Monday, June 01, 2009

Book Chat


My pal Anne and I used to have Book Chat every now and then. We haven't done it in a while -- I don't know about her, but my excuse is that I haven't been reading any books outside of my own academic field lately! So sad. But anyway, I just got back from a trip to the UK, so on the plane I had ample time for reading, and I read Zadie Smith's On Beauty based on recommendations from multiple friends. Since it touches on issues I talk about in this blog, I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone (sorry, I hate that metaphor; the other one I really despise is "flesh out," but sometimes they're apt, so what can you do?) and simultaneously do a blog post and a Book Chat. So Anne, if you're reading, this one's for you!

This is way too complex and interesting a book for me to write a full review of in a blog post. Instead I thought I'd just mention a couple of things about it.

The main point of interest (here, anyway), is that one of the main characters (since there's not a single main character in my opinion -- there are many characters that are sympathetic and well developed), Kiki, is fat. She's described as being 250 or 300 lbs. Her fatness is something that comes up multiple times in the book, but what's nice is that it doesn't define her, and she is nothing like a token fat character or a one-dimensional caricature of a fat person. In fact, she is an extremely complex and interesting person. Her relationship with her husband Howard is also affected by her being fat (particularly since she wasn't fat when they got married), but it's only one factor in a relationship that's otherwise complicated by her and Howard's psychological quirks (he's a neurotic academic; she doesn't really consider herself to be an intellectual even though she thinks deeply about a lot of things and is very sensitive and insightful), race (she's African-American; he's British), and their long history together. There are some scenes in the book where Kiki feels self-conscious and you get the idea that her being fat is contributing to it, but since she's a non-academic surrounded by a bunch of academics (Howard teaches at a small college in a small town) you figure that in many instances a thin white person in her situation would have felt self-conscious too. I only remember one scene where explicit mention is made of Kiki feeling self-conscious about being fat, and that's an incident mentioned in passing where she's in a hurry and gets herself a bagel and coffee and feels like people are watching her eat since this is what people do to a fat person who dares to eat in public. I thought that was a really interesting observation on the part of the author, because that is exactly what people do to a fat person eating in public! But I don't know how Zadie Smith knew that -- having seen a picture of her, she doesn't look the slightest bit fat. So, good for her for thinking of it. (On the other hand, maybe the reason she knows is that she has found herself doing it! But based on her sensitive portrayal of Kiki, she certainly doesn't seem like she's anti-fat.)

There's an interesting thread running through the descriptions of Kiki having to do with her as an "African queen" or a goddess. She's described as being pretty, but in at least one case where someone tells her she's pretty, it's in the context of the African queen idea. There's a related notion of Kiki as a "strong black woman". Kiki has an uneasy relationship with both of these ideas -- on the one hand, they're both flattering on the surface, but on the other hand, she's tired of them, and she is not convinced that they're accurate. She tries to use the "strong black woman" idea for inspiration to get through a difficult situation, but deep down she seems to think it's bullshit. Both of these ideas are ways in which people spin her fatness as being OK or positive, but they imply that if she weren't black then her fatness would not be OK. So it seems she'd rather do without them, although maybe she also enjoys the benefits of them. I have to admit I never thought too deeply about either of these ideas, but now that I've read this and thought about it, yeah, I think they are both kind of problematic, and certainly trite in any case.

Relating to the race/fatness issue, at some point it it turns out that Kiki and Howard's adolescent son Levi (who himself is thin) is attracted to fat women. I think the first time it comes up is at a point when Kiki and Howard are having a crisis in their marriage, and it seems like Levi gets interested in fat women as a way of siding with his mother or expressing solidarity with her (even though at that moment he doesn't actually tell her about it). What's kind of interesting is that it also seems to be a way for Levi to assert his blackness. At the same time as he starts being interested in fat women, he also is getting involved with a group of friends whose nationality and station in life are very different from his own (he goes to great lengths to hide from them where he comes from), but who are unified by being black. Later on, we find out that Levi has pictures from fat porn magazines in his bedroom (and I think the women are black, though I don't remember for sure). Kiki comments on Levi's attraction to fat women once, saying something like of course men ought to like women with a little meat on their bones that don't look like they're undernourished. She clearly has a particular situation in mind but states it in general terms. Usually she is good-natured and doesn't make a lot of negative remarks (except when arguing with Howard), but this is one of the few comments that comes off as bitter.

Anyway, I haven't done this book justice at all, but these are just a few items that I thought might get some of you interested in reading the book. I highly recommend it, for lots of other reasons than what I talked about here! If you've read it (or if you read it in the future), please feel free to leave a comment about any aspect of the book or my interpretation of it.

