May 21, 2013 • 3:27 pm 2
More on A&F: Jes over at The Militant Baker posts her response to the Abercrombie & Fitch CEO, proving that it is possible for some fatties to wear A&F, and do so quite well: http://www.themilitantbaker.com/2013/05/to-mike-jeffries-co-abercrombie-fitch.html
Filed under: Body image, Fat Activism, Just Fun, Size Discrimination
May 20, 2013 • 2:42 am 0
Want to do something important?
Meetings are going on right now where employers are asking the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) to set guidelines and provide clarification regarding employer “wellness programs”; and the EEOC would like input.
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Articles/Pages/Wellness-EEOC.aspx
Take a look at the concerns of the organizations that represent the rights of “people” (i.e., employees) and the concerns of the lawyers representing the employers. Uh-huh.
I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to see that the employee-groups are concerned about discrimination; and the employers are concerned about the “effectiveness” of their programs.
The employers are concerned about the effectiveness of being able to get their hands on personal, private, protected health information of their employees; they are concerned about the effectiveness of the program to allow them to pass on more of the cost of health insurance to the people who need the coverage the most and are least able to bear that extra burden; and they are concerned about the effectiveness of using the program to weed out employees who are otherwise included in protected classes – like race, gender, and age.
Here is what I e-mailed to the EEOC:
It is becoming more and more clear that these programs are being used not to improve the health of employees but as a way to discriminate against all but a group of “healthy” individuals and to pass on rising insurance costs to those employees who will suffer the most from such penalization.
If the true concern is “wellness”, then participation should be sufficient without arbitrary goals such as BMI.
It is even more disconcerting that employers are demanding access to private (and protected) health information to which they have no right. There is no proper business reason for an employer to have access to health information on its employees, except in certain specific instances (such as drug testing).
To require an employee to achieve specific outcomes from a wellness program is unquestionably discriminatory. People with certain disabilities, with certain genetic traits, of certain ethnic background, of lower socioeconomic background, of a certain age or gender may not be able to achieve those (arbitrary) outcomes; or to achieve those outcomes may impose a disproportionate burden on those employees in attempting to do so.
I urge you to look closely at the motives of employer “wellness” programs; and that you create guidelines that protect the employee from unwarranted intrusion by an employer.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Terri Weitze
Other people’s bodies are none of your business, not to touch, to judge, or to publicly comment upon. (Leslie Kinzel)
(And yes, I kept my current tagline in, because I think it is pertinent to the issue.)
If you are so inclined, I encourage you to e-mail your thoughts, concerns and comments to the EEOC before May 23, 2013:
Commissionmeetingcomments@eeoc.gov.
Comments will be made public, and the sender’s e-mail address will automatically appear on the message. Public comments may also be mailed to Commission Meeting, EEOC Executive Officer, 131 M St. N.E., Washington, DC 20507. Written testimony delivered at the meeting is available on the EEOC website.
Filed under: Fat Activism, Size Acceptance, Size Discrimination
May 18, 2013 • 11:37 pm 0
Big Think just laid a big stinky.
Big Think is a YouTube channel that features four minute lectures by smart, cool people (like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Penn Jillette, for example), and some not so cool people. I usually can tell if I’m going to hate a video by the title, and I avoid those that I hate, but this video was called Big Think Mentor, which made me think of mentoring children, which sounded good.
I played it, and the first clip was a dude talking about how thin people can be unhealthy. That’s not a big shocker, and we in the fat rights community often like to point that out as well, to show how it’s unfair to demonize fatties as unhealthy. (It’s actually unfair to demonize fatties even if we’re unhealthy, but that’s another post.) The problem with this guy is he used the phrase “metabolically obese” for unhealthy thin people.
Using the word “obese” to indicate “unhealthy” isn’t big thinking, it’s prejudicial thinking. Someone who sees data showing that thin people can be unfit, and that fat people can be fit, and expressing that by saying (in essence) “thin people can be fat” is using existing prejudices to evoke an emotional reaction. “Gosh, I hate fat people, and I’m thin, but if I’m also unhealthy, that means I’m as bad as a fatty, so I’d better get healthy so I’m not so loathesome. Because better health isn’t enough of a motivating force.”
I guess the video is selling a computer program to help people live better, but if their motivating force is prejudice, I’m not buying.
