Think Tank: Absolutes?

For the second-to-last one ("We affirm that we can be healthy at any size") -- would it be possible to add a matching counterpart after it, for when we are ill or disabled, but that still keeps the same central point?

I'm thinking of something like this (but better worded): "We affirm that we can be healthy at any size; and we affirm that if we are not healthy or able-bodied, the reason is often unrelated to our body size."

Ugh, I don't like my phrasing. Someone else could do that better. But I'd love it if the concept were included.

Thanks.

Great points, Paul... I'd add "dirty" to the list of prejudices to fight against.

What exactly is the function of the absolutes?

If the idea is to use them as a public statement of the aims of FA, then I would actually suggest revising the HAES affirmation. Otherwise it will simply be too easy for critics to seize on this point and attack the whole agenda. I can already hear the reductio ad absurdum -- or in this case, expansio ad absurdum -- arguments: there's no way a 500 lb. person can be healthy, etc. At the very least, if we're going to make such a striking claim, I think we should somehow note that there's evidence to support it, and thereby try to force critics to discuss of that evidence.

What about something like "we demand that the medical community and the media acknowledge the extensive scientific literature demonstrating that fat does not equal unhealthy and healthy does not equal thin." Or maybe something about the need to acknowledge the futility of most attempts to lose weight?

Again, these comments only apply if the absolutes are to circulate widely. We want to appeal to people's sense of justice and reason, not immediately confront them with a flat statement that most of them are certain not to believe.

"We demand equality - equal pay, equal treatment, and equal opportunity - in the workplace. "

-----
Suggest you also add: education, housing, transportation, judicial system, adoption, child custody, credit, health care, recreation and public facilities.
-----

"We affirm that we can be healthy at any size."

-----
Suggest: "We affirm that one's past, present or future health status, life expectancy, or likely cause of death cannot be determined solely by observation of body size."
-----

"We have the right to decent, preventive, and comprehensive health care, without doctors and the medical industry forcing us to lose weight before receiving treatment."

-----
Suggest "before receiving the same tests or treatment that would be offered a person of a different size with the same history and symptoms."
-----

My $0.02.

If there's not a reason for the current phrasing, I would have them all start with active present tense verbs:

We promote positive, diverse body images in the media.
We demand equality - equal pay, equal treatment, and equal opportunity - in the workplace [also: perhaps add other arenas here such as housing, law, education, social services, etc]
We insist on the right to decent, preventive, and comprehensive health care, without doctors and the medical industry forcing us to lose weight before receiving treatment.
We fight the cultural prejudices that fat people are lazy, gluttonous, weak-willed, and stupid.
We affirm that we can be healthy at any size.
We know that we do not need to justify our sizes.

'including'

I think the legal formula is "including but not limited to...", and I think that may be a good way to cover everything.

Call me Turkey Lurkey….You can also call me a newbie, I think I still qualify, even if I have been lurking around for about ten years. I explore and read when I need a bit of sanity to help deal with the craziness around me. Too many people I know have body image / food issues, and it’s hard to know where theirs end and mine begin. But enough about me…

I have thought, over the years, that I would like to be more involved, but wasn’t sure how. I’m not one who talks / writes just to hear themselves, and so I never posted because it would turn into “yes you’re right” and “I’ve been thinking the exact same thing for ten years now.” And so, I’m excited to read about the think tank meeting in Chicago, and hope to see a plan afterwards with which I can become involved.

My question here, and this is the newbie part of it, is why this is separate from NAAFA? I have read enough here and elsewhere in the fatosphere to know that there are issues, but haven’t been able to discover what those issues were. My concern is that too many groups with differing agendas end up with a scrambled message and no concrete goals, and thus no progress and no victories.

Also, NAAFA has a structure set up, and an annual meeting, and message boards, and could serve as the primary point of interface with the general public / media, and duplicating efforts may not be the most efficient way of doing things. I just wouldn’t want things to turn into the Life of Brian, and all of the various organizations (the Judean People’s Front, the People’s Front of Judea, the Judean Popular People’s Front, etc).

If anyone could help me with this, I’d appreciate it.

Waiting with bated breath for the reports from Chicago,

M

This is a great process.
If this is to be a public and publicized set of statements--and there certainly are good reasons to have something like this hand--like a manifesto, we can craft a set of general statements and then put the details where we like. They can be listed under their appropriate major statement, or whatever.
If this is a list of our bottom lines--that is, an internal document of things that all or most of us can agree on as our beliefs and our foci, the phrasing can be different, etc.
So, what is this? I'll treat it as a public thing for now. I'm envisioning a poster (posters were big back in my 1960s activist days):
The Fat Acceptance (or whatever) Manifesto

WE DEMAND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
in the workplace (add details)...
WE DEMAND OUR RIGHTS
to full and unbiased medical treatment, to workplace and public space accomodations (add details)...
WE REFUTE STEREOTYPES OF FAT PEOPLE
and other forms of social prejudice waged against people of size...
WE ASSERT OUR RIGHT TO LIVE OUR LIVES WITHOUT JUSTIFYING OUR INDIVIDUAL PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES
WE SUPPORT IMAGES OF PHYSICAL DIVERSITY IN THE MEDIA

This ain't the last word! It's just a trial.
Anyway, I wonder about HAES and the whole area of fat being healthier than thin. I think we should work on these things, but in a succinct statement of fat acceptance beliefs, it will be hard to deal with the fact that health can be defined in many ways. Likewise, the task of refuting the claims about fat being linked to disease belongs not in a short statement about fat acceptance, but as part of a set of actions we may commit to as a group. I don't know how else to work these things in.
I'll be at the meeting on Saturday. Wish you could all be there!

I actually like all of these absolutes. I also like how they are positive, declarative statements. I don't detect a "tilting at windmills" kind of vibe. I like the very specific focus.

I also like what goddess did with them putting them together in a Manifesto. That's a bit more over the top, but as we go along we may find that we need that. I looked at it and I found it very inspirational.

With respect to HAES, I think it should be part of our process. However, I would personally not like to see us get into a "fat vs thin -- what's better" scenario, because at the end of the day I think it distracts from some of the fundamentals. In my view, whether or not fat is good or bad we STILL must demand our rights, we still must receive appropriate medical treatment, and so on. HOWEVER -- HAES needs to be part of our educational focus -- I feel that strongly. I feel that Health at Every Size means exactly that: We can be healthy at whatever size we happen to be.

So... That's my two cents.

--Andy Jo--

I agree with those suggesting more specificity about the relationship between health and size. We certainly don't want to exclude the "unhealthy", whatever that might mean. What we want, in my opinion, is to disconnect this ridiculous equation of fat = unhealthy, thin = healthy.

Of course, this all could be covered by adding the word "unhealthy" to the previous bullet point listing some of the other nasty cultural prejudices. However, I can see where this one needs to be on it's own, as it seems to be an important cornerstone of the whole case against fat people. Just like with other groups who've suffered discrimination, the medical community's willingness to throw it's (overblown) prestige and power behind a cultural prejudice creates a huge roadblock to change. In my opinion, confronting the pseudoscience is really the place to start -- seems to me that's been an important part of other successful human rights movements.

Pat M.

Fat Is Fine!