Sick Sad World or News from the Weird, you decide: [Taco Bell company president Greg] Creed said that when the weight-loss initiative reaches 100,000 pounds, every person in Oklahoma City will be offered a free fresco taco from the new menu. (The diet... er... lifestyl... er... initiative was previously mentioned here.)

Happy International No Diet Day, everyone!

I can think of no more appropriate thing to share than Michelle's Public Service Announcement from Your Body. Enjoy.

[self-congratulatory post] It's taken nearly eight years, but as of this writing BFB is now the #2 result on Google for fat acceptance. It'd been #3 behind MaryMc's Fat Acceptance Stuff for a long time. For the record, NAAFA is the #1 result.

Thanks again to everyone for reading and participating!

ETA: Oh, and to make it doubly-self-congratulatory, we now have 2600 registered members!

Introducing (sorta) the Anti-Fat Comment Score!

This idea was kicked around a while back, and I wanted to revitalize it. How does it work? Simple: a blog post, or any thing on the internet allowing comments, can have an Anti-Fat Comment Score. It's simply the number of comments it takes for a post to veer into fat hating territory.

The lowest possible score is 1, which indicates that the first comment is anti-fat. As an example, this post at Consumerist I read earlier would score a 1 (first comment = anti-fat). Since the post has an anti-fat edge to it, too, it would earn a bonus asterisk - thus, the Anti-Fat Comment Score for that post is 1*.

The challenge? To find fat-related posts on the web that are not within the fatosphere that have Anti-Fat Comment Scores of 0. (An even bigger challenge would be a post with a score of 0*, indicating that the post itself is anti-fat but there are no anti-fat comments. Woo!)

BigLiberty gives a more thorough scoring breakdown in the comments.

Don't delay, play today!

WE DID IT! Thanks to everyone who contributed! Details on the Think Tank are forthcoming!

As you may know, the next COFRA fundraiser is being planned for June - specifically, June 21st and 22nd. We're looking to do a larger weekend-long event with great topics above and beyond COFRA updates, including sessions on being a fat activist, talking with the media, and more!

In order to secure the space we need, though, we need your help. We've set up a goal on Fundable, which is a website that allows people to pledge money towards that goal. Note that if the goal isn't reached, you won't pay anything. Fundable accepts PayPal and all major credit cards, which means that you can contribute easily. There's a $10 minimum contribution. (Sorry for the misinformation about that earlier.)

Our goal is a modest US$300.00.

Click here to donate on Fundable. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask!

I was mulling over Kevin's response a little bit today, and the idea that he cited "textbooks" as the source for much of his information. Many of you caught this right away and had fitting criticisms. We know that textbooks, and even the research on which they're based, can be biased, incomplete, and go quickly out of date.

But I also realized that, while Kevin's assumptions darn well might be supported by his textbooks, when it comes to my textbooks, you'd have to read pretty selectively to only take away the message that "obesity is not comparable to racial identity" since it's a "fixable problem" and that "you must be told that you are fat so that you will do something to change it."

So, as a counterpoint, I would like to present you with some selected readings from a few nutrition textbooks I happen to have laying around.

On "fixability":

"Many people assume that every overweight person can achieve slenderness and should pursue that goal. First consider that most overweight people cannot -- for whatever reason -- become slender; only 5 percent of all people who successfully lose weight maintain their losses for at least a year. Then consider the prejudice involved in that assumption. People come with varying weight tendencies, just as they come with varying potentials for height and degrees of health, yet we do not expect tall people to shrink or healthy people to get sick in an effort to become 'normal.'"

p. 276, Understanding Nutrition, 9th ed.

...and the desirability of the "fix" itself:

"...there is no definitive evidence that weight loss by overweight and obese adults results in increased longevity...[and] the possibility that weight loss has deleterious effects on longevity merits further exploration."

p. 537, Present Knowledge in Nutrition, 8th ed.

On our needing "to be told" that we are fat, since we're so completely unaware:

"Psychologically, [fat people] may suffer embarrassment when others treat them with hostility and contempt, and some have even learned to view their own bodies as grotesque and loathsome. Parents and friends may scold them for lacking the discipline to resolve their weight problems. Health care professionals, including dietitians, are among the chief offenders. All of this hurts self-esteem."

p. 276, Understanding Nutrition, 9th ed.