Filed under: health, Science, Size Discrimination
May 10, 2013 • 12:28 am 0
Tanteterri just posted about a CEO of a chain of stores. In the article she references, the guy says he wants only cool people in the company’s stores and clothes. To him, that means (in part) no fatties. But it’s clear from the context that he doesn’t mean cool, he means popular.
See, there are two types of cool people: the first type wears what’s in fashion, and the second type has a unique style, and sometimes creates fashion. I’ve seen people doing lots of cool things with what they wear, and lots of those people were fat. There may be body types that are more fashionable at a given time, but no body size has a monopoly on style or creativity.
One more thing: cool is as cool does. To be truly cool, you have to be cool about other people. To be OK enough with yourself that you can be OK with others who are different. That’s cool. But this CEO guy? Not cool.
Filed under: Body image, Size Discrimination
May 9, 2013 • 10:29 pm 1
Mike Jeffries (CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch) can kiss my fat ass as it goes by his store (or more likely website) with my expendable income.
You see, Mr. Jeffries, I (as well as lots and lots of other people) may not be welcome in your store because we are not thin enough or cool enough; but guess what? Those cool thin people you want wearing your clothes – they have lots of friends and relatives – you know, the people who buy presents for cool thin people. I have a nephew who loves your stuff (hopefully “loved” once I get a chance to talk to him this weekend), and who is just your type – he was on Broadway, he toured with a national tour of the same show in the title role.. His loving aunt will not be buying him anything from your store (or website), and she (that’s me) will encourage him and his family to eschew Abercrombie & Fitch as well. Because while sex may sell, hate does not.
I just wish I had known about how you felt about the rest of the world back in 2006 when you originally made your comments. I am sorry that society was not ready in 2006 to admit that your attitude is hateful. But better late than never.
http://www.salon.com/2006/01/24/jeffries/
It’s one thing to say “I am not going to sell clothing that fits you”. I have no problem with that. Your store, your choice. It’s another thing to say, “People who look like you are not welcome in my store.” Not okay. Not in 2006, not now, not ever.
Filed under: Body image, Body preferences, Fat Activism, Size Acceptance, Size Discrimination
April 30, 2013 • 8:35 pm 0
Check out this very cool brief history of the Health At Every Size (HAES) movement, written by NAAFA and ASDAH member Barbara Altman Bruno. Part 1, linked below, covers the period up through the founding of NAAFA, the first size rights group. (I’ll post a link to Part 2 when it is available.)
Filed under: Fat Rights Organizations, health
April 8, 2013 • 10:27 pm 2
Samoa Air is the first airline to base its airfare on weight.
The news is all over this story, especially after Dr. Bharat P Bhatta’s study was published (see, my last post “As if the Skies Aren’t Unfriendly Enough for My Fat Ass”)
So I went online to see what was going on with Samoa Air – turns out Samoa Air flies Britten Norman (BN2A) series and Cessna (172) aircraft.
http://www.samoaair.ws/index.php/about-us2/our-fleet
The Britten Norman (BN2A) series carries up to 11 people (including the crew). Empty the plane weights 3,675 pounds and its maximum takeoff weight is 6,600 pounds – for a net weight for people and luggage of 2,925. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britten-Norman_Islander
The Cessna 172 is even smaller. It can carry up to 4 people (including the crew). Empty the plane weighs 1,691 pounds, and its maximum weight is 2,450 pounds – for a net of 791 pounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172
The loads these planes can carry are very limited and not distributing the weight correctly in small planes can lead to very dangerous situations. These planes are also flying from island to island – over a lot of open water, so if something goes wrong, your options for emergency landing will be more limited.
In other words, Samoa Air is not your typical airline. In fact, it’s not much of an “airline” at all.
In fact, according to The Huffington Post
“Air Samoa typically serves domestic routes, and other Pacific destinations such as American Samoa, North Cook Islands and French Polynesia using two aircraft: a Britten-Norman BN2A Islander twin-engine and a Cessna 172 single engine propeller plane.”
This “airline” has two planes. Two small planes. Two “puddle jumpers”.
Just look at the photos – when is the last time you flew on an airline that had sheepskin seat covers? It appears that most of the “seats” are bench type – not separate seats. It is operating in an area and region with equipment that creates fairly unique circumstances. They are creating a policy from a safety-necessity and trying to make it beneficial for both the airline and its passengers.
