Discrimination

Earlier this week it was reported that a highway foreman in Ohio died from complications of a weight loss surgery. The man was suspended because he fell asleep on the job, though he had sleep apnea and worked long hours. He felt as though the county was treating him unfairly.



And the bias probably also had to do with his weight, given his lawyer's comment below:

If I read this article correctly, it seems as though the weight loss surgery--WHICH HE DIED FROM--was not only to resolve sleep apnea. Huneck, who was very emotionally hurt by the suspension, also wanted to change his body so that he, a grown man, would not be bullied, ridiculed, harassed, AND PUNISHED by his colleagues. Who can blame him for not wanting to be treated so poorly? But now he's dead... It's sad to me that these kinds of things undoubtedly take place all the time.


There is also a story out of Australia to report. Feminists With Disabilities for a way forward reports:

Maz Smyth was rolling along one day in her manual wheelchair, as one does, when her front wheel got caught in a pothole and snapped off. Understandably annoyed by this turn of events, she approached the Toowoomba Regional Council to ask them to fix the pothole and pay the costs associated with fixing her chair.

Ms. Smyth kept going to the council and they kept telling her to go away, until they finally told her she could file a report though nothing would ever come of it.   "Perhaps it was your weight that caused the wheelchair to break," a council staff member then told her. She was rebuffed until the Mayor saw The Chronicle covering the story and getting a photoshoot outside City Hall. As s.e. smith aptly writes over at FWD:



h/t to sexgenderbody

In the wake of my hopeful optimism about Huge comes a link in my e-mail that counters all of that joy.

But it wasn't some let down about Huge. Instead, it was a link to the site for the new show on the Style Network called Too Fat for Fifteen: Fighting Back, a reality show about teenagers trying to lose weight at a fat camp called Wellspring Academy (a giant, international weight loss school chain, apparently). The video posted in the blog doesn't seem to be working, but I can imagine how it's going to go based on the tagline, "Being fifteen is hard enough. It shouldn't be life and death," which is placed over the shoulder of a faceless fat girl viewed from the back. It's next to a picture put in for flare, good measure, or simplistic illustration, since there's no link or text attached, of fat kids' legs. Naturally, they have centered the darker-skinned kid who is seemingly bustin out his/her crapily made shoes. Y'all didn't know it was a shoe-bustin epidemic, did you? Fear, my friends, the busting of the shoes. Too fat for footwear????  Or maybe it's supposed to illustrate the unbearable, ankle-busting weight of obesity.  Anyway, we get the point.

The website resources include a "Teen BMI Calculator," an article entitled "Effects of Childhood Obesity," and another called, "Think YOU are ready to get fit?" The show debuts August 9th.

From a minor Google search, this seems to be based on a New Zealand documentary about a fat girl at a similar Wellspring Academy.

I am pretty sure I remember a few people being confused and thinking Huge was a reality show; and I was relieved to think/say, "No, no, no it's not that"--in the back of my mind thinking, "Who would do that?!?" Style network, my friends, and Wellspring Academy, would exploit kids in such a way...you know, for fun and profit!

Just what we need, a Biggest Loser for kids. My optimism for this week is officially blown.


PS--What are they "fighting back"? Love how they make it sound empowering.

Promoted from the forums

The Daily Express has reported on an Ohio State University study that disputes the accepted wisdom that the 'obesity epidemic' is responsible for various health conditions and that we should all "curb our obsession with dieting". It uses NHANES III data and claims that there are few health differences between 'normal weight' and 'obese' indivisduals under age 40, and thereafter only in the proportion of medication use (which could demonstrate an increased tendency on the part of physicians to pathologise and hence over-prescribe to those in this group). Says researcher Brant Jarret:

“There is a myth going on. Our findings show being overweight is no different from being what we believe is a healthy weight and this is across a person’s entire lifespan. For college-age adults, this should help them realize that they don’t have to worry so much if they have a BMI of 27 or 28. Some young people with these BMIs feel like, ‘I’m going to have all these problems, I need to try 50 different diets.’ And what is all that stress and dieting doing to your body? Probably more damage than the extra 15lb. Being obese before you are 40 has no correlation to your health either. The risk that people are told about does not exist.”