On fatness being not at all an inborn physical trait:

"Researchers have found that adopted children tend to be similar in weight to their biological parents, not to their adoptive parents. Studies of twins yield similar findings: identical twins are twice as likely to weigh the same as fraternal twins -- even when reared apart...

"Clearly, something genetic makes a person more or less likely to gain or lose weight when overeating or undereating. Some people gain more weight than others on comparable energy intakes. Given an extra 1000 kcalories a day for 100 days, some pairs of identical twins gain less than 10 pounds while others gain up to 30 pounds. Within each pair, the amounts of weight gained, percentages of body fat, and locations of fat deposits are similar. Similarly, some people lose more weight than others following comparable exercise routines."

p. 272, Understanding Nutrition, 9th ed.

On prejudice and stereotyping of fat people being in no way similar to other social prejudices:

"Large segments of our society place such enormous value on thinness that obese people face prejudice and discrimination: they are judged on their appearance more than on their character. Socially, obese people are stereotyped as lazy, stupid, and lacking in self-control."

p. 276, Understanding Nutrition, 9th ed.

"Society may also stigmatize obese people, attributing negative character traits to them and discriminating against them. Evidence suggests that obese people, women in particular, may have lower levels of socioeconomic achievement and less social mobility than those who are not obese."

p. 532, Present Knowledge in Nutrition, 8th ed.

On fat discrimination being in no way similar to other forms of discrimination:

"Obese people, particularly women, are socially stigmatized. This negative perception adversely affects their educational, socioeconomic, marital, and employment status (Enzi, 1994). Obese high school students, despite comparable grades, test scores, attendance, and extracurricular activities as their nonobese counterparts, are less likely to be accepted into college (Wing and Greeno, 1994). Overweight women are found to have lower household incomes, a higher incidence of household poverty, and are more likely to be single (Enzi, 1994). Many employers are unwilling to hire overweight persons. Research confirms that diverse groups, including children, adults, and medical personnel, hold negative stereotypes of obese persons (Wing and Greeno, 1994). These negative attitudes may stem from the belief that obese persons are weak willed and self-indulgent (Stunkard, 1996)."

p. 570, Krause's Food, Nutrition, & Diet Therapy, 11th ed.

...and having no direct intersection with race, such that fat discrimination results in de facto racial discrimination:

"Levels of overweight and obesity vary among racial and ethnic groups. These difference likely reflect interactions among genes, social class, and cultural attitudes and customs. In the United States, for example, the prevalence of obesity is higher among non-Hispanic black (37%) and Mexican American women (33%) than among non-Hispanic white women (23%)...High prevalences of obesity have also been observed for Native Americans and Pacific Islanders."

p. 533, Present Knowledge in Nutrition, 8th ed.

And, lastly, on fatness not being a social identity, since it is simply a "health problem":

"Societies and ethnic groups differ in how they perceive and accept people of various body sizes. Where thinness is valued, obesity can have a deleterious psychosocial effect. For example, individually, obese adults and adolescents, particularly females, can suffer from low self-esteem and distorted body images, factors that could negatively affect their quality of life."

p. 532, Present Knowledge in Nutrition, 8th ed.

"Such a critical view of overweight is not prevalent in many other cultures, including segments of our society. Instead, overweight is embraced as a sign of robust health and beauty. Many overweight people today are tired of our obsessions with weight control and simply want to be accepted as they are. To free our society of its obsession with body weight and prejudice against obesity, we must first learn to judge others for who they are and not for what they weigh."

p. 276, Understanding Nutrition, 9th ed.

Now, of course, my textbooks aren't perfect. After many of these quoted sections, there would be a totally contradictory statement (the result of writing-by-committee, I decided) like, "But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to lose weight anyway!" And, of course, a lot of the research may now be superseded by better and more recent findings.

The point is, these are not fat studies textbooks. I didn't have to go out of my way to get them; they're just the ones my school provided. These are plain old clinical nutrition texts that are definitely not fat-friendly, and definitely don't advocate for fat acceptance, or even use the term "fat acceptance" at any point.

They're biased, typically shitty textbooks that span first- through third-year nutrition (I didn't buy the fourth-year text), and even they have to admit that there's more to fatness than just a simple, fixable health problem.

