don't see what the issue is at all. Dan Savage has also said a lot of really positive things towards women who write into him with fat related issues as well. When taken out of context anyone sounds abrasive. Kate and Dan. Dan is abrasive, that is why people write into him. If you write into him you expect that kind of response. You are looking for him to say truths that others have a hard time saying. I have this one bookmarked on my computer because it think it is very true and I like to reference it when applicable: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=81105
When I read his article and then Kate's response, what I got from the two of them was that Dan is saying if you are unhealthy, you are unhealthy. The person who wrote in was saying she was unhealthy and looking for a "Dan" response to it, which was given. If you read his column on a regular basis he does this with almost everyone who writes in.
The comment:
"You ASSHOLE…. How dare you oppress women, large and small, with your judgments! Maybe if you enjoyed putting something in your mouth every once in a while that wasn’t cock, Mr. Skin and Boners, you would see things differently"
Honestly, that is a very homophobic statement taking aim at sexuality as a form of revenge. It is calling the kettle black. Don't make fun of me and oppress me while I am fat and oppressing you.
What fat activism is about to me is people who are fat are allowed the same rights as those who are thin. No matter how they got fat. The thing is, there are people who are fat for eating crap and not using their bodies and then there are people who are fat regardless. Both deserve equal human rights. It doesn't negate that there are people who are fat that are so because they don't care for themselves, which in my interpretation is what Dan Savage was getting at.
I was going to comment on this, but I got too wordy and made it a blog post instead. But, anyhow, to rachel odd, who said:
The fact that there are fat people who got that way through environmental/lifestyle factors does not change the fact that 1) the pursuit of weight loss is counterproductive at best and dangerous at worst, and 2) no one can predict, beforehand, who might lose weight from changing certain habits. We simply don't know until it happens, and when it does, it should always take a backseat to health itself. But what Dan Savage seemed to be getting at was that, yeah, those people exist -- and they should try to lose weight.
It also doesn't negate that, when Savage persists in repeating stereotypes about fat people (the health ones, specifically -- and they are indeed stereotypes, since the conclusions about fat and health are far from foregone, and much of the science itself is subject to cultural bias), and when he persists in drawing lines between acceptably and unacceptably fat people, he contradicts the cause he claims to support -- which is social equality for people of all sizes.
All of the other blabbing may be read here.
"The fact that there are fat people who got that way through environmental/lifestyle factors does not change the fact that 1) the pursuit of weight loss is counterproductive at best and dangerous at worst, and 2) no one can predict, beforehand, who might lose weight from changing certain habits. We simply don't know until it happens, and when it does, it should always take a backseat to health itself. But what Dan Savage seemed to be getting at was that, yeah, those people exist -- and they should try to lose weight."
Mich Murphy, what I was saying is that I think he is being read out of context of the voice he uses. What I think Dan Savage was saying was if you are unhealthy - you are unhealthy. That people should "try to lose weight" is secondary to being healthy. What I was saying in my comment was that if someone says to you.." I am fat... i eat crap food and don't exercise and my husband thinks I look like crap" how are you going to answer? I would say that the person isn't loving themselves and therefor is not able to chose a partner who can love them for who they are/ has a partner who misses the empowered lover they once knew. The surface of this may be weight but she clearly stated that she isn't taking care of herself. I ride my bike 4 miles every day. I eat a sensible diet, I do yoga, I swim, I hike... I am fat. 300 pounds of fat. But I take care of myself therefor I am where I am supposed to be. I am just suggesting that if you write to a sex columnist about being lazy and self defeating, he is most likely going to affirm your feelings. I don't interpret his suggestions as being anything other than a point in case response that has been misinterpreted. His column is crass and hard edged. He states the obvious to many, and the hidden to a few. He is bloody harsh and that is why people write into him. He, as suggested to Kate Harding on SLOG, doesn't suggest this "get off your fat ass" response to everyone who writes in who is fat and wondering what the heck to do.
I am a fan of his. He has helped a lot of people in their sexual expression and the first time that people ranted about him on this blog I was surprised as I have always found his comments to be typical of him and also case related. I reference him in the job that I do (female sex education) and find his views on anyones letters/ calls to be wonderfully vulgar.
I normally would have kept this to myself but I think that the comments he gets in regards to FA from the FA community need another voice along side the onces spoken.
"no one can predict, beforehand, who might lose weight from changing certain habits. We simply don't know until it happens, and when it does, it should always take a backseat to health itself."
Could you maybe tell that to the jerks that think it's their place to tell me otherwise? *sigh* Oh, and my doctors, that would be nice.