There's nothing here we don't already know, but it's good to see it on the front page of one of the same national tabloids that up until now has been instrumental in the process of 'frightening' fat people into thinking they are ill. Of course there's the obligatory disclaimer about 'gross obesity' (nice!) still damaging health, and the usual comments claiming anyone daring to even think about questioning the party line is a dangerous heretic bent on undermining the war on fat people (damn right!) as well as a couple of sensible ones, but overall it's a surprisingly balanced article. More please!

My brother tipped me off to this article in the NY Times about doctors having trouble talking to their fat patients about losing weight. It cites a report presented by the STOP Obesity Alliance (which makes me question the veracity of the report, but anyway...) that says that doctors actually aren't talking to patients about weight loss. The reason? Gee, they just don't know how! Poor doctors. See again, this article gets really close to the actual truth but doesn't quite make the connection. Doctors don't know how to get patients to lose weight and keep it off because nobody does! I do like that the point is made that doctors have a misconception that fat people are weak-willed and self-indulgent, but in the end all this article does is shift some of the blame for fatness from fat people to their doctors. Meh.

This is the question posed in the Nightline debate linked to in withoutscene's posting below. The way I see it, when we ask "is it okay to be fat?", we're really asking a bunch of other questions:

• Is a person allowed to have and maintain a body that is larger than average?
• Is being fat a health problem?
• Is a person with a health problem allowed to choose to not treat that problem?
• Is fat caused by lifestyle choices?
• Is a person in a group health plan allowed to make choices that might cause them to need more health care in the future?

When you break it down to what we're really talking about, I don't see how any rational person could conclude that it is not okay to be fat. What are your thoughts?

There is absolutely NO question whatsoever that we face significant discrimination in terms of education, employment and healthcare. More and more and more and more and more and fucking MORE people are publishing articles on this. Now, we also KNOW that stigmatization and discrimination have NEGATIVE health affects. In terms of fat people accessing healthcare and receiving good healthcare, but also in terms of stress and anxiety. Yet people who are making comments about the correlation between "obesity" and "health" almost NEVER acknowledge the effects of SYSTEMIC discrimination on our health.

This brief acknowledgement was my second favorite part of the Nightline Face-Off with Marianne Kirby and Crystal Renn (and Meme Roth and Kim Benson).*

It can also be said if poor people are disproportionately fat and people of color are disproportionately fat, we can count those systems of oppression (and others--ability, gender, etc.) when we think about systemic discrimination and the health of fat people. (Addendum)
.
.
*My favorite part was when Marianne said, "I have feet and hips and knees, it's very exciting," in response to MeMe Roth's claim that it's not okay to be fat if you have those body parts (and some others). I laughed so hard it was almost unbearable.

So unless you're living under a rock somewhere, you've likely heard something about Kevin Smith getting thrown off of a Southwest flight from Oakland to Burbank because he was too fat. Here's a report on the issue from Shapely Prose as well as coverage from ABC's Nightline. I have some conflicting thoughts surrounding this incident (for instance, I'm thrilled that someone is finally paying attention to complaints about the way fat people are treated on airplanes, but I'm frustrated that it took a celebrity to make them pay attention and I'm not altogether convinced it will change anything anyway) but I'd like to hear what you guys think.

This video over at ABC.com just makes me crazy. Dr. Richard Besser is attempting to give advice to a parent on how to deal with her eleven-year-old child sneaking food and instead of addressing the underlying causes and mentioning the potential for eating disorders, he recommends that the parent sit down with his or her kid and draw up a contract for changing her behavior. This is horrible, terrible advice, and I know because it's what my parents did with me. Did I mention I weigh around 400 pounds now?