Recently, I noticed a ridiculously bad article that ran in the student newspaper of the University of California - Irvine. One student, Kevin Pease, voiced his opinions on fat. Guess where they fell?

Anyway, Kevin wrote me and asked if I would consider posting his response to your responses here. I said sure, so here it is.

I would like to start by saying everything I wrote in that article and here today was my doing, and in no way reflects the opinions of the New University. There was a reason that article was put in opinion, and if you do not agree with my views I encourage you to write a response for the paper.

My next point is to reveal my true identity. All of you believe that you have a deep insight into my views about the world based on a single, eight hundred word article. The fact is that I am just a kid who wrote a quick article for a student run paper in order to make twenty dollars so I could go to a bar that weekend. My views are not particularly extreme, I wrote something I thought my peers could enjoy while saying something about the world around me.

I also want to stress that every fact I mentioned in my article is entirely true and backed by scientific study. These are not magical ideas I pulled out of my head but figures and statements from textbooks. Being overweight is as much a problem to one's physical health as a number of other chronic health problems, but eating right and exercising is a solution. When I said that it was "not easy" I should have stressed how not easy it is. It takes years of hard work to lose weight in a healthy way, along with constant changes in order to combat your bodies [sic] ability to adapt to these exercises. For those people who read this and are exercising congratulations, you are making a commitment that will not only be beneficial to you but also to those around you because it will keep you in this world much longer. Those who have not, you are in no way less of a person for doing so. You have made a choice that I sincerely hope will make you happy.

As far as my intellectual capabilities and academic future are concerned...a psychologist is not your friend. They are not there to hold your hand while you do whatever you want. In order to cure phobias many of them expose their patients directly to that fear. The process is extremely uncomfortable for the patient but eventually helps them to grow as a person. My point being that what you call insensitive may mask honestly good intentions. Intellectually I am a straight A student who works incredibly hard. My grandfather was half Native American, virtually def [sic], unable to walk and nearly blind by the end of his life. I spent two years in highschool taking care of him because I loved him.

Yes, I can comprehend complex ethnic identities tied to disabilities. Also, when my head explodes it smells like strawberries.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to summarize my article since many pieces of it were taken out of context. Overweight and obese people can be allowed to do whatever they choose. However, at some point a line of accommodation should be drawn. The world should, but realistically cannot, be molded to fit people of all shapes and sizes. I conclude by hoping that many of you feel ashamed for reveling in my death based on a silly article I did not think would be a big deal.

There is no shame in being proud of who you are, but there should be pride in acknowledging other people's points of view and finding intelligent responses to them based on reliable information. Paul, please excuse the spelling errors I am a terrible writer. Thank you for your time.

Uh, thoughts?

Mine on first blush: I didn't see any comments here wanting him dead (!). There already is a line of "acceptable" fat in society, as evidenced by... everything... in... society; it's just ridiculously low. And, there are plenty of scientific studies that back up our claims as well.

On second blush: remember that anything you publish, even as an innocuous little article in a student newspaper, can and will get analyzed by someone on the internet.

Now that I've emerged (relatively) unscathed from final exams -- Quick! Describe the pathophysiology of myasthenia gravis! Actually, I'm sure most of you could, and probably better than I did -- I can give due attention to BFBer DebraSY's column for the Kansas City Star, in which she explains why the term "lifestyle," as in "healthy lifestyle," is so damn annoying.

Though I work hard, I also enjoy gastric and cardiovascular health, working joints and reasonable daily demands. I can prepare fresh foods and live a dramatically more active life than I did before, more active than most people I know.

Because leading a "healthy lifestyle" depends an awful lot on having the means to do so, especially if you attempt to follow every flavor-of-the-month health trend that comes down the pike. Not only do many people not have access to specialty shops and gyms, a lot don't have access to affordable groceries, a safe place or time to walk, or the functional ability to do so.

The word "lifestyle," as it's often used, manages to conveniently leave unexamined the social, physical, and mental constraints we all operate under. It implies that health is a matter of simple choice, as though we pick our "lifestyle" from a shelf (and hopefully not the shelf with the cookies and ice cream.)

