To the community:

After much consideration, I've decided to cease writing at Big Fat Blog as of April 1, 2009.

It's been a long and incredible journey. A little 5-page website I put up to support my college lecture on sizism back in 2000 ended up being - for a long while - the largest fat acceptance blog on the web; the site lived on to see a community of nearly 3,000 people sign up to join in the fight for fat acceptance and fat rights. I've always, always been impressed with the level of discourse and incredible intelligence of our members.

2008 was a big year of change for me professionally and personally. As has always been the case, BFB isn't my day job. I was able to devote a lot more time to it in the past than I am now, and rather than allow the quality of the site to decrease any further I'd rather simply stop.

The struggle for fat equality is, in a word, hard. But I've been encouraged by things such as the BFB and Fat Rights Coalition (nee COFRA) Think Tanks, the formation of the Fat Rights Coalition, and the number of blogs that have sprouted up. It's pretty amazing to think that just about 9 years ago it was BFB and a bunch of nothin'; now it's hundreds of great resources, written by smart, sharp folks. I hope people are willing to take that activism offline and make some positive change in the world.

Thank you, everyone, for your support over the past 8 1/2 years.

Paul

Now, some questions:

So what's going to happen from here?

Effective immediately, no new member registrations will be processed. (As there are a fair number of unprocessed registrations, this is essentially retroactive to early December, 2008.)

As I said at the outset, I'll still be publishing articles to the blog until April 1st. The frequency may pick up a bit. After that point the site will remain up until October 1, 2009, at which point it will go dark; this will allow the Forums to continue on - they've generally seen more activity than the blog itself in the past few months.

What about Big Fat Index and Big Fat Facts?

Both sites will also go offline on October 1, 2009.

What about my data?

I will destroy all personal data (databases) and backups that I have the ability to delete after the site shuts down. I will not sell the data at any price.

What about...

Feel free to ask in the comments below, and I'll do my best to answer.

Thanks again, everyone.

If you're in the Chicago area, there's a store that could use your help to stay afloat.

Oak Park's Sew Particular - an alteration shop specializing in plus sizes - and its companion consignment shop It's Sew You are holding a 'Help Me Stay in Business' sale. Shop owner Vivian Colette is behind on rent by several months and could be out of business altogether soon.

Colette, 56, is single, and says the business is her only source of income. If her last-ditch effort fails, she's uncertain of her next step. Working out of home isn't ideal. She started out with an at-home venture and knows that many of her customers who are handicapped would have difficulty climbing stairs to her home.

When my wife needed a dress altered last year, Vivian was nothing but professional, helpful, and welcoming.

Here's a map of the store and the website. Please check it out.

DebraSY pointed me to a great report from the Kansas City Fox affiliate on fat health care. The story is surprisingly good, and it's available in video form - definitely worth a look.

The narrative here comes from Ann Pei, whose sister Joyce was denied proper care due to her size.

Studies have found health professionals spend less time with obese patients and view them as less likable and more emotional. Young doctors claim medical school are addressing the issue.

"They always taught us to confront our own biases, not just about obesity, but all chronic health conditions. Confront your biases. That helps you meet the patients where they are," says Dr. Veronica Anwuri with Saint Luke's Medical Group.

Debra also notes that Laurie Todd, the first person interviewed in the piece, has started a group called Stay the Course KC "dedicated to bringing out fat people who have isolated themselves, and getting them reinvolved in the community and with one another."

This is a really straightforward piece overall and I'm most impressed at the lack of negativity here. It's handled with careful consideration and yet drives the point home nicely. Good stuff.

As you've seen over the past few days, the biggest news in the fat community is that Canada's Supreme Court has ruled that fat people are entitled to two seats for the price of one. Air Canada and WestJet had sought to overturn the "one person, one fare" policy enacted by the Canadian Transportation Agency that we covered back in January.

The agency ordered the companies last January to adopt a policy of “one person, one fare.”

That would mean, for example, that a disabled person who needs additional room for a wheelchair, or an obese person who needs an additional seat, could not be charged extra.

It would also mean that, if a disabled person has to be accompanied by an attendant, the attendant would ride free.

Naturally this has brought thousands of truly brave (cough), anonymous (cough) internet trolls out of the woodwork on myriad newspaper sites, citing how terrible this is and how we're all just fat and need to lose weight, how not-fat people are "subsidizing the lifestyle choice of the obese", and all the usual crap. Glad they're being constructive.

The CBC has a more contextual article on this ruling. A WestJet official wondered how his company would implement this policy in a non-discriminatory fashion. Here's an idea: at the airport, include two actual, real seats from your planes. If a person can not sit with the armrest down, that person needs two seats. Seems simple. Is simple. And go the extra mile by making this a private area, too.