Here's the thing: a child is not an adult. There's a reason we don't let children sign contracts, and it's because they're busy making mistakes and dropping the ball and acting on impulse...things that aren't really conducive to setting a goal and following it through. Why would you want to put your child in a position where she is likely to fail over and over? Furthermore, Dr. Besser makes a fuss about how the parents shouldn't be the food police, but that's the exact relationship you are fostering with this contract business, because someone has to be the enforcer and make sure the terms of the contract are being followed. Even if you're not being 'the food police', per se, you're at least being the food prosecutor. Is that really better? The bottom line is that it enforces the adversarial relationship that is already developing because she clearly feels like she has to hide her eating from you.

I swear, that letter could have been written by my parents. The part about "she wants to lose weight", is especially accurate because when I was a kid all I wanted in the world was to make my parents happy,and it was abundantly clear that all they wanted was for me to be thin. I have no doubt that there were loving reasons behind it, like wanting me to fit in socially, but all their campaign did was drive a wedge between us and eff up my relationship with food and exercise.

Here's the advice I wish my parents had gotten when I was a kid sneaking food into my room: listen to your daughter. Talk to her about what's going on and try to figure out what might be bothering her. Hug her...a lot. Remind her that you love her no matter what, and that you will always be there for her. That kind of thing will go a long, long way. In the end, the most important thing to remember is that your job here is about providing unconditional love and support. Leave the contracts out of it.

Marilyn Wann announced today that there will be another hearing for a height/weight anti-discrimination bill in Massachusetts! The hearing will be on January 27th. Marilyn says:

Let's flood the legislative inbox! Email Tracy.Choi@state.ma.us. Please copy me: marilyn@fatso.com. Forward this! -- What to write: That you support H.1850. Your ht./wt. discrimination story (esp. at work, school, doctor, housing, seating) and why you care about this law. THANKS!

Please take the time to send an e-mail in support of this bill. If you are interested in testifying in person, please contact Marilyn at the above e-mail. Getting this bill passed would be a huge win for everyone everywhere.

Byron Rushing of Massachusetts tried two years ago to get a similar bill into law and from what I remember--although the bill didn't go through--things went pretty well. It would be fantastic if we could make this happen this year.
.
.
.
PS--Check out Marilyn's words regarding Rep. Rushing and her experiences with this bill below in the comments.

PPS--I failed to see Rep. Rushing speak the one time I was in Boston. I now may never forgive myself.

This humble article on The Adipositivity Project over at Sociological Images has spurred a hell of a good discussion on fatness. There are a few folks beating the fat=unhealthy drum, but there are so many other thoughtful comments it's totally worth it. Check it out!

{Promoted from the forums - CarrieP}

The BBC is reporting that a group of Cambridge researchers have discovered a genetic factor common to a number of children and teens labelled as 'severely obese'. They also seem to have identified further links between these 'copy number variants' and the regulation of blood sugar levels and appetite, concerns frequently discussed over the years on these very boards (far be it for me to suggest that people in the FA movement have long known what others have persistently refused even to attempt to demonstrate). Worryingly, several of the study's young participants had already been placed on local authority child protection registers 'on the assumption that their parents were deliberately overfeeding them'; the research findings are apparently sufficiently robust that those participants who were previously slated for intervention or removal by the social services have now been deleted from the database and their parents presumably exonerated.

I give this news a cautious welcome, for the 'may' of the headline is not by any means a 'will' and the enormous moral panic and incessant misinformation of the last decade have left us with a metaphorical supertanker of ignorance and prejudice to stop and turn around before the social work and child health professions begin to realise that a child's size may be as natural as their height and entirely unrelated to parental immorality, abuse or neglect. After all, last month's effective admission by a major obesity research institute that their initial apocalyptic predictions, on which much of the policy and media overreaction seen since in the UK have been based, were way off the mark has so far failed to have much by way impact on those policy makers and the government approach to the 'issue' and indeed was quickly shunted from the front pages.