"Healthy lifestyle" is also often used as a pat on privilege's back, rather than what it could be -- a chance to reflect on how lucky we are. That Debra admits her own good fortune may not be all that surprising, coming from a fellow BFBer, but the fact that a newspaper gave her the space to do so is a rare and good thing.

As Debra says,

So, if the key word isn’t lifestyle, what is it?

It’s life.

Maybe real health is less about shopping for the right "lifestyle" than it is about living with what you've got.

How are you doing on that score?

"Kevin Pease is a third-year psychology and social behavior major" at the University of California - Irvine who just wants fat people to shut up and lose weight. But he's couched it in a mess of old stereotypes and somehow, somehow, it got published.

Pease's outrage comes from old news that Disneyland is upsizing its rides which hadn't been changed in 40 years. Pease starts out with a common tactic - assuming people agree with "facts" without any research:

The average person’s consumption of high-fat foods, such as meats and cheeses, is incredible. The average American drinks more soda than water and typically consumes more than 30 pounds of cheese a year.

Number of things that have a direct correlation to fat: zero. Thus far. (And I guess he means white cheese only, because we know white foods are bad for you.)

Obese Americans are not treated like their skinny counterparts. They are stereotyped as lazy people with poor self-control.

Correct!

Obese people tend to have lower self-esteem and are at a higher risk for suicide, especially in the teen years.

Can be correct!

However, obesity is not comparable to racial identity. It is a health problem, one that is fixable with lots of hard work. People who protest every time celebrities put on a fat suit or when an obese person is forced to buy two tickets on a plane make you think that fatness shapes identity.

"So I'll just write an entire article about how fatness shapes identity!" And "fixable" with "lots" of hard work? There go those "facts" again.

Using this assumption, the obese community wants us all to believe that if someone is obese, we should treat it as a disability. Take blind people. They are given special accommodations whenever possible in order to make their lives easier. Obese men and women want to be treated the same way. This claim is ludicrous, especially when you consider that obesity is a fixable condition. It may not be easy, but if a blind man were told he would no longer be blind if he ate his fruits and vegetables while exercising four times a week, he would do it.

Oh, that's right, things are fixable. Fat is fixable if one exercises 4 times per week and eats fruits and vegetables? I'm glad that Kevin has figured everything out for us. (Thanks, Kevin!)

By keeping the ride boats slim, they could serve as a harsh reminder that obesity is a problem.

Or they could serve as a gateway into anti-size discrimination laws. And who the fuck hasn't heard that "obesity" is a "problem"? WTF?

America shows no signs of slowing down as the fat train barrels through chubby town.

Kevin? Maybe you should stick to psychology, because your writing fucking sucks.

This got published. Why are any of our regular commenters not getting published, again?

In forums, BFBer vidyapriya tipped us off that a University of Toronto student paper, The Newspaper, printed an article entitled "10 Reasons it's not OK to be fat." It's an unbelievable, almost stunningly perfect example of fat hatred.

1. Public health care - why should the rest of us have to pay high taxes for you to eat yourself to death?
2. Nobody likes you. Except for, possibly, other fat people.
3. Even if you're successful, it just means you'll have enough money to become a drug addict and kill yourself like Chris Farley.
4. Because I don't want to ever have to think about fat people again.
5. Not only do you frighten children, but you're also setting a bad example.
6. You ruin pictures.
7. You ruin moments.
8. The thought of you ever having sex single-handedly ruins the day of at least 50% of the people whom you meet.
9. Because only aircraft are meant to be equipped with flaps. Their flaps serve a purpose.
10. It's fucking disgusting.

As vidyapriya put it, "I can't bear it when a university campus -- usually the environment in which I feel most at home and accepted -- is used as the locus for the dissemination of speech telling me that I do not have the right to exist." And it starts, of course, with the time-honoured tradition of blaming fat people for rising health care costs, even though a recent study demonstrated that fat people actually cost the health care system less (presumably because we drop like flies under the burden of our fat, not because we refuse to use discriminatory health care services or because we have less access to health care, but that is another story for another day.)

And, hey, fat people -- were you aware that no one likes you? The people in your family don't count; your friends don't count; your spouses and allies of the fat acceptance movement don't count; and other fat people CERTAINLY don't count, as they're not really human to begin with. (Plus they smell. Or they don't live long enough to have opinions that matter -- however you prefer to look at it.)