All in all, this is a superb ruling and the Canadian Transportation Agency should be applauded for upholding our rights, enforcing their ruling, and allowing fat people to fly with dignity - something that the loudmouthed "thin" people on the internet are taking for granted. [links via DeeLeigh, CarrieP, and roughly 40 others!]

Hey there - it's been a while, hasn't it?

I wanted to check in and let everyone know that yes, I'm still here and yes, I'm still reading the forums and keeping up with registrations. But I confess that offline life has gotten in the way - and really, taken precedence - for a little while now.

On top of that I've hit a personal fatigue point with blogging and thus, the time away.

If you're itching for more news, though, I will gladly point you over to the forums, as they've been pretty active lately. There are a lot of solid topics and a lot of new faces, too!

Quick thoughts, though:

• Ruby, the new Style TV show, certainly looks like exploitative junk. Has anyone seen it?
• Is it possible for anyone to run a food blog and not have it turn into some sort of diet blog? If so, please link up an example. (I'm looking at you, Serious Eats.)
• Truly positive fat news has been hard to come by as of late.

The new book from Kate Harding and Marianne Kirby (aka The Rotund), Lessons from the Fat-o-sphere: Quit Dieting and Declare a Truce with Your Body, is now available for pre-order from Amazon.com! Woot!

To all BFB readers in the US:

Vote.

This is it. No excuses.

Wellroundedtype2 is calling for a safe space for fat athletes. Here's a quote (within a quote!) from an exchange she had with another blogger, spacedcowgirl:

You pose a great question about a safe space for fat athletes. I don't know of one but that would be a seriously awesome resource. (Imagine being able to discuss issues general to fitness, but also fat-specific stuff like chafing or adjusting yoga positions to accommodate one's body, without having to hear about how you should just lose weight.) Maybe you could do a post asking about this so that the Fatosphere feed readers would see it and hopefully offer suggestions.

I think it's a fantastic idea.

I am finally caught up on registrations.

I'd like to take a moment to apologize to everyone for not remedying the situation sooner; the registrations simply stacked up and my lack of free time meant a huge backlog. But now, there's no backlog - so if you received the welcome email, you're all set!

Thanks for your patience!

As a footnote, out of the pending registrations about 20% were spammers, people thinking this was a dating site (real people, not spambots) and an interesting new segment - alleged doctors looking to "help" members. Riiiight.

The European Medicines Agency has recommended that Acomplia, a dangerous diet drug with serious side effects, be pulled from the market.

Obese or overweight people using Acomplia have twice the risk of mental disorders than those taking a placebo, the London- based European Medicines Agency, which regulates treatments in the 27-nation European Union, said today in a statement.

This is characterized as a "death knell" for the drug in the EU. In the US, it's been shot down three times by the FDA so Sanofi-Aventis, the drug's maker, will try for a fourth time by promoting it as an anti-diabetes drug. Hey, that's great.

Also of note from this Bloomberg piece is that Alli, the heavily-marketed poop-your-pants diet drug, got the nod to be sold over the counter in the EU. Stock up on dark pants, friends.

I'm pleased to spread the word on the Fat Rights Coalition's logo contest. You might remember the Fat Rights Coalition under its previous name of COFRA.) The deadline for the contest is next Friday, so get crackin'!

Here are the details from the FRC's President, Carrie Padian:

We are calling on all graphically inclined members! We are still desperately in need of a fantastic logo for The Fat Rights Coalition, so we are holding a contest*. We can't wait to see what you can come up with! Here's the scoop:

1. Any member of The Fat Rights Coalition (formerly COFRA) who is interested in submitting a logo may do so by emailing it as an attachment to carrie@fatrights.org.
2. Submission deadline is October 31st, 2008 at midnight PST.
3. We will review submissions and post our three favorites by November 7th.
4. All members of The Fat Rights Coalition will have the opportunity to vote on the final logo.
5. Voting will be open for one week afterward and will conclude on November 14th, 2008 at midnight PST.
6. We will post the winner on fatrights.org.

*The winning logo will become property of The Fat Rights Coalition, but we will absolutely give you credit.

For designers out there, this is a prime opportunity to use your skills and talents toward a great cause. The Coalition is ready to move forward towards its goals, and you can help. I strongly encourage everyone to participate!

Nice critique of the use of fat kids on TV shows over at Jossip, focusing on Desperate Housewives' Juanita Solis; she's been the brunt of blatant fat jokes on the show.

"Also, Madison [De La Garza, the actress who portrays Juanita] is never present during scenes featuring the adult characters talking about her weight."

That is entirely off the mark. Seven years old is still a child, and at that age you're old enough to realize that you're being made fun of. But what's the solution, only hire skinny child actors and put them in fat suits, like Ryan Reynolds in Just Friends?