However it is an important step forward which I am hoping that, given the esteem in which the University of Cambridge is held, will maybe encourage more researchers to break from the consensus and have the courage to challenge the assumptions about over-eating and lack of exercise (and perhaps even the scale of the 'epidemic' itself) without fear of censure and dismissal. Most importantly, tonight maybe Britain's fat children and their entirely blameless parents can sleep that little bit easier in their beds as a result of this good work by Dr. Farooqi and her team. I hope that David Rogers, the Local Government Association public health spokesman who called for a nationwide policy of taking obese children into care a couple of years back, sees this and eats his words, and that lawyers acting for the Dundee family, whose teenage son and daughter remain in the hands of the local authority, are paying attention.

ETA: more about the story here, from AOL via the NAAFA blog (whatever you do, don't read the comments on the AOL link!).

I know this letter is long and that's now how you're supposed to do protest letters, but I'm long-winded, people.

Dear Jon Stewart,

Your bit with the fat suit on Monday’s show (September 14^th, 2009) was distasteful, less than amusing, lazy, and sorely problematic. I know what you were trying to do. People called you all lazy for taking three weeks off; and since fatness is the ultimate symbol of being lazy, you got in a fat suit. And since Jon Oliver had joked on his radio show about eating two whole cheese steaks (or so I hear), you threw that in. Since you have a playful relationship with Brian Williams, you took the opportunity to incorporate him. I get that you were taunting your naysayers.  

 

I also get that for you it (likely) wasn’t about fat people at all—but that’s part of the problem because it was on our backs. I know it seems initially an outlandish notion, but you being in a fat suit and TDS using stereotypes and images of fat people the way you did affects my every day life. I’m not saying you hate fat people or that you are responsible for all of the derision and discrimination fat people face—certainly not. But you are responsible for what you do, the messages you spread, and your complicity, especially when so many people regard you as someone well-reasoned, critically-minded, and progressive, someone who engages in smart, sharp (if silly) comedy. Hang with me a second.

 

See, I am a fat person, and every day I deal with people judging me as just some lazy fatass who doesn’t deserve a god-damn thing (aside from a good fat-shaming, for my own good). Fat discrimination, according to a recent study[1], is as prevalent as race and gender discrimination in this country. I’m not just talking about how people judge me on the street or how there is no room for bodies like mine on TV. Fat discrimination and weight bias are prevalent in health care, education, and employment. It affects real living, breathing people. For instance, it affects the quality and thoroughness of care we receive from medical professionals, and we suffer and some of us die because of that.[2]

But what does this have to do with you in a fat suit? Fat suits have been compared to blackface. Now, that’s not a historically equivalent comparison in any way, but the the function is similar. You can put on a fat suit and laugh with everyone else at the fat representation of you and how gross and disgusting and wrong it is. TDS can further dehumanize fat people by using a picture of a (faceless) bed-ridden fat person with Williams face Photoshopped on—participating in what Charlotte Cooper calls the parade of headless fatties—to drive home how disgusting it is to be fat. [3] And in the process you and TDS can metaphorically masturbate stereotypes that perpetuate the bias and discrimination we face in our every day lives—all for your joke that really isn’t about fat people, which just means you have no regard for us in the process. And then you can take that suit off and you don’t have to deal with the consequences.

Your promotion of fat stereotypes and dehumanization of fat people is part of a greater system of bias, discrimination, and dehumanization which directly affects my quality of life. It helps give people the idea that it's perfectly okay not to have any regard for us. After all, if we didn't like it, and if we had any dignity, we'd just put down the sandwich, right? If you had any sense, you might not assume fat people give up their dignity by virtue of being fat. For more a more nuanced critique of “Fat on Film” you can visit the recent Newsweek slideshow of the same name: http://www.newsweek.com/id/213419.