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Jeers


Hey everyone, did you know that if you gain 83 lbs. you can get yourself on the cover of People magazine? Just ask Kirstie Alley. As far as I can tell, that's the only thing she has ever really accomplished. Let's face it, she sucked ass on Cheers. Now all she does is get paid by Jenny Craig to get thin and brag about it, then get interviewed by People magazine about how she got fat again.

All this would be fine and kind of boring, just another example of a narcissistic celebrity looking for a way to get into the news, if it weren't for the fact that she is spreading such a damaging message. In the People interview she refers to herself as "disgusting" because at 5'8" she let herself get up to 228 lbs. Yes, god forbid someone who's 5'8" should weigh that much. Can you imagine?! Jesus, how disgusting!! She also enlightens us all about how she got to such a disgusting size: she "went wild", she banished her workout equipment to the garage, and for dinner she would eat two cups of pasta with six tablespoons of butter. Um, OK, actually that last part *is* disgusting. In fact it's so disgusting that I'm going to go ahead and suggest that it's an exaggeration (or dare I say a lie?). But even if she really did eat that much butter on her pasta, unfortunately the implication is that other people who weigh 228 lbs. eat six tablespoons of butter on their pasta too. And they just "go wild" with their eating, and of course they don't work out. (Otherwise how could someone get to such a disgusting weight?!) This is just what we need, isn't it? The best part is that at the bottom of the People article there's a link that says "Does Kirstie's will to lose inspire you?" That seriously made me laugh out loud.

Kirstie, please shut the fuck up! If you want to lose weight, have at it, but does the whole fucking world have to hear about it? Your stupid "inspirational" story is not the slightest bit inspirational, for many reasons including the fact that half of it is probably complete bullshit. You got paid by Jenny Craig to promote their dumb-ass weight loss program, so why should we think that anything you have to say about it in a "candid" interview is anything but more propaganda?

In other news, just wanted to give you a heads-up that it's troll season. A couple of days ago a book was released called Lessons from the Fat-o-Sphere (no relation; I haven't read it yet but I look forward to it) and so there have been a lot more random hits on this blog. Which is totally great and all, except that some of the people who stop by here and post comments are assholes. Usually you can spot them by name ("Anonymous") but other times you have to read like one or two words into their comments to figure it out for sure. If any of them are excessively vile I will delete them; otherwise, I'm leaving the comments open, so feel free to respond to any and all comments from trolls. (Also please remember that I try to avoid anti-thin stuff around here, so if you want to say mean stuff to a troll, please make it about something else.)

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Fat people are destroying the planet

Not just by uglying up the place, but through global warming. Don't take my word for it -- just ask these guys from the "London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine"! It turns out that all of us Fatty McFattersons could save the planet, if only we didn't insist on being so fat. Fortunately some other bloggers were on top of this and have pretty much skewered it, so I'll just direct you to them: Fillyjonk over at Shapely Prose brings the snark; CarrieP at Big Fat Blog gives another good analysis and points out that for their calculations, the "researchers" assumed that fat people drive bigger cars (!).

As a follow-up to the United Airlines post, in case you're interested, here's a petition you can sign that will be sent to United telling them it's not OK for them to have their gate agents size people up and make them pay double to fly as punishment for being fat. Part of United's justification for their newly articulated policy was that they received 700 complaints from people who felt inconvenienced by having to sit next to a fat person. So the goal of the petition is to show United that their new policy is going to piss off a lot more than 700 people (there was another similar petition on PetitionOnline that had already reached 700 signatures, but sadly someone hacked it and managed to get it deleted from the site before the owner was able to compile everything to send to United).

Friday, April 17, 2009

United We Are Assholes

Oh god, what to do... United was my favorite airline until now. I have racked up a bunch of frequent flyer miles with them, and just last weekend I got a free upgrade to first class on a United flight from Chicago, just because I put myself on standby for an early flight and they sold out all the economy seats but still had room in first! It was totally awesome.

But now United is going to start charging fat people for two tickets. Granted, I don't personally meet the criteria for being required to buy an extra seat according to this article, but now I feel like I ought to stop patronizing them. Even if I didn't feel some obligation to express solidarity with my fellow fatties, I'm also a little worried that I might get hassled at the gate. As Kate Harding points out in the post linked to above, how are they going to decide whether a person meets the criteria or not? Probably by authorizing the gate agents to visually size people up and decide whether someone looks too fat or not. Even if I never got forced to buy an extra ticket or miss my flight because of being fat, I would be absolutely outraged if I got pulled aside and grilled about whether I use a seatbelt extender (I don't, as it happens) or if I can lower the armrest (I can, and I always do if there's someone in the seat next to me, but it sure isn't comfortable), or worse -- if they made me sit in a seat in front of everyone at the gate and prove it. Even the thought that from now on the United gate agents will be looking me over and thinking about such things makes me feel angry and uncomfortable.