As I said, this was great to see and surprisingly sympathetic to our cause. Unfortunately there aren't any good solutions here, but again, good on Jossip for calling this crap out.

If you watched last night's final US Presidential Debate, you probably noticed that Senator John McCain was the first of the two candidates to call out fat publicly in some fashion. Here's a complete transcript. He said:

The rise of obesity amongst young Americans is one of the most alarming statistics that there is. We should have physical fitness programs and nutrition programs in schools. Every parent should know what's going on there.

Yeah, not so much, McCain. From a Junkfood Science post back in May:

The latest statistics on childhood overweight from the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. They show that since the childhood growth charts were redesigned nearly a decade ago, there have been no statistically significant change in the percentages of young people at or above the 95th percentile (labeled as “overweight” and some are now calling “obese”).

Redesigning charts'll do that for ya!

McCain also called for "rewarding" people who joined wellness programs and health clubs. Wellness, as regular readers know, is just the new codeword for "not fat." This is a horrible, horrible idea.

To be totally fair, though, "prevention" of fat is covered explicitly in Senator Barack Obama's health care plan:

The nation faces epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats of pandemic flu and bioterrorism.

An increasing number of Americans are suffering and dying needlessly from diseases such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, asthma and HIV/AIDS, all of which can be delayed in onset if not prevented entirely.

On fat kids, the Obama-Biden plan says:

Childhood obesity is nearly epidemic, particularly among minority populations, and school systems can play an important role in tackling this issue.

Nearly epidemic is notable here; there's a difference. But it's still wrong. It references this 5-year-old NIH piece, geared towards "preventing" fat versus actually backing it up with facts. (In addition, the NIH is the organization that redefined the BMI ten years ago; disappointing because they do some good work.)

The plan also references a 2006 CDC report on fat. Too bad it, too, was debunked by the CDC itself:

As JFS has posted repeatedly, back in 2004, in the June issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the CDC had reported that there had been no significant increases in the numbers of U.S. adults or children considered “overweight” or “obese” from 1999-2000 through 2001-2002.

Sorry, Barack. While I give you points for not calling it an epidemic outright, and not namechecking it in order to scare the crap out of people, the argument is still a house of cards.

(Cross-posted to Open Salon.)

You may have already seen this; even if you have, you should probably read it again.

Amp (who writes at the underrated, excellent Alas, a Blog) has created The Fat Monologue:

This is a comic I did many months ago (or was it over a year ago?), for a gallery show. Because it was designed to be viewed on a wall, it’s kind of hard to look at online — the panels kind of spiral around rather than going in straight, easy-to-scroll through rows.

It's marvelous stuff - easily one of the best fat-related pieces I've seen ever.

This is clever, albeit... evil. BFBer Viola discovered that a Duke University study looked at whether fat kids reading a book with a weight-loss story line ended up losing weight. And:

In the study, the researchers assigned 31 severely overweight girls in a weight-management program to read a book called Lake Rescue, part of a series called Beacon Street Girls. The girls were all aged 9 to 13.

The researchers then compared the body mass indexes of girls in the three groups up to six months later. On average, the girls who read Lake Rescue gained better control of their weight, moving from the 98th to the 97th percentile in a range of weights, [Study Author Alexandra C.] Russell said.

(Above from the WaPo version of the article.) The book itself is described best in the LA Times article:

The book in question is "Lake Rescue," part of the Beacon Street Girls series of books, aimed at tween girls, that tackles issues such as cyber bullying and divorce. In this book, an overweight girl goes to an outdoor adventure camp with her class. Although worried about being picked on for being heavy, she finds a role model who teaches her about becoming healthier through eating right and trying new activities.

Interestingly, the HealthDay version of the article that I quoted has a more ambiguous take than the LA Times Blogs one. The LA Times reports on the exact weight lost:

The "Lake Rescue" group decreased its BMI scores 0.71%, the group that read another book decreased its BMI scores .33%, and the group that had no intervention increased its BMI scores .05%.

So the girls who read a non-weight-loss-related book lost weight, too. Maybe the fact that all of the participants were already enrolled in Duke's weight loss program had a little something to do with that?

All told, it's interesting stuff. Correlation does not equal causation, of course, so it remains to be seen if this is just a big coincidence (and, you know, all of the participants were already in a weight loss environment - no small thing, this.) It'd be even better to see books embed HAES and pro-size messages though, wouldn't it?

Oulton Hall plans to weigh kids and change their Sunday lunch cost based on their weight:

Youngsters will be asked to step on the scales to see how much their restaurant meal should cost.
A child weighing five stone will pay £5 while a youngster who tips the scales at 10 stone will have to fork out £10. Bosses at five-star Oulton Hall near Leeds claim the idea is "just a bit of fun".

Fun. Yep. Loads. Oh, but it's voluntary - that makes it all okay, right?