 

This is why I’m disappointed in you and the TDS writers. I expect better. And frankly, the best way to show your audience you haven’t gotten lazy isn’t by telling lazy jokes.

 

There are three things you can do to help fat people and our work toward social justice. First, educate yourself on this issue. Do not take what you think you know about fat people for granted. Put some critical thinking into it and be willing to challenge your own assumptions. Second, bring critical fat studies scholars or fat activists onto your show. Open a conversation. Linda Bacon (yes, bacon, haha) is a preeminent scholar of Health at Every Size, who has found that fat people who don’t diet and don’t lose weight can be healthier than ones who do.[4] She has just published a book on the subject. Kate Harding and Marianne Kirby also have a book out called “Lessons from the Fat-o-Sphere.” Recently, scholars in the UK have published a book called “Fat Studies in the UK” and soon the long-awaited “Fat Studies Reader” will be out. Finally, we don’t care if you make fat jokes, just make them funny. Make sure that you aren’t merely reinscribing harmful stereotypes, and make sure they are the same critical quality as the rest of your bits.

 

Sincerely,

 

Withoutscene

Fat Human Being, Fat Activist, and Doctoral Student in Sociology and Women's Studies

 

Rose tipped me off to some fat discrimination going on over in North Carolina. According to this policy document, the North Carolina State Health Plan (for teachers and state employees) will soon be divided into two sections: one for the "good" folks who don't smoke and have BMIs under 40 and one for the "naughty" smokers or people with BMIs 40 or above. Of course the good folks will receive more coverage at less expense than the naughty ones. Participants in the health plan are required to fill out a form every year that attests that they fit into the good group and they also agree to be subjected to mandatory random screenings for smoking and for BMI.

I am both appalled and terrified by this idea and the precedent it creates. First of all, does this mean that an NCSU employee is subject to being weighed and measured at work whenever HR deems it necessary? What about personal privacy? What about a person's body being their own property and not for their employer to judge? What about an employee being compensated on their performance and NOT their body size? Because no matter how this policy was initially intended, this ends up being another way to pay fat people less for doing the same job, as if that weren't happening enough already.

I hate the idea of the smoking thing as well on the grounds that what I do in my off time shouldn't be any of my employer's business, but at least that's a behavior that can be stopped. A fat person can't just stop being fat, despite the world's erroneous belief that all you have to do is just try a little harder to eat less and exercise more and the pounds will magically melt off. No one has been able to find a method of weight loss that works permanently for more than the tiniest percentages of people, which means that fat people are likely going to stay fat no matter how many crunches they do.

Let's not forget that the mainstream jury is still out on fat and health anyway...even Newsweek isn't sure whether fat=unhealthy anymore. Even if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that fat people are definitely going to get sick, the whole point of a group health plan is that some people are going to get sick and some aren't. By buying into it you acknowledge that you are going to pay the same amount whether you get sick or not and whether other people get sick or not. If we're going to just weed out the people we think are going to get sick, what's the point of group health then anyway?

On TOP of that, what this plan is doing is funneling the people who are (supposedly) the most likely to get sick into a group that gets less coverage! Those who will likely need health care the most are all of a sudden going to get the least amount of assistance from their health insurance company! If this doesn't prove clearly how much more interested health insurance companies are in profits over actually providing health care, then I don't know what will.

Thanks Rose!

Paul Campos gave a great interview over at The Atlantic yesterday, but what I found most interesting about the whole thing were the comments on the article. Almost every one is well thought out, literate, and full of good discussion about the topic at hand instead of devolving into 'fatties are stupid and gross and OMG should just lose weight' territory. I'm not saying they're all favorable or that I agree with all of them, but I find it so much more enjoyable to read a well-constructed point that I disagree with than what amounts to a handful of insults or ignorant BS one might find in comments on other articles.

Anyway, give it a read. A lot of commenters brought up the type II diabetes question which I couldn't immediately debunk in my head. Anyone have good information on the correlation of fat and type II diabetes and medical costs?