Of course Southwest had this same brilliant idea a while back, and it caused a little stir which has since (apparently) dissipated. There were some widely publicized cases of people being harrassed at the gate, Southwest got some bad PR, and then I imagine they asked the gate agents to back off a little bit even though they kept their discriminatory policy on the books. At least I haven't heard much about it since. I've flown on Southwest since then -- maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but they're so cheap and convenient that I just couldn't help myself. United, on the other hand, isn't particularly unique. I probably could avoid United without too much inconvenience or paying more for flights -- though I do have those frequent flyer miles, which are probably enough for a flight at this point... dilemma...

Well, anyway, I guess I'll have to think about it a little more. In the mean time, I'll daydream about a time when all this airline bullshit will be largely irrelevant (at least for domestic travel), thanks to this.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Yeah, but you're still a tool


So David Noonan can't believe he's still a vegan. What I can't believe is that this is considered "news". This guy is obviously a huge fucking narcissist, but why on earth did an editor have to indulge him in it? David Noonan, I do not give a shit if you are vegan. And I really don't care about your philosophy of "food as fuel", except perhaps as a data point in our recent poll. What I do care about, though, is your asshole attitude towards fat, because unfortunately someone thought it would be a great idea to give you a large audience for your smug little rant. I'm sure you just think it's cute and funny, but did it ever occur to you that reinforcing the idea that being fat is a fate worse than death might contribute to people choosing death over fat? And before you say that's ridiculous, just take a look at this, and this, and this. And then go fuck yourself.

On a lighter note, my friend's brother features as the villain/instigator in this story on ESPN.com about the "Krispy Kreme Challenge," a very interesting annual tradition at NC State where you run 4 miles. Oh yeah, and eat a dozen Krispy Kreme donuts in the middle of it. The idea appeals to me for so many reasons, but watching the video convinced me that this is not an event that I ever need to try to participate in myself. See what you think!

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

D'oh of the week

Ahh, CNN, you are so rife with fodder for my blog. When I'm in a rush and feeling guilty about not having posted recently, I know I can count on you to have something obnoxious about "obesity" right on your front page. You didn't let me down today! This article is a perfect example of how to imply that being fat raises cholesterol, without actually having to say anything that is technically false! Just say, "Given the increase in childhood obesity and diabetes in the United States..." and then go on to talk about how more kids are being diagnosed with high cholesterol these days. Sure, you didn't say "obesity causes high cholesterol," but will your average reader notice the distinction? Does the author of the article even understand the distinction? My guess is no on both counts.

And about that "increase in childhood obesity"? Uhh, yeah, that kind of ended ten years ago. But hey, the point still stands, right? Assholes.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

The Joy of Eating

I'd like to do a little informal poll. Here is a statement: "Food is just fuel for your body. I don't eat for pleasure; if I want pleasure I get it from other sources." Before you read on, please think about your reaction to the statement (and post it in the comments, if you're willing -- on this one, I actually invite people who are anti-fat and stumbled onto this post for some reason to please chime in). Does it apply to you? If not, do you aspire to it? Do you think it is a mainstream view?

OK, now the context. This statement is something that my trainer at the gym told me. He used to be fat (he was 300 lbs., and I think he's about 5'7") -- now he is more like 200 lbs. and very lean. He doesn't lecture me about losing weight (if he did, I'd tell him off and/or quit working with him), so this kind of indirect parable-type thing is the only way I've ever heard his philosophy on the subject. He said he hasn't eaten any cheese in probably 3 or 4 months. I'm not really asking if he is "right," since I don't think there is one right way to think about such things (it is surely obvious to my regular readers how I feel about it, but I'm not arguing for my own view here). So I'm not asking whether a person "should" eat for pleasure. But I do wonder how common a view it is, and whether people who are fat-haters would agree with it or not. I actually have conflicting expectations about this. On the one hand, I can imagine that it's a common view among bodybuilders, and a lot of fat-haters are bodybuilders (or claim to be bodybuilders, when they're posting nasty comments on people's blogs). On the other hand, a common uncharitable claim about fat people is that we do not know how to really eat for pleasure, we just cram as much cheap, low-quality food as possible down the gullet in as short a period as possible. So this would lead me to expect that the fat-haters would argue that you "should" try to get pleasure out of eating.

On another note, I have an update on the last post. I got a very nice response from the person I emailed. It still seems like we disagree about some things, but she seems open to talking about it. Also, it turns out that some of the materials they are using in class are about the physical and psychological damage that can be caused by dieting. I am not sure how she is reconciling these things with the CDC slideshow that, as I pointed out, feeds into the "obesity panic" which in turn puts more pressure on people to diet. But I was happy at least to know that the students are getting some materials that challenge the pro-diet view.