Spokesman Nigel Massey said: "There will no doubt be people who say it's not politically correct. Well, frankly, they should get a life and stop being so miserable."

Nigel Massey's contact information through Massey Partnership Ltd.:

Address:
4 Wimpole Street
London W1G 9SH
England
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7637 3220
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7637 3226
Registered Office:
56, Brunswick Gardens
Kensington
London W8 4AN

Thanks, Richie.

Even though he realizes his opinion is unpopular (never mind "wrong", "bullheaded", "ignorant", "stupid", et al), Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum's board in the UK has decided that fat kids should be removed from their homes against their will and in some cases be forced to have their stomachs stapled.

Mr Fry said: "My point will be that we regard malnourished children as being abused and so with those children who are so overweight, either consciously or by neglect because their parents allow it, there should be a case for them being removed from their parents to a paediatric ward and put under weight management by doctors."

Again, Fry feels he'll be defeated when the issue comes up for debate at the Forum's annual conference tomorrow. But the fact that he can float this idea at all in any context and be taken seriously should serve as a wake-up call for people who feel that this issue is overblown or exaggerated by us "angry" fat people.

To show Fry's ignorance, I offer this quote from the article regarding parents of the children who would be in these "correction" camps:

"The parents will be permitted access but they will be frisked for chocolate and fizzy drinks when they enter the ward."

Clearly, all parents do is give their kids chocolate (sugar!) and soda (more sugar!) in order for them to be fat. Why, it's so simple really: instead of ensuring that these kids might actually feel good about their bodies and well-being, let's instead ship them off to camps where they'll be subject to "treatment" and having permanent, doctor-approved damage done to their internal organs. All in the name of trying to avoid fat.

Part of the problem here, as with any argument that falls into this court, is that there's simply no convincing evidence provided by Fry that this is really necessary. The burden of proof has been totally removed from people who are anti-fat and has been shifted to those of us who are for fat rights and equality. Did you ever wonder why that is? Why Fry can get away with these statements without even citing a study? I mean, that would at least give us something to pick apart and consider on its own merits.

Instead we have an ignorant, ignorant opinion that is out there in the public sphere and doing nothing but damage. I mean, fat kids in the UK are already placed on an "at risk" (for what?) list and already could and have been removed from homes. Fry just wants to up the ante and make fat = abuse.

"For the sake of the children it does need to be done because we have got children who are horrendously fat."

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome our latest modifier for fat... "horrendously!" And of course it's FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN! We have to do it for the children! Now! Urgent! Kids! Stuff! Things! Staple their stomachs! Fixed! Children!

"I fully expect to be defeated in the debate. I go into it knowing that the prospect of removing children from their parents is something that the medical profession will shy away from."

You want to talk about abuse, Mr. Fry? Taking kids from their homes - that's abuse. [Thanks, Beanietude.]

Not perfect, but a step. vidyapriya noted that the latest Toronto Star advice column tackles fat in its second question this edition. The response, while not perfect in the acceptance realm, is pretty good - surprising!

The question comes from a woman whose sister is fat; she brings up the usual concerns about it and even notes that the family went to therapy. The bottom line?

Back off. Do not discuss weight, healthy eating, dieting or working out with your sister, and advise your parents to also stop all pressure on this front. Acceptance is what your sister needs most of all.

She may always be a plus-size woman, so stop trying to remake her. Your unconditional acceptance is the boost she needs to her self-image, whether or not she decides to improve her nutrition.

Nice.

Funny thing is, earlier this morning I was reading Amy Dickenson's advice column in the Chicago Tribune from Sunday and she actually trotted out a mild HAES approach. Again, not perfect in part because Dickenson brings up The Biggest Loser as a positive example of a show for the question's author (gah.) But look at this message to the question's author in regards to a fat 12-year-old she's "concerned" for:

Her self-esteem is partially influenced by how she thinks others view her—if you think she's terrific, regardless of her size, then she will like the way she feels when she's around you. This can have a positive impact on her.

That's some pretty great stuff to be seeing in the papers, I must admit.

In case you haven't heard, Abundia is a weekend retreat for fat women that takes place annually in the Chicago suburbs. The retreat features a number of size-positive workshops and events - including a keynote from Marilyn Wann this year.

While I obviously haven't gone to Abundia, I know people who have and I've always seen a positive change in people who have gone. I think that removing all of the stereotypes and limitations around size, and just letting people be as they are, really goes a long way towards liberation.

This year's event is from November 7-9 in Zion, Illinois (far north suburb.) Registration for Abundia closes next Wednesday, and you can sign up today via PayPal. If you're in the area, I highly suggest you check it out.

Urgh, for both the photo and the article. Of course, the headline - which is sensationalist - isn't really what the study actually claims.