I watched the first episode of Drop Dead Diva with the same skepticism as everyone else, and I found plenty to pick at, from the mainlining of easy cheese to the fat girl is all mousy and doesn't take care of herself thing. The second episode, however, really took me by surprise by how much it got right.

First, there's a storyline on fat discrimination in the workplace. Jane's client successfully worked at a hipster bar and then gained 50 pounds and was fired, so she sued the bar. During the course of the case, Jane's boss tries to pressure her into using the idea that fat is a disability to bolster her argument but ultimately she ends up telling him to shove it. There's a nice moment where she is giving her closing argument and discusses how the word 'fat' doesn't have to be a negative thing, just a descriptor. I mean really, when have you ever seen that on entertainment TV?

There's still a little too much talk around how Jane is fat because she likes to eat and is too tired to exercise at the end of her busy day, so not much Health at Every Size on the show, but I was so impressed by this second episode that I wouldn't be at all surprised if one day in the future she stumbles across that concept as well.

So if you can, please give the show a second chance. The writers seem to really get some of the concepts at the heart of fat acceptance and that just makes my day. Both episodes are available here. I'd love to hear what you think!

By now I think most of you have probably heard about the NWA flight attendants who are demanding that they be allowed to wear the same "sexy" red dress as their thinner counter-parts.

And I'll give you one guess as to who thinks it's an outrage and that fat women shouldn't be allowed to be flight attendants anyway?

That's right, via Jezebel, obesity's arch-enemy, MeMe Roth, is on the warpath again. This time she's on Fox News. But there's a twist: The anchor, Stuart Varney, publicly shames her for her indulgent hatred!!

We have seen MeMe Roth and her special brand of crazy before, but this time she's got a crazy look and crazier antics than I remember. She acts like a two-year-old desperate for attention, holding up a pair of size 24 pants, laughing uncomfortably...and this guy tells just keeps on her and tells her, "That, madam, is a disgrace."

Who could've predicted that the taming of MeMe would have happened on Fox News?

(Go to Jezebel for the video. Can't imbed it at this time.)

Postscript: Granted, he goes way overboard and is out of line to say fat discrimination is "one of the most hurtful forms of discrimination," as if other forms of discrimination are somehow less hurtful. I'm pretty sure all forms of discrimination suck pretty badly. Oppression Olympics are unnecessary, sir.

When I first read this article I had an odd sense of déjà vu. Then I realized why: it's not a new story! Not only that, but every time this subject has come up, the same people seem to be behind it. Ian Roberts wrote the original diatribe in 2007, he and Dr. Phil Edwards wrote a letter to the Lancet in 2008 with the same message, and now they've published a study along these same lines. The thing is, all of their research is based on the same faulty assumptions: that fat people consume more energy by eating and driving more. Even this new "study" draws conclusions based on these assumptions. For instance:

Since it can be assumed that energy expenditure is approximately balanced by energy intake, it follows that total food energy consumption increases as BMI increases.

So, we're going to assume that each step up the BMI ladder means more food consumption? There have been studies to refute this, but even if you disregard them and assume that I, with a BMI of 60+ eat THREE TIMES THE VOLUME OF FOOD as a person with a BMI of 20, what about the one in four people in the UK who are on a constant diet? What about the 45 million Americans who go on diets each year? Some of those folks must be fat, yes? So right there you can see it's ridiculous to assume that every fat person eats more than someone with a lower BMI. If it were true, the diet industry would crumble.

To estimate the GHG emissions due to car travel by each population, we assumed that all individuals with BMI < 30 kg/m2 use an average small car (e.g. Ford Fiesta) and that individuals with BMI 30 kg/m2 use a car with more internal space (e.g. Ford Galaxy). The Ford Fiesta weighs 1530 kg and produces 147 gCO2 per km, whereas the Ford Galaxy weighs 2415 kg and produces 197 gCO2 per km.