Picking on dead people who can't defend themselves is another time-honoured tradition in fat hatred. Haha! Chris Farley is a dead fat guy! Who had a drug problem! And really, there have never been fat people who succeeded in anything, anyway. Obviously, I can understand why you'd never want to think about fat people again, given that they're so well-represented in the media.

I also, personally, spend a lot of my time frightening children and setting bad examples.

And ruining pictures...

And ruining "moments," whatever those are...

And forcing everyone I meet to imagine me having sex...

And flapping my ailerons with no regard for decency...

And, of course, being disgusting, in a general fucking way.

Dear anonymous article-writer, you forgot some things:
-lazy
-smelly
-jolly
-smarter and funnier than you

Or you could have tried being honest instead:

10 Reasons I hate fat people.

1. Because thin people remain that way only through constant feats of heroic self-control.
2. Because fat bloggers are getting attention from the mainstream media and I still write for this shitty campus paper.
3. Because Chris Farley looks better in a Chippendales uniform than I do.
4. Because it harshes my mellow when people who look different than me demand "equal treatment."
5. Because when adults express personal autonomy by eating and exercising on their own terms, IT HURTS BABIES.
6. Because fat people's heads don't show up in photos, just like vampires don't show up in mirrors.
7. Because my fat roommate interrupted me having a "moment" with back issues of Cat Fancy.
8. Because I feel a powerful sexual attraction to fat people and am desperately overcompensating.
9. Because I thought of this really clever metaphor and needed to write an anonymous article to use it after I repeated it seven times to every person I encountered and they all told me to go away and stop touching them or they would call campus security.
10. Because my editor laughed at me for pulling my pants down when she said we had a couple inches to fill.

Thanks, vidyapriya! And also thanks to BirdmanDodd, who has posted some contact information for the The Newspaper, if you'd like to write in or call.

I'm pleased to introduce BFB's latest guest blogger, MichMurphy. Those of you who have been reading for years may remember that she had a guest blogging stint here a while back, as well as a column (remember those?) If you do remember that, then you probably also remember how great her writing was. I do!

So welcome back to the front page, Michelle!

BFBer Bilt4Comfrt noted in the Forums that Wired magazine features "fatosphere" in their latest Jargon Watch column. Their definition, however, sucks:

Fatosphere n. A blogosphere of the obese, by the obese, for the obese. Often designated "no-diet zones," fatosphere blogs seek to counter medical claims that obesity is a health epidemic.

So how would you define it?

(PS to all media folks out there: there's rumors on the internets that suggest I came up with the term "fatosphere". I did not. Thanks.)

What's that, you say? There aren't enough reality shows that combine unrealistic feminine body ideals with unrealistic and heavily-marketed ideals towards heterosexual weddings? Well have I got good news for you!

My sincerest condolences to the family and friends of fat activist Jeanne Toombs, who passed away yesterday.

I'm proud to share the news that the 2008 NOLOSE conference has been announced! I'll turn the mic over to Stefanie, who posted about it in the Forums:

The date has been set! Mark your calendars for NOLOSE '08: September 26th through the 28th (Friday-Sunday). Meet us by the pool at the Clarion Hotel and Conference Center in Northampton, Massachusetts for a weekend packed with fattastic fun, food, friends and other good stuff!

We're all hard at work, planning to make this year's conference the best ever! There are a lot of exciting things in the works. The Clarion has charm, a great location and a staff that is already excited to hang out with all of us. As always, choosing a venue was no easy feat. We have a very diverse population and we have lots of factors to take into consideration. All in all, we are pretty psyched about the Clarion, and we are sure most of you will be too.

Keep your eyes open for more detailed information about the conference as it becomes available and, as always, if you have some ideas about what you'd like to see at NOLOSE this year, let us know! Expect to see a call for workshops in the very near future, because that's how we roll.

For more information about NOLOSE and to keep up with the calendar and new information about the upcoming conference, please visit nolose.org.

NOLOSE is a volunteer- run organization dedicated to ending the oppression of fat people and creating vibrant fat queer culture. NOLOSE started out as the National Organizations for Lesbians of SizE. As the years passed and the organization grew, we changed our mission to include not only a broader community of queer women—dykes, lesbians and bisexual women—but also transgendered people.