The research team, supervised by Dr Angelo Tremblay, measured the spontaneous food intake of 14 students after each of three tasks.

The first was relaxing in a sitting position, the second reading and summarizing a text, and finally completing a series of memory, attention, and vigilance tests on the computer.

After 45 minutes at each activity, participants were invited to eat as much as they wanted from a buffet. The researchers had already calculated that each session of intellectual work requires only three calories more than the rest period.

However, despite the low energy cost of mental work, the students spontaneously consumed 203 more calories after summarizing a text and 253 more calories after the computer tests.

This could be causing the so-called epidemic, but then again there are about 5,000 other things that could be. Just another oddball study that got press and gave someone an excuse to use a dehumanizing photo of a fat person's belly. [Thanks, M. Varner]

All: my hard drive died and went to hard drive heaven (or started its next life as a lemur, your choice) and thus I'm offline for the time being. More updates as soon as I have something to boot from!

We've talked about Alton Brown before. The bespectacled host of Food Network's Good Eats has had his ups and downs with his own weight and feelings on fat people. On that BFB post, he spoke incredibly ill of his own body. And if you saw one of his previous Feasting on... specials you may recall his OMG I NEED TO DO SITUPS NOW BECAUSE OF ALL THIS HIGH-CAL HIGH-FAT FOOD routine which became truly old, sad, and upsetting.

Unfortunately, Brown has come out of the fat-hating closet for good in a recent interview that got picked up at Ecorazzi. His words:

”I've struggled with weight all my life, and probably always will. But I was on my most recent book tour I was shocked by the number of overweight families,” he says. “People would come up to me and say, ‘Oh, we love the Food Network.’ Well, no (expletive); did you eat the TV? There’s only four of you and you can’t ride in an elevator together. I’ll probably make fat people angry, but we need, as a culture, to be ashamed. It’s not “… healthy.”

Angry? Check.

I'm angry because it's another case of a food celebrity (Jamie Oliver) trying to shame all of the fat people away. And on top of it, it really seems to be a situation where Brown has had negative body images ("all [his] life" mind you) and when he sees fat people, he's reminded of what he could be... maybe, if his set point is higher than its current spot... and he's afraid of that. So I really do think this comes from a place of fear and ignorance ultimately.

Brown unfortunately makes the foolish mistake of wrapping fat people up with the issue of sustainability, because clearly fat people don't eat local foods ever, don't cook for themselves (HELLO YOU ARE ON A COOKING SHOW, TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO COOK) and eat crap all the time. And man, it's another instance - another! - of someone using fat people as scapegoats for everything that she/he sees as wrong with the world. Does Brown honestly, truly think that if everyone was thin, everything would be better? That McDonald's would go away? That our food and eating patterns would change? If he does, boy, that speaks volumes.

In the end, though, anyone who decides to consciously say, "You know what? Screw you - you all should be ashamed of yourselves and your bodies" is someone who doesn't deserve any more of my time, attention, nor money. Alton, you're damn right I'm angry. I'm ashamed of you and your childish, ignorant attitude. [Thanks, Dreama.]

Cory, can you ever post anything related to food that doesn't include a jab at fat people? Ever? Come on. It makes you look ignorant.

Listen. I know that you went on a diet and lost weight - that's been mentioned in many of your posts in the past. Swell. Great. Whatever. I don't care. More importantly, what's it got to do with brownies? What - they have fat in them? And people may eat them?! So? What's it matter to you? Clearly you still like the Tetris Brownies (I do too!) but if you've got hangups over food because of your diet, you should consider having someone else write about food on Boing Boing. Just sayin'.

I've always said that blogging about fat and commenting on fat blogs is a form of activism, and I stand by that statement. But offline activism is an important component of the movement and, frankly, we're collectively failing at it.

For years and years NAAFA was held up as The National Organization™ for fat people but a few years ago, the fatosphere effectively called NAAFA out for its baggage-laden past and present-day inaction, effectively neutralizing nearly all of its power (such as it was) in the fatosphere and, arguably, outside of NAAFA itself. ISAA has been invisible in recent years. The Coalition of Fat Rights Activists is just getting started, and it may be months before its efforts bear fruit.

But when things like the silly Alabama law break in the news, I don't turn to the site of any organization; I turn to the BFB Forums and other fat blogs. That's a good first step, but from what I saw there was very little asked about what we can do to change things - versus complaining about how things were awful. I agree! It does suck! Now what?

This is where the power of having an organization or organizations on our side comes in. Ideally, this is something that is pounced on by said organization and an action with a clear goal is defined. Individual letters and phone calls do count, but when one can write and say that an x,000 strong organization is backing that same notion... that's more powerful.

But for now we've got a few small and/or weak organizations that are ineffective in getting people excited about fat rights, and at least one that's in startup mode. I'm frankly unsure if old organizations will be tackling issues like this. Maybe. But who knows?