I wish my health was the most important thing, but lately all anybody can seem to focus on is that I'm fat. Yes, that's nice. I kind of know that already. You don't say?
As for Mr. Savage...all I have to say is *sigh*
I don't know much about this guy, but he seems to be a career snarker and that's his whole MO (?) In which case it makes sense - he's going to insult you if you write in, regardless. I guess I think it's kind of cool that he actually reads things like Kate Harding and maybe junkfoodscience at all. Some of it has to be sinking in somewhere; he even seems to make a couple of concessions that he might not have made had he not read the FA stuff.
Whilst I'm not American and would never have come across Savage if not for BFB, he sounds like just another full-time snarker hiding behind a vaguely respectable professional facade; a slightly less controversial Ann Coulter or Richard Littlejohn for those who'd never be caught dead agreeing with their right-wing ranting.Our equivalent is probably a guy called Giles Coren who's ostensibly a restaurant critic for a major newspaper but seems to garner more column inches by bitching about fat people and how they should be taxed / outlawed out of existence (he even made a TV show to showcase his fat-phobic ranting).
Coincidentally he too is gay - and whilst it would be immensely homophobic of me to generalise about gay newspaper columnists conforming to various bitchy stereotypes or being shallow and intolerant of all except themselves, mention of the hypocrisy of members of one historically oppressed group colluding in the subjugation of another leads one conveniently back to the individual choice debate - the only thing separating fat acceptance from other civil rights movements is the false conception that fat people choose to be that way through intent or inaction; a misconception which resurfaces numerous times in the Savage comment thread, and one which must as a matter of priority be opposed and countered if we're ever to get anywhere.
It always depresses and angers me in equal measure reading through the comments on these news sites, which are usually guaranteed to contain far worse sentiments than anything expressed in the initial article. I suppose at least these hatemongers are having more success in getting the public talking about and forming their own opinions - good and bad - about fat people than the SA movement with its relatively limited sphere of influence can achieve at this point in time. Increasingly I'm noticing that for every half-dozen hateful comments there's one person who's thinking 'hang on a minute, there's something really wrong about all of this' which in the current climate is a major achievement and gives me some hope for the future...
I'm not a regular reader of Dan Savage's, so I don't have a metric by which to measure to what degree is or is not fat accepting. I will own that rachel_odd knows a lot more about him than I do. HOWEVER, I really believe name-calling gets everyone nowhere really fast, and that's what I see here.
I don't approve of the LARDASS comment or the fat-hating diatribe. I also don't approve of the disgusting comment the person to whom it was directed made. Full stop. I don't think anyone covered themselves with glory on this one.
I still don't think I'll read him. I don't feel he has anything to say to me personally, and the anti-fat comments I've read quoted so far (whether or not he makes them regularly) don't convince me that I should seek him out for sexual advice of any kind. I put him in the same bucket as a lot of columnists that have nothing to say to me: NOT TO BE READ. If enough of us do not read his column, then he will go out of business eventually.
--AndyJo--
I've been a regular reader of Dan Savage's column for a very long time, and I've read all four of his books: a compendium of columns, the story of how he and Terry adopted DJ, the story of how he and Terry got gay-married, and Skipping Towards Gomorrah, which was his seven-deadly-sins book. I've also heard him occasionally on This American Life, and at the TAL live show I saw him read one of his essays.
I've only just started reading Kate's blog recently, but I find her witty and delightful. I've met Kate in person, but I feel like I "know" Dan much better.
So here's my take on it: I think Dan Savage is a very good guy who is human and therefore imperfect. He's currently bad on some transgendered issues. He's also bad on some aspects of fat acceptance, just like, oh, say, 99.9% of this entire freakin' society. Because his columnist persona is made of bluster and surety, he has come off in this whole back-and-forth blog flurry as rather a f**kwad, but I think he's basically decent, educable, and does NOT hate us all. (Maybe he hates Kate at this point...)
I wonder if any of you have read the Gluttony chapter in Skipping Towards Gomorrah. If I recall correctly, he talks about having been a pudgy kid from a pudgy family and having lost weight -- most likely that served to reinforce for him the idea that if he could do it anyone could. He also maintains constant vigilance to stay at his current weight -- probably the low end of his set point, but he probably has the idea that if he let up he could easily weigh 400 pounds. He also goes to a NAAFA conference, hears about creepy feeders, bonds with some nice fat women who have had WLS, and sadly notes the fact that no one there is pigging out as he'd hoped. So he ends up satisfying his gluttony requirements with a thin friend by taking a trip to one of those chain restaurants with insane portion sizes. So anyway, those are some of the experiences that have formed his attitude towards us and our movement.