So for the purposes of this study, we're just going to *assume* that all of the skinny folks drive tiny cars and all of the fat folks drive bigger cars. What about all of the skinny SUV drivers? What about the fat folks who drive hybrids or smaller, more fuel-efficient cars? What about all of the poorer fat people who don't even have their own car and instead take public transportation?

The increase in energy expenditure with increasing body weight should prevent further weight gain in a negative feedback loop but with rising BMI people are likely to move less, particularly those who are substantially overweight

Of course this part ignores the active fat people and imagines that all skinny people are active. It also incorrectly assumes (again) that the amount of walking a person does correlates somehow with their BMI. Furthermore, when I was digging for info I came across this article that states that driving might be better for the planet than walking anyway.

So Dr. Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts, here's some advice: no matter how many times you interpret and reinterpret these data, you're still starting off with a bunch of flawed, unproven assumptions that, despite the moderate media interest, add up to nothing more than fat-bashing, sizeist nonsense. Your "research" is focusing attention on fat people instead of the actual changes that need to be made to stop global warming. Do the planet a favor and kindly knock it off.

Thanks to DC and Marilyn for the tip

So I was asked to give a comment yesterday on United Airlines' new policy to charge fat people double to fly on their planes. When the article came out the thing that struck me the most was how my response, which I had thought of as calm and rational, was being portrayed as "anger" and that I was "hitting out" against United. My first thought was "But wait...I'm not angry!" The more I thought about it though, the more I realized maybe I should be.

What United is doing here (and what the rest of the airlines have already done) is basically scapegoating fat people for the fact that there's no room in their tiny airplane seats. Air travel for most people is not a very comfortable or cheap way to go and if they can get us all focused on the specter of a fat person's fat encroaching on the armrest then we won't even think about how seventeen inches isn't really enough personal space for us to be comfortable sitting next to any stranger, even a thin one. Not to mention that by making the seats so small, the airlines are guaranteeing that a higher percentage of their passengers will not be able to fit into them and will then have to pay for two seats. It's like the BMI effect when a bajillion people became overweight overnight. These terrible fat people wouldn't be such a problem if the seats were at least made to fit average-sized adults.

An aside:
So okay, maybe it's not realistic to expect airlines to rip out all of the tiny seats and put in a bunch of average-sized seats. But would it be too much to ask them to put in a couple of rows of larger seats for larger folks? Sure, maybe they could even charge a little more for them, but there should be coach fare seats that fat people can fit into, no? Not everyone can afford two seats or first class seats. By putting in a row or two of plus sized seats, they can not only ensure that fat people are accomodated comfortably, they could also make sure no thin people ever have to put up with sitting next to them (egads!).
End aside.

Anyway, back to the scapegoating. Is it really logical and/or possible that fat people on planes are that much of a problem for United? According to their own press release, they got 700 complaints last year about fat people encroaching on thin peoples' space. 700...that sounds like quite a few complaints until you look at the other number in the article: 3000 flights a day. A DAY. Even if we take a seriously conservative estimate and say there are only 50 people on each flight, that means that 150,000 folks fly United every day. That's 54,750,000 people a year. So 700 of those people, or 0.00001% of the people who flew last year, had a complaint about fat people. I wonder how many people complained about delays or ticket prices. I wonder how many had something to say about lack of leg room or the terrible airline food. I'm willing to bet that any one of these things scored more than 700 complaints from United's customers, but to change them would cost the company money. Announcing a fat people policy, on the other hand, gets them free publicity, goodwill from the fat-hating public, and some extra fares paid by fat folks who now have no choice.