That said, when I use the term "activism" I'm thinking about organized campaigns to bring about change at a legal or social level. Combatting Alabama's law with facts about the flawed BMI, for instance, in a proper setting such as a city council meeting. But maybe I'm being too limiting.

About a month ago, Marilyn Wann sent an email out regarding her 1,000 Fat Cranes project. It was picked up by several blogs, but I didn't post it here. Initially I dismissed it because, well, it's sending paper cranes to Japan. I didn't think much of it, to be honest. Marilyn's email stated:

The 1,000 Fat Cranes project is a response to a new government policy in Japan that involves measuring people's waists and fining their employers if the tape reads more than about 34 inches. (Here's the New York Times report on this story.)

But in retrospect I was being too harsh. I understand why people may dismiss it or feel it's not doing much because the initial read is, "What? Paper cranes? How will that change anything?" But give Marilyn credit, as I now do: it's an offline action, it's something participatory, and it's better than the absolute nothingness NAAFA's been doing (at least in my preferred style of activism.) It's a symbolic action, one whose goal really is to show that we've got the numbers to back up our arguments.

And if you choose not to participate, well, I understand. I won't hold it against you. Not every offline action will be to everyone's liking. But let's take a moment to acknowledge and thank the people who are doing things offline, for they are working on filling a very very large void in our movement.

Kate Harding has a post with resources on how to help those affected by Hurricane Gustav, which is aiming straight for New Orleans and is expected to make landfall tomorrow.

This is a powerful storm and as Kate points out, the city is essentially saying "to each her own" when it comes to shelter.

My thoughts go out to everyone affected.

I have a lot to say about Alabama's decision to charge people with a BMI over 30 an additional $25 per month for health insurance. Some words are not printable.

For now I'll point you to April's post:

I almost exclusively use medical treatment for preventative care, and have no major health problems aside from chronic allergies. If I worked for the state of Alabama and did not adopt a weight loss plan, I would suddenly be paying more for insurance than a thin sick person.

Eric A. Finkelstein, author of The Fattening of America, had this to say:

I think the question that people need to ask is, Are we better off with a strategy that may discriminate against some subset of individuals but that, on net, may substantially improve the health and the financial health of the country. And I think that's really what this law boils down to.

I call BS on that.

And mind you, we're just talking about people with a BMI over 30 - that doesn't equal fat, and in fact a fucking Mayo Clinic study found it unreliable. Good thing the state of Alabama decided to, you know, not assume anything. Because that would make them look incompetent.

Oh, and the lobbying group representing Alabama's state workers headed by Mac McArthur had this to say:

"It's a positive."

GO LOBBYING GROUP!

Here in the US, the Department of Health and Human Resources made news last week for proposing a new law that would give any medical professional the ability to refuse participation in abortion-related surgeries solely due to morality. As an example, if a woman wanting an abortion went to a doctor whose personal beliefs were anti-abortion, that doctor could say no and walk away with the full backing of the US Government.

Understandably this is a controversial proposal. I found that interesting as there has been similar controversy surrounding pharmacists and birth control; some states and big chains support pharmacists' personal beliefs over patients' needs and wants, and it appears this legislation could be interpreted to support those beliefs due to its ambiguity.

I see both of these instances as examples of how abortion - a surgical procedure - is intertwined with morals and beliefs. It's a big vote of confidence by the Bush administration in the beliefs of individuals.

Upon hearing this news, one of the first things I considered was the morality of weight loss surgery (WLS). In very basic medical terms one form of WLS can involve a doctor removing part of a person's stomach and intestines; it's not trivial. WLS has received more attention over the past few years as something risky and dangerous; nevertheless it's still considered a viable option by many doctors for many patients.

And yet I rarely see or hear news stories about the morality of this decision; I'm wondering why this is. WLS is a surgery with long lasting physical and emotional consequences. It can kill. It can shorten one's life. It can reinforce negative psychological behaviors. It's a money-maker. It can be prescribed by over-eager doctors. And yet, there's no debate I'm seeing in a public space about this procedure.

That's not to say it's not happening of course. If you've seen it on the web, TV, radio, or elsewhere please feel free to link it up.

My concern stems from the lack of apparent discourse and more importantly the lack of outrage about WLS outside of the fat rights movement. Could it be that the assumption out there that fat people eat too much (or exercise too little - whichever misconception you choose) trumps any argument of morality? Has the mortality of the decision been moved to any point prior to the surgery? Does the outrage need to come from a more established place (ie, not the fat rights movement) in order to gain a foothold? I'd like to discuss this.

(And I feel the need to add a disclaimer: yes, some may interpret my post to be a comparison of abortion and WLS. It's not intended that way - I'm more interested in a comparison of the moral question. We do our movement and any form of civilized discussion an enormous disservice if we decide to disallow or censor comparisons.)