I would really recommend taking a deep breath and re-evaluating this conflict. Dan's misunderstandings about fat are garden-variety, but his attitude towards us is actually, at least in that chapter of his book, more respectful than a lot of people's, if full of misunderstandings. He could even be an ally someday.
Does anyone else see the same thing I see in these statements?
Basically, he gets to decide what is or isn't acceptable for other people. Kate at size 14 (I believe) is acceptable to him. The woman in the article at 300-plus pounds isn't acceptable.
Well, what sizes exactly does he think are acceptable? It's been established that any weight over 350 is unacceptable. So, then, is 150 lbs. ok? What about 200? 250? 300? I'll bet he gives fat people bonus points for getting exercise and taking their vitamins.
Plenty of fat haters hate people who aren't even truly fat. They hate people who are "merely" overweight. They hate people who are "merely" obese, as compared to morbidly obese. They don't give anyone brownie points for exercise or diet.
Dan is setting himself up as the magnanimous concern troll. He's just concerned with your health, you see, and as long as you meet his criteria, he won't hate you anymore. How is this any different than the attitude of your average "reasonable" bigot. A white supremacist hates black people no matter what they do. Meanwhile, a run-of-the-mill racist expects all black people to behave perfectly always -- which is for their own benefit since it won't give anyone an excuse to oppress them anymore. When that entire group fails to meet these completely reasonable standards, the bigot has every excuse he or she needs to hate.
I've seen this crap a lot lately, particularly from so-called liberals, and directed at many disparate groups. I'm getting sick of it.
andreac, that's sort of the feeling I was getting off his stuff too. Guess time will tell
keshmeshi - I actually get a kick out of all the designations for fat that we have now. First there was overweight and then came obese. But then those darned fat people insisted on getting fatter so they had to come up with "morbidly obese." Now seriously, is that not about as bad as something can possibly get? If they didn't scare us with "obese," surely they'd scare us skinny with adding freaking *morbid* to it! But ZOMG that didn't do the job either! Why oh why were there still fat people, and oops...there were fat people in existence who were not only morbidly obese, but morbidly obese turns out to be not that fat after all. Now what??? Apparently they had to come up with "super morbidly obese" now. Because raising the spectre of death didn't stop people from weighing more than 100 lbs over their "ideal" body weights. What's next? Super deathy-death of death obese? Super fat of dying and burning in hell forever obese? I know it's actually a rather morbid (har har) sense of humor, but honestly and sincerely, as these terms fail to terrify anyone who realizes - hey, I'm "morbidly obese" and I'm not even that fat and I know lots of people who weigh a lot more who are also doing fine - I can't help but laugh as they scramble to keep up with them and determine where they draw the line for acceptance. Like they say ok ok ok, I'll accept overweight and obese, but not morbidly obese. Well, no ok, wait I'll accept overweight, obese and morbidly obese, but buddy if you cross the line into super morbidly obese, you lost me there. Keep watching them scramble and move the bar; it is rather amusing. Meanwhile we can all just keep accepting ourselves and each other and refusing to be shouted into silence. It's pretty cool.
Zero isn't a size, it's a warning sign. - Carson Kressley
Indeed. And on a related note, the WHO have now coined the term 'globesity' which according to WorldWideWords is "a recent WHO term for the global obesity epidemic (I came across it via the BBC, who used it to brand their January season of mainly 'reality' shows about fat people). Clearly the old favourites of 'epidemic' 'pandemic' 'crisis' and even 'timebomb' no longer adequately convey the message of OMG EVERYONE'S gonna DIE of TEH FATZ!!!!" to a sufficiently scary degree - and we wouldn't want anyone in any part of the world thinking they're safe from the fat plague now would we? It just serves to demonstrate how hyperbole and exaggeration increasingly rule wherever this topic is concerned, even from organisations which are normally more measured in their prose.
My personal feelings about Kate Harding or Dan Savage are immaterial in this issue. I don't know either one of them, and would not instantly jump to either one's defense (or jump down either one's throat) for reasons based on who I know and like better. It's simply irrelevant.
I take no issue with Dan Savage's abrasive style. I've read his column several times in the past, and generally found it funny and intelligent. I can understand the context of his voice, and some of the messages he's promoted in the past. Frankly, I can barely muster myself to care about the LARDASS acronym, and am still confused on whether he coined it himself or not. The letter-writer in that case was clearly a troll, and it was reasonable that he would make fun of her (as we do with trolls on fat acceptance sites -- though I find myself questioning the usefulness and productivity of that response. I won't go into that here.) It is, however, a problem that he seems to be painting the rest of us with that same brush, simply because we identify as fat acceptance advocates.