NOLOSE and the annual NOLOSE Conference are explicitly trans-inclusive. We want to make it clear that NOLOSE invites all fat queer women, all fat trans and gender-variant folks and our allies to participate.

NOLOSE has done an amazing amount of pro-fat work, and it's great to see another conference out there.

A little anecdote first.

As all of you are probably aware, BFB's coming up on eight years of age. I haven't been in the movement a long time relative to a lot of other people (like Marilyn Wann), but I've seen a lot of stuff happen. One of the issues that rears its head every now and then involves my gender.

It's usually not a big subject, admittedly, but it does come up. People wonder what motivation this guy has doing in a movement that largely affects women. A fun thing that happened a few years back was when some anonymous coward started a small-scale smear campaign against me, stating that my purpose at BFB was to "keep" women fat so I could get more... shall we say... enjoyment out of it. This person initially posted about it here (in the pre-registration days), later posted it elsewhere, and eventually set up a whole Blogspot blog just to shoot me down. "Big Fat Fraud", it was cleverly called. And it was kind of something to see my photo up there, and this person saying that I was doing this all from a sexually-oriented place, and moreso that people should beware of men in the fat rights movement - ie, don't trust men.

Now, here is the thing. There are about 3 male bloggers I can think of writing about this stuff. That sucks. But another thing that sucks is that - and this is completely true - 95-98% of the people who register here at BFB and identify as male think this is a dating site, or know it's a fat acceptance/fat rights site and register anyway because they want to meet someone. Or they think this is Dimensions.

That's a huge albatross. Now not only do I have to "prove" that I "belong" in this movement (because fat men have it easy - cough cough), but I have to also somehow combat the argument that I'm just in it for the sex. (Which goes back to the old jokes here suggesting that this is "Paul's Harem"... good times.)

My point in bringing this up does intersect with the now-well-read post by Tara at Fatshionista on how our movement doesn't really work for people of color. I was extremely reluctant to post anything about it, in part because I'm a white guy - and at first I really wondered what value I could add to the discussion. I am not comparing my experience to people of color, no way, no how. Instead, I'm saying that I too have been disenfranchised by some people in this very movement - for different reasons - and that the apparent lack of men in the fat rights movement is a whole other problem we need to solve.

This movement hasn't gotten substantially larger over the past four decades. But it can, now. We truly need to reach out and talk about what needs to happen in order to get more people on board. So I'll start. I don't know what needs to happen to get more people of color involved. I can't speak from that perspective. So... ideas are welcome. Let's talk about it.

We all need to be considerate and understanding and, ultimately, empower people from all walks of life so that we in turn can be a stronger, diverse movement.

As Susan Stinson notes, in mere hours from now there'll be a hearing at the State House in Boston, Massachusetts on a bill which would outlaw size discrimination in that state. Stay tuned to BFB and the greater fatosphere for further updates.

Update: A Sun-Chronicle article on the hearing. The committee must act on the bill before April 18th.

In the brouhaha over "good" fat people and "bad" fat people, a couple of things might've slipped past us - like word that Blue Cross, a big time insurance company owned by Health Care Service, is going to promote wellness as part of its mission. Wellness is the new codeword for "not fat", by the way, in case you were wondering:

But it's not just in its health plans that Health Care Service is preaching the gospel of wellness. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois is reaching out through its charitable giving via a wellness initiative on obesity that is directed at children. In the past, the company has focused most of its charitable giving on the uninsured and to organizations that help people who lack medical coverage.

"How healthy we are depends probably more on what we do for ourselves than what the health care system does for us," said Dr. Richard Gayes, a medical director at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois. "We are starting to focus on the question of health and not simply health care."

...which means that a private corporation is dictating what is and what is not "healthy" for kids. Worse, because of the healthcare system in this country this isn't a small decision. Being fat is not "healthy" and thus, it's on the firing line.

Updated: DebraSY noted that the link seems to no longer work. Good news...?