The following story was submitted by BFB member rainalee.

Continued from part 2.

You read to gain knowledge and maybe even understanding of the other. In return you can ask what you always wanted to know. But beware that the book is reading you as much as you are reading the book...

-- Living Library on "readers"

I was 'borrowed' almost straight away by a petite, beautiful woman from Indonesia, who wanted to know what it was like being me. She assumed I wouldn't be able to do most things (go to the cinema, fly on planes, go swimming) and was surprised to hear I had done/was doing all those things. After asking me quite a lot of questions, she shared with me her childhood when she was ten kg lighter than her current weight, and how her parents wouldn't let her eat dinner because she would 'get fat'. Instead she watched everyone else eat and was given a half glass of milk. She was very open to understanding that our notions of 'normal' and 'average' were not probably correct, and that people came in all shapes and sizes.

The 'librarian' actually had to stop our conversation as I was 'booked' for my next session! And so it went - I was busy for the whole time!

I had a wide variety of people 'read' me - from a woman who was quite tall/thin and said she varied in weight up and down ten kg, but how she hated herself when she was at the high end and didn't know how to stop wasting the energy on it -- she wanted to know how I had moved from being focused on body size to just getting on with life -- to a self-confessed exercise fanatic who at first didn't understand how I could be fat while having had such a history of 'successful' dieting (i.e. long periods of very little calorific intake), but was very, very open to listen, and ended up saying she wanted to get back to me and support the idea of a HAES group on campus(!).

Another person I talked with was an 18-year old recovering anorexic/bulimic who wanted to talk to me about body acceptance in teens, and wants to eventually go out into the schools and talk to teens about body image and acceptance, discrimination, and how healthy bodies are all shapes and sizes.

Most were shocked when I said I had received insults, attacks, been belittled by people I didn't know, abused by doctors.

One of the women who talked to me was talking about stereotypes, and I said that people had assumed that I was dirty, smelly, un-organised, out of control and unintelligent. Her response was, "Well, I can understand the first things...but you are so not unintelligent!" and then she realised what she said.

I said, "Well, actually, I'm none of the other things either," (with a smile, because I knew she didn't mean it as an insult) and just paused for a moment. I could see the proverbial penny drop for her. Because even though she considered herself as enlightened, she had bought into all those stereotypes.

She told me afterwards that she assumed I spoke regularly to groups about fat acceptance, and when I said it was my first time, she was stunned. She told me I should!

There was a lot of discussion about the media's connection of 'health' with 'losing weight,' and people were quite open to believe that a fat person can be healthy - mainly because they probably see me doing a lot of stuff around campus and I'm obviously not unhealthy.

The second-last person I talked to was a fat woman who was bigger and taller than I am. I have actually spoken to her a little around campus before, but we haven't really talked about the experience of being fat. This was the hardest session for me.

She came to the session to talk to another fat person about how terrible the New South Wales government was because it won't put WLS on the public health scheme...so she can't afford it. "And I just need to get the weight off. If I got the weight off, I could do so much...you know what I mean - you are there, you are feeling the same things," (argh.)

I wasn't even sure what to say to her, because I have so been there, but I'm so not there anymore! I did mention that maybe in her quest to be 'healthier' (her euphemism for losing weight), that having weight loss surgery with its poor 'success'-rate, and myriad complications, she would end up unhealthier than she was at the moment.

I tried to bring it back to acceptance so many times, but realised she wasn't hearing me (which was very frustrating). So I found some common ground (inability to buy clothes in our town) and shared what I had done to fix that (buying from Ebay/online sites), and then talked about being proactive in changing circumstances -- instead of waiting to 'get thin' before doing anything.

I think I did help a little and I promised to give her some resources - one of which was the book If Not Dieting, Then What?, which started me on the path to acceptance that I was fat, and not a thin person trapped in a fat body. I know the book is not perfect, by any means, but it helped put a big chink in my armour, and has for other people I know as well, so I thought it might be a good starting-point for her, since she just was on a totally different plane than where I am currently.

But I did battle in my head afterwards, wondering if I said the right things to people, whether I did educate in any way, whether I helped. And the day afterwards I had a bingeing episode which was just nuts (haven't done that in years!) I don't know whether it was a reaction, or if thinking about it all just catapulted me back into that mindset, or what. But I'm ok now, and back to believing that it was a very positive experience. It helped that the people who participated were there to confront their own prejudices, and were open (mostly.)

There was recognition amongst the 'librarians' that I was the book that was most likely to receive negative reactions, and they were quite concerned about me afterwards, offering me counseling if I needed it (!), but I told them I was fine, and the people were great.

'Readers' gave feedback to the librarians that they had been really challenged and had changed their minds about quite a few things. It was confronting, challenging, positive and negative, all rolled up into one. And if I had the chance to do it again, I would, like a shot.