Another aside:
And United, don't give me that crap about how your industry is struggling and these evil fat people are putting such a strain on your resources by taking up two seats and not paying extra for them. First of all, didn't you just get a giant government bailout? What exactly did you do with that money? I know you didn't improve your planes because they're just as uncomfortable as they have always been. I know you didn't lower ticket prices because it still costs an arm and a leg to fly anywhere. I know you didn't use it to continue to pay your valuable employees because you're still laying people off. So what the hell? Isn't it time to examine why you keep running out of cash instead of blaming and double-charging your passengers?
End aside.

So yes, I'm a little angry. I'm tired of the airline industry and the fashion industry and the media telling me that the problem is me and my body and that I should just change and everything will be okay. My body is not the problem! Your complete denial that there is any body type other than model-thin is the problem. Your focus on doing things more and more cheaply so you can make more money is the problem. I am not an anomaly. I am not "other". I am a valid member of the human race and I don't deserve to be excluded or asked to pay more for the same goods and services as thin people. I and the millions like me deserve to be considered when you're building a new airplane or designing a new clothing line for the masses. We are the masses! Stop acting like we don't or shouldn't exist. We're here, baby. One way or another, you're going to have to deal with us.

That is all.

For those of you who have been looking for an opportunity to advance the fat rights cause, now is your chance! NAAFA members in Nevada have been working to get a bill drafted and voted on that would "help to eliminate discrimination based on physical appearance which is defined to include weight and height" Please read the letter below and take a moment to email the committee members listed, even if you're not a NAAFA member. Our voices can make a difference but only if we say something!

For forty years, NAAFA members have been writing letters to legislators working to improve the lives of people of size. Since those humble beginnings we have seen one state (Michigan) and a handful of cities change their anti-discrimination laws to include height and weight or physical appearance.

The most recent was just last year when Binghamton, NY changed their laws to protect people of size. They modeled their anti-discrimination laws after the laws in San Francisco. This is a proud day for those of you involved in that work in San Francisco. We never know the far-reaching effect our work will have!

It is to this end that members of NAAFA in Nevada have been working to see that their laws are changed as well. A bill has been drafted and is now awaiting review by the Commerce and Labor Committee before it can be passed along and voted into law. AB 166 modernizes Nevada's anti-discrimination laws and would help to eliminate discrimination based on physical appearance which is defined to include weight and height. The latest word from my assemblyman is that the committee chairman does not want to give this bill a hearing.

We're asking NAAFA members to step up to the plate and start writing letters again. Whether you are a Nevada resident or a visitor to Nevada, we need your help to insure that this bill will be passed into law. For residents, it would affect hiring processes, employment, housing and public accommodations. Why would you as a non-resident have any impact at all in this situation? The economy of the state of Nevada is heavily reliant on tourism. We need visitors in order to survive. As a visitor to Nevada, this change would affect "public accommodation."

What "public accommodation" includes for you as a visitor to Nevada is hotel stays, restaurants, theaters, clubs, etc. This law is about how you are treated while you are here. This change to our laws would mean that you could not be discriminated against because of your weight, height or a physical characteristic beyond your control. This is why this change is important to you and why we need your help!

Please write to the following committee members and tell them that it is VERY important that this bill become law:

mconklin@asm.state.nv.us, katkinson@asm.state.nv.us, banderson@asm.state.nv.us, marberry@asm.state.nv.us, bbuckley@asm.state.nv.us, whorne@asm.state.nv.us, mkirkpatrick@asm.state.nv.us, mmanendo@asm.state.nv.us, kmcclain@asm.state.nv.us, joceguera@asm.state.nv.us, cchristensen@asm.state.nv.us, hgansert@asm.state.nv.us,
egoedhart@asm.state.nv.us, jsettelmeyer@asm.state.nv.us

PLEASE take a few moments of your time and write today. It doesn't have to be anything elaborate, simply tell them in your own words that you support the passage of AB 166. We REALLY need you to act on this. Change only comes in society when we make it happen! Speak out today and take a stand for your rights. It's for your future and for the future of those you love. We need all of you to write in support of AB 166. People come in all sizes and it's time to support one another!

Thanks everybody!

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!]