Disturbing: the Tampax site beinggirl.com, designed for teenage girls who are just about to have their first periods, is prominently featuring an article that promotes disordered behavior. It ties in 9/11 (!) in order to promote said behavior, as a bonus. The piece includes steps that one could take in order to Not Be Fat, including:

Post-It notes are great for reminding you of the right thing to do. Stick them on the bathroom mirror, on the inside of your locker, on your computer. Be creative with your reminder. "How hungry are your really?" "Exactly why are you eating that now?" "What will the scale say tomorrow morning?"

They are serious.

Rachel has written a great point-by-point rebuttal along with contact information for Procter & Gamble, Tampax's parent company. (Weep at their brand list.)

If you need to know why something needs to be done about this, skim through the comments. Assuming they're actually from teenage girls, they're beyond sad:

okay im 13 and i weigh 105 pounds. I'm not fat and im skinny. But the problem is that, i have big thighs i mean big. How do I lose weight in the thighs?

Rachel notes:

What’s even more sad is that P&G has partnered with Hearst Magazines, so that the site and potentially harmful messages like this are prominently featured on Seventeen.com, CosmoGIRL.com and Teenmag.com, which collectively reach 1.5 million unique users per month. Apparently making girls feel bad about themselves and their bodies is mutually beneficial for these two companies.

This message isn't just in the magazines, either; schools are handing out pamphlets to girls which feature this site. I'm not sure that I can overstate just how dangerous this article and its promotion are.

AnnieMcPhee posted a comment in a forum topic pointing to an article I'd like to share.

If you're in the US, you might recall seeing government anti-fat ads - the ones where people find fat body parts lying about. Apparently some folks in the anti-fat rights movement are upset by this, and want more hard-hitting ads. Essentially, they want marketing and extreme-ness to shame us into losing weight - much like the Truth series of ads treat smoking without kid gloves.

"I think Small Steps' is a euphemism for small vision," said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Center for Eating and Weight Disorders.

Lest you ever think Kelly Brownell is really on our side, here's some evidence.

That drama [as in anti-smoking ads from New York state] is lacking in the obesity spots — for example, none have offered a surgeon's view of fat, or dramatized a death from Type 2 diabetes, or shown a person complaining about how a fat neighbor's medical bills are costing taxpayers.

Gee, great ideas guys! Can we also have an ad about how the fat neighbor got his ass fired from a job because of his size? Or how he wasn't able to sit on a chair in a public university because all of the chairs had arms? Oh, wait! Wait! How about an ad about how a fat neighbor was shamed into losing weight and feeling terrible about her body? Because that would be a great ad!

In 2005, the group put out a spot in which doctors yank a pizza and jumbo-sized soda away from an intently eating fat boy and toss him an apple. They put out another in which the same doctors haul away fatty foods from a restaurant called Chubby's.

Oh man! That's subtle!

There's some discussion towards the end of the article suggesting that the government doesn't have the guts to go against food producers. Truth or not, moving these ads into the more EXTREME!!! category is a dangerous way to go. The backlash will either be against us or against the people who made the ads; I'd rather not be forced into such a position.

If you’ve watched any news segment about fat people, ever, you’ve undoubtedly seen the video that accompanies any such news segment: the parade of headless fatties. Fat people in public, shown from the neck down, voiceless, stripped of their humanity—most likely without their permission. It implies that it’s shameful to be fat, that we ought to be ashamed to show our faces in public.

COFRA, the Coalition of Fat Rights Activists, wants your help in turning this portrayal inside out. That’s why we’ve started a project called Dare to Show Your Face. The goal is to show the world that we are people, first and foremost, no matter what our shapes. Fat people have voices, they have stories, they have faces.

We’ll be putting together a series of promotional videos for COFRA spotlighting the everyday lives of fat people in all walks of life.

How can you help? It’s easy: just upload a 1 or 2 minute video of yourself to our YouTube group.

http://youtube.com/group/fatrights

Tell us about your life. Show us what you do. There’s no need to get fancy with video effects (but if you want to, go for it) – just your raw story is what we’d like to see.

For more information on COFRA and to join us in our campaigns for fat rights, sign up at fatrights.org. (Thanks to Mychii and Carrie for their help on this text, and everyone at the Think Tank for the idea!)

And, please watch COFRA's Carrie Padian, creator of our first video:

It's going around but with good reason: Michelle finalized her PSA from your body. It's marvelous. Go see it.

Stop pretending to not be biased when you promote anti-fat crap like this. Thank you.