There seems to be so little FA in Australia – it’s just not heard about here (at least not where I am!) I think people look at me as though I’m crazy when I first say that I’m not on a diet, and have no intention of being on one. I don’t think of myself as brave. It’s just like I’ve woken up from a bad dream and finally ‘get it.'

I wish there were more opportunities to talk to people about this. Too often it's because someone abuses me, tries to tell me I should be dieting, suggests WLS or similar…and then I get defensive. This was completely different, and was really good.

Someone said to me before I did this, that it was great that I was going to be 'publicly fat,' and that just stuck with me as such a wonderful phrase. So during the living library when people asked me if I spoke like this other times I said "no, this is my first time being publicly fat!" and then laughed (because of course I'm publicly fat all the time, because I'm fat and I'm out there doing stuff!)

It made me think that all of us that are out there, just living our lives and getting on with it instead of obsessing on limitations, abusive people, diets, etc., are being some sort of activists whether we realise it or not -- because we are speaking with our lives.
____________________________________________________________________________________

The Living Library started in Denmark as a project to fight prejudice and discrimination. If you're interested in hosting a Living Library in your town, you can find information at The Living Library website.

After reading this whole story, I only have one thing to say to rainalee: You kick ass.

Chicagoland is getting its first Sonic Drive-In this week, and the Chicago Tribune was on it. Unfortunately, it looks like article author Christopher Borrelli decided to use the article to test out his thesaurus and writing skills.

The other day, three very large men in a very small car rolled up behind the Sonic Drive-In in Aurora. The smell of tar was pungent. In nearby fields little yellow flags from new developments flapped in the wind. The largest of the men, in the passenger seat, with a stomach so vast and gelatinous it rested on the dashboard as if taking a lunch break, rolled down his window. His right arm hung over the window lip like a dead goose. "You people open yet?" he asked. Sonic general manager Ray Mejia shook his head. "Tuesday," he said. The man slapped his palm hard against the metal of the car door. "The 19th," Mejia said.

Seriously, folks, that's the type of writing I learned back in my college fiction writing class. Be descriptive, paint a picture, set the scene. Good advice but in this case it's a big ol' WTF.

Worse there's no reason at all the men's size needs to be in that paragraph. None. By bringing this up at all, Borelli wants the reader to get a certain picture in her head: a picture of disgust. Nothing is relevant there otherwise. And please, "gelatinous?" Really?

There's been scuttlebutt in Chicago that the Trib might go downhill under its new ownership and I've kind of denied that but... I consider this a harbinger. What a disgusting piece of "news" writing. [Thanks, eliza!]

The following story was submitted by BFB member rainalee.

Continued from part 1.

Working with the Living Library you realise that everybody has prejudices. We don't believe that there is a single person on the planet that can truly say they are free of prejudice...Because making up our minds about something is our basic way of navigation through our world and daily life...[A common example] is that people who are not overweight, tend to think it must be tough...not knowing that the person may be perfectly comfortable and happy with their current size and shape. Not all overweight people are unhappy with their weight...

-- Living Library on prejudice

When I went to the information session for 'books,' my 'book title' was by far the most confronting for others and the reactions (physical) were really interesting to watch. We went around a circle and identified our 'book title' and said a little about why we chose it and why we wanted to get involved in the project.

When it got to me, some of the other books had a really strong reaction to my comments - some of them were nodding vigorously and turned around towards me, but some crossed their legs away from me, folded their arms, refused to even look at me, shook their heads, etc. I thought it was quite interesting because these people are 'living books' in a diversity/anti-discrimination project! Apparently it's ok to discriminate against fat people, in their minds.

After the first part of the session, we were to split into pairs and try out being alternatively a 'book' and a 'reader' (as a trial run). I was matched with someone who then said, "Oh, can I swap? I think I know this book," so I was just standing there. Then one (lovely) woman said "Oh, can I please be matched with Fat Person? I'm really wanting to read that book!"

She was an older woman who was quite thin, and she shared with me straight up that she had been terrified that she was fat her whole life, and had been bulimic for 20 years. She wanted to know how I got to the point of being ok in my skin, and not listening to the craziness that is the media. She also wanted to know what discrimination I had faced (I talked about doctors/getting health care, buying exercise clothes, being accosted by strangers in the street). I emphasised that I got out and about, had friends, and had a relatively normal life, and that the constraints I experience were due to general non-accommodation of body size diversity.

I think it was eye-opening for her, and I felt quite positive about it all - I was then looking forward to Thursday when I would do it for real, with members of the public!

To be continued.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Living Library started in Denmark as a project to fight prejudice and discrimination. If you're interested in hosting a Living Library in your town, you can find information at The Living Library website.