What I'm saying is, he's wrong on this issue. I don't care if he's right on matters of sexuality or many other issues -- he's wrong to suggest weight loss to anyone, and that is regardless of whether 99.9% of the population is also wrong. He's the one we're discussing here. Discussing him is relevant because he professes to agree with the basic tenets of fat acceptance. It is correct, in our position, to talk back against people we disagree with, whoever they might be. I don't care if he's good at what he does, otherwise. I don't care if his writing style is abrasive. I care that he persists in promoting stereotypes of fat people, and that he sets up an acceptable/unacceptable fat person dichotomy. You can still like someone and criticize aspects of their work, or certain messages they promote.
Weight loss sometimes happens, yes, and it sometimes coincides with beneficial health changes. But the pursuit of weight loss as a proxy for "health" has proven in practice to be risky and ineffective. I don't interpret his advice here as encouraging self-care among fat people -- he's using the popular vernacular ("stop eating drive-through garbage", "take up jogging and lose 35 lbs," etc.) to describe pursuing weight loss. He's not promoting "health" above all else, or he would be speaking in HAES terms. If he was concerned about health, he wouldn't suggest telling one's wife (in the situation described in that particular letter) to take up jogging and lose weight, he would say, "Take her to a doctor. Maybe there's a hormonal problem. Maybe she's depressed. Deal with the underlying problem and see what happens to her weight."
At the same time, he's taking a defensive position, as though his statements are not going to be "popular" -- as though he's spreading some revolutionary gospel -- because fat acceptance advocates disagree with it. He cops out with a classic bigot response when he compares Kate to the "thought police." I'm sure you've all heard people defend racist or sexist or otherwise discriminatory statements with "ooooh the PC-police are out to get me." We've seen it a million times, and it should raise a loud bullshit-alarm in anyone who's serious about fighting discrimination of any kind.
For everything else he might be doing right, he's still promoting the status-quo when it comes to weight. And that is wrong. If he doesn't believe in discriminating against fat people, then maybe he'd better do a little examining of his prejudices, and a little practicing of what he preaches.
If Dan's so convinced about his rightness, why does he continue to beat a fat dead horse? Bully pulpit, indeed.
It sounds to me as if not only are Dan's own readers giving him flack about his fatphobia, he sees those in the fact acceptance movement as a real force to be reckoned with. Either way, it's a win for fat acceptance.
rachelodd, you are missing the point:
It doesn't MATTER if a fat person is big via bad habits or genetics. The POINT is that we should be able to make that CHOICE for ourselves, without some self-righteous jackass telling us otherwise.
It's kinda like being gay. First off, there is no solid evidence that homosexuality is genetic in nature. However, does that give us an excuse to discriminate against those who are gay and lesbian? HELL NO. Does that give us an excuse to pick on those gays and lesbians who aren't "responsible" about their sexuality? HELL NO.
I know there is this big myth perpetuated about how only people who "take care" of themselves can be whole and happy, but it's not true. I'm morbidly obese through a combination of genetics and bad eating habits - but I feel fucking fabulous. So don't get on your high horse and tell me how "unhealthy" and "horrible" I must feel unless I specifically express so.
I normally would have kept this to myself but I think that the comments he gets in regards to FA from the FA community need another voice along side the onces spoken.
Savage speaks for himself, loud and clear. We are just merely pointing out the obvious and he's throwing a hissy (is that homophobic?) fit about it.
MichMurphy, yes, obviously, he's wrong. I just think it's also wrong to demonize him or write him off. He's wrong in a pretty typical way, and if we could all be more unflappable and reasoned in our responses to him, he might even be persuadable.
The heart of the issue is that he thinks two things: that fat is unhealthy, and that fat people can become thin people through diet and exercise. Pretty unremarkable wrongness.
What's remarkable is that he's willing to grant that people can be fat and still be fit. Normally, we'd count someone like that as something close to an ally, wouldn't we? Further, he says that fat people shouldn't be discriminated against -- WIN -- or poked with sticks -- DOUBLE WIN! (I hate when people poke me with sticks.)