Sara Anderson, author of F-Words, recently had brain surgery to remove a tumor the size of a tangerine. Her family has set up a donation button on her site for her recovery fund; please consider contributing.

• Professor Philip James believes the alleged obesity epidemic is tantamount to global warming and isn't a "lifestyle choice" (there's always Weight Watchers!) (Note: headless fattie photo.)
• Mostly positive piece that stresses one not need lose weight to be healthy, except for those "tubby" people over a BMI of 30 (hi!) (Note: fattie pictured with head!)
• Australia has upped its weight limits for postal carriers in an attempt to hire more of them.
• Peggynature is looking for your assistance with a school project portraying positive fat people.
• Kate Harding wants you to submit your photo for the new BMI project, which will be published in a Real Magazine!
• And finally, Rachel at The F Word posted a very interesting experiment. She calculated her waist-to-hip (WTH) ratio and then compared how various sites with WTH calculators portrayed her ratio, which is in the healthy range per, well, almost everyone. Sites with ads for weight loss generally told her she was too fat.

"Jesus Christ was not obese."

So says Reverend Steve Reynolds who has started a fitne... er, weight loss program at his church called - ready? - Bod4God. Reynolds is a former fattie. Here's how it's different:

Unlike Weight Watchers and other mainstream diet programs, religion-based plans such as Weigh Down and First Place use biblical teachings to show followers that their bodies are temples that belong to God and are intended to glorify God and that gluttony is a sin.

Outside of the god talk, how exactly is that different than Weight Watchers? And wait, you guys? Weight Watchers is a lifestyle, not a diet!

Just like these other lifest... er, diets, there's money involved. Bod4God costs $50 and another called First Place costs $80; these costs contribute to the whopping $64 billion diet industry.

The article tries to pin fat on religion, too, suggesting that Baptists and fundamentalists are fatter because moderation isn't really preached in those circles.

Interestingly, Reynolds said that no one had a problem with him being fat.

When he was 340 pounds, no one seemed bothered by his weight, Reynolds said. "In my mind, something's wrong with that picture," said Reynolds, who described ice cream as his "drug of choice" to cope with stress. "I was sinning against the Lord in this area—I was not allowing him to control me."

These programs are very much in the "love the sinner, hate the sin" vein. Honestly, I think these should be an affront to members of religions that are allowing these programs to happen. It's exploitative and manipulative.

One of the most respected people in the fat acceptance movement, Paul Campos, has written another stellar article for the Rocky Mountain News, this time examining what the fear of fat does to young girls. In referencing a letter written by a 14-year-old girl that Monique at Big Fat Deal received, Campos says that the girl has already learned some hard, sad lessons:

That, as a woman, nothing she accomplishes will ever be considered as important as how she looks, and that the conventional definition of feminine beauty in our culture is both extraordinarily narrow and radically different from what most women look like.

This is another fine, fine piece.

Thanks to everyone who was at the Think Tank this past Saturday. We had a great time and made a lot of progress with regards to COFRA!

In lieu of a full-on recap (which I trust other bloggers there will write, right?) I'd like to mention a number of highlights.

• We developed the formal structure for COFRA, including naming a number of officers. (There are still a couple of open positions available!)
• Progress reports were given on the Fat Fifty, and we decided to retackle the project by using smaller groups.
• We came up with our second major campaign which will be getting some blog attention relatively soon - it involves video and good ol' fashioned creativity.
• We talked about the COFRA website, what needs to be done, and people volunteered to work on it (yay!)
• We also decided to look at expanding out the next Think Tank, tentatively scheduled for June, to be a weekend-long affair with workshops, and more!

We also established our first fundraising goal, which you'll hear about in the coming week or so.

The first Think Tank was devoted a little more to sussing out what should be done in order to move the movement forward. This one was a little smaller and more focused on what will be done within COFRA. Deadlines were set, volunteers spoke up, and a good time was had by all. I sincerely thank everyone for coming, and look forward to seeing you again soon!

Via The Rotund: the Fat Facts Wiki, a resource for academics on fat acceptance. Fantastic!

As with the November Think Tank, you'll be able to follow the action on Twitter.

Here's our Twitter stream!

Thanks in advance for your interest - we'll see you tomorrow!