One last thing. The Admiral sent a link to this article on why Sanjay Gupta should not be Surgeon General. I agree, not only because of Gupta's views on single-payer health care, but for these additional reasons.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Fat in the classroom

On Tuesday I attended a lecture on campus, and as I walked into the room, a class had just ended and the professor (whom I know casually) was still packing up her stuff. I saw on the whiteboard some what looked like a list of reasons why people are fat. So I asked the professor what class it was and what they had been talking about, and she said it was a health psychology course and that today's lecture was about "weight". I mentioned that I had an interest in this subject and was curious about what they talked about, and she said they had discussed the conscientious objectors experiment (I assume she meant this) and she showed a CDC slideshow about the change in "obesity" rates in the US over time (scare quotes mine) (and I'm guessing it was this). In the most casual possible way, I asked what the slideshow did about the fact that the BMI cutoff for obesity was changed in 1998 (well, I actually said I wasn't sure, but it was in the 1990's and I thought 1996). She responded that the cutoff was 30 and had been 30 for a very long time and that she never heard of the change I was referring to. This I found kind of disturbing, since here she was lecturing students about BMI but didn't know the history of the BMI standards. Maybe it's a minor point, though. Anyway, what bothered me even more was that she went on to say about the CDC slideshow, "What's really striking about it is the change." And I was like, "The change?" and she was like, "Yeah, the increase in the percentage of obesity state-by-state over the years." And I said, "Hmm, I wonder how much of that is attributable to demographic changes," and she replied, "No, it can't possibly be explained by that because the change is way too dramatic." Since the lecture was about to start, I just smiled and said, "Hmm," and then added that I'd love to talk more about this stuff with her sometime, and she said that sounded good.

So I sat there during the lecture, totally unable to focus, instead just stewing about how the students at my institution are getting a misinformed view about fat. When I got back to my office, I wrote the following email:

"Hi [name],

It was interesting chatting with you this morning and I wish we'd had more time to talk! While I'm thinking of it, I just wanted to send you a link to a post on a blog that I read, where Paul Campos critiques the traditional view of BMI (I don't know if you're familiar with his work, but I could send you some references if you're interested). Here is the link: http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/08/obesity-apocalypse.html. If you get a chance to look at it, I'd be curious to know your reaction to this line of argumentation. One of the most interesting points, to me, is the fact that the average weight has not actually gone up by a very large amount in the last 30 years (and I think it would be even less if you factored in the increased average height over the same period). So I wonder whether demographic trends actually could explain quite a bit of the change. I also think it is interesting to consider what other factors have contributed -- it sounds like you talked a bit about that in your class. I'd love to know if you have the students reading anything in particular about this that I might be able to get ahold of.

Also, I looked around online and found some references to the change in BMI standards. Apparently it happened in 1998, not 1996 as I thought. I forget what happened to the standard for "overweight," but the "obese" cutoff was a BMI of 32 prior to 1998 and then changed to 30. I don't know what the CDC materials do about this change -- I think I found the slide show you mentioned, and it just says "BMI >=30", implying that they applied the new standard to the data from all years including pre-1998. On the other hand, impressionistically it looks like there's a big jump between 1998 and 1999, so I wonder whether they could actually be applying the old standard to the data from 1998 and previous, and then just stating the modern cutoff. That would certainly be interesting to know! I also think it is interesting to think about what the motivation was for the cutoff being revised, and indeed for the cutoffs in general.

Anyway, I just thought I'd drop you a line about this, and if you are interested in talking more I would be glad to do so.

Best,
Mary"

After I sent it I obsessed about how she would react to the email, because from the little that I know about her I actually like this person, and people around campus seem to respect her. And I kind of think if another professor sent me an email challenging something I had taught in class, I might get a little defensive about it no matter how nicely it was worded. So I forwarded my email to a colleague who knows her well (and who isn't necessarily a true believer in everything I think about fat, so I figured she'd be objective), and she said she thought it was "completely collegial". For the rest of the day on Tuesday I kept checking my email and wondering when she'd write back. But now that a couple of days have gone by, I've realized that the reaction is not actually the most important thing here. First of all, there's a chance I got the wrong impression and this person actually has a more enlightened view than I'm giving her credit for. I did see that one of the things on the list written on the board was "Genetics 50-60%" (I may have the numbers wrong, but it was something like that), so at least that was apparently acknowledged (though I think the actual figure is higher, to the extent you buy into these percentages that people try to assign to the role of genetics in X). But even if her views are actually quite yucky, at least I've given her a little taste of the idea that there exists a critique of the mainstream view. I wouldn't expect to suddenly change someone's mind with an email, but who knows, maybe next time she lectures on this stuff she'll at least say, "There are those who disagree..." and then perhaps a student will pick up on the comment and go out and learn about the alternative point of view for him/herself.