The advice that started it all, whether it was genuine or not, was something that would make sense if he were not wrong about the two points above. It seems to me that he thinks of being fat as like smoking, and you could say to a smoking boyfriend/girlfriend, "I can't be with a smoker, and it's terrible for you anyway, so quit or I'm going to have to leave you" because it's possible to quit and smoking is in fact terrible for you. Since he IS wrong, I think if we could try and convince him of that without resorting to demonizing him, we might actually gain an ally.
I don't think he's persuadable or educable on this issue. He's out of his depth here. He simply has too many issues with fat family members who tormented him ever to forgive any of us for resembling them. I mean, this is classic. Kate completely made him look like a stupid, ignorant ass by calling him out on his prejudice and hypocrisy, and in response he tries to backtrack by saying (paraphrase), "Oh, I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about people who weigh twice as much as you and binge on fast food."
Bullshit. When he was complaining about girls wearing low-cut jeans with their "muffin tops" sticking out a couple of years ago and tried to link his complaints to the "obesity epidemic," he was getting his underalls macrameed by the sight of females no bigger than maybe a size 10 or 12 who didn't have the decency to hide their icky hip fat from him. Not only is he talking about women Kate's size, he's also talking about women much smaller, about anyone with an inch to pinch anywhere. We gross him out no end, and he's unbelievably fond of saying so again and again. And that's a whole lot of anyone compared to 400-pound women with binge-eating issues -- who are, contrary to popular belief, very very rare.
Not that I'd think it was OK for him to hoist up 400-pound women, with or without BED, as freak-show attractions even if they were the only targets of his contempt -- er, excuse me, the only ones whose health he was concerned about (snerk). But for him to say we FA people are the ones preventing these women from getting thin is beyond ridiculous. How often do middle-aged women -- even if they do have BED -- lose 200 to 300 pounds through "healthy" diet and exercise alone and keep it off for good? Almost never. And by telling them their efforts to improve their habits are worthless unless they do lose that much weight, you've pretty much ensured that they're not going to bother. So much for caring so deeply about the fatties' "health."
If someone's eating has become unbalanced then they should rebalance it and eat more of what they consider will do them good. If they cannot and I'm assuming that would be why they would write in to an agony uncle, then the quality of the food is not the issue, the point is there must be a reason why you are eating what you are eating, deal with that, just like you would if you were any other weight.
To call the food that nourishes a body 'crap' is to further demoralise someone who may already be in trouble, if they are eating it because it makes them feel good and makes life bearable,that is an attempt at self nurture not self abuse. You could argue that there are better ways, so go ahead make it civilly, what's the difficulty there? Why is that so hard to envisage? Advice without abuse, if you can't make the situation better, shut up.
Just for the record, I'm certainly not demonizing Dan Savage, and I don't think any of the comments here do, either. Kate may have personal issues with the man, but I don't think that is the thrust of why people are complaining about what he has written.
Yes, he may have capitulated on certain aspects of size acceptance in the past -- but that is not enough, nor should it be enough for us. No one gets awarded the Intergalactic Size Acceptance Awesomeness Award for admitting that men who lust after fat women, but who are too afraid to date fat women publicly, are cowards. We already knew that, and we didn't need Dan Savage to articulate it for us. It's nice that he did and all, but just because he's a semi-famous sex columnist who is syndicated in all the free alternative rags in the universe, does not mean we should scrape and bow and swoon when he throws us a fucking crumb.
No, he's not always wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But if he, at core, believes the shit about fat and health that he spewed in his "obesity as a lifestyle choice" commentary, then he's definitely not an ally -- if he is, then god save me from my friends. Despite what kind of nods he may have given fat acceptance in the past, his core beliefs about fat people still revert to stereotyping.
When someone is wrong about something, especially in public, we criticize them. That is how this game is played. A lot of us are criticizing fairly, without resorting to personal attacks -- and for a professional writer, fair, evidence-based criticism should be all the "education" required. We do not need to bend over backward to accommodate his prejudice.
Annie McPhee wrote: "Now what??? Apparently they had to come up with "super morbidly obese" now. Because raising the spectre of death didn't stop people from weighing more than 100 lbs over their "ideal" body weights. What's next? Super deathy-death of death obese? Super fat of dying and burning in hell forever obese?"
LOL!
The whole tone of Savage's comments, as he basically says it's okay to be fat, as long as you're not *too* fat, reminded me of those people who say they are in favour of gay rights, providing the gay people practice safe sex within committed relationships, and the people who say they are pro-choice, providing the woman in question doesn't use abortion as birth control...
Come on. Either you are or you aren't, you know? Make up your mind, Savage!
I thought Kate Harding got a bit cranky with him, and justifiably so.