But you’d never know that looking at all the news articles, would you? Many of the articles (and the accompanying photos) make you think that Samoa Air is the same as Air France or Alaska Airlines. And it doesn’t help that the CEO for Samoa Air, Chris Langton, says he believed his airline’s new payment policy was helping to promote health and obesity awareness. What a crock. I suppose he’s enjoying all the attention and doesn’t want to have to admit that his fleet is two small planes which are more susceptible to problems due to weight
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/04/02/samoa-air-charges-passengers-by-their-weight/
If I have to get on a very small plane, I would like to know that the weight limits of the aircraft are recognized and accounted for, and if that means you have to weigh my fat ass to make sure we all stay in the air, I understand. Just like before I buy a ladder, I’m going to check on the weight capacity. I’m fat, I’m not stupid.
And if I don’t want to be weighed, then I won’t fly Samoa Air – I’ll fly on Virgin Samoa with a fleet that includes: Airbus A330-200 (maximum takeoff weight 513,671); ATR72 (maximum takeoff weight 50,705), Boeing 737-700 (maximum takeoff weight 154,500), Boeing 737-800 (maximum takeoff weight 174,200), Boeing 777-300ER (maximum takeoff weight 775,000) and Embraer 190 (maximum take-off weight 114,199).
Now if Virgin Samoa wants to weigh my fat ass, they better be prepared to kiss it (and my money) goodbye.
Filed under: Fat Activism, Just Fun, Size Acceptance, Size Discrimination
April 6, 2013 • 6:30 pm 4
I wasn’t previously a fan of New Kids on the Block, but they’ve won me over with this video featuring a super hot fatty dancing her butt off; check it out! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN1EFs9XQoc
Filed under: Body image, Just Fun
April 1, 2013 • 9:29 pm 4
Dr. Bharat P. Bhatta (PhD in transport economics and Masters of Science in MSc in development and resource economics) is an associate professor at Fjordane University College in Norway. Up to now, his writings have been about analyzing access to roads and other modes of transportation as they affect the marketplace.
So how does this guy end up on my radar?
Because Dr. Bhatta has published a paper suggesting that it would be a good idea to base airfares on passenger weight.
Yeah.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699711000846
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/rpm/journal/v12/n2/abs/rpm201247a.html
And of course, the media has jumped on this story with both feet.
While I am sure Dr. Bhatta is a whiz with numbers and travel, I’m thinking he doesn’t know a whole lot about people. Especially fat people. I’d have to pay to read the whole thing (which I’m not going to do), but this seems to be the gist of his paper:
The model rewards passengers who weigh less than average and/or when they reduce weight, providing financial savings and improved health benefits.
Okay there is no question that this kind of policy would reward and punish travelers based on their weight – but where the fuck does Dr. Bhatta come off claiming that less fat means better health? Your bias is showing Dr. Bhatta. Fat does not necessarily equal unhealthy; and since your policy is likely to lead to yo-yo dieting and disordered eating there will be negative health consequences as well.
Oh, and will the “average weight” these fares are based on be adjusted by gender, age, ethnicity? You know, groups that have a legally protected status? And what about the ADA? Do you include the weight of medical equipment that some disabled people must use to be mobile?
Dr. Bhatta also thinks the airline companies will have major savings as well.
In his paper, published in the Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Dr. Bhatta noted “a reduction of 1 kilo weight of a plane will result in fuel savings worth US$3,000 a year and a reduction of CO2 emissions by the same token.” http://travel.cnn.com/airline-fat-tax-should-heavy-passengers-pay-more-619046?hpt=hp_c2
Well you know what? When a lot of fat people stop flying (which I predict will be the case – I will certainly need a very good reason to get on a plane if this policy is adopted), the airlines will save a lot by flying much lighter planes. Unfortunately for the airline, those planes will be lighter because they’ll be a whole lot emptier.
And let me tell you, fat people won’t be the only people who will think very carefully before buying a ticket to fly. Anyone who is self conscious about their weight (fat or not) may decide they’d rather stay close to home or travel by car or train or boat. Because the fact is most people don’t like telling anyone how much they weigh, much less having to step on a scale at the airport and have some stranger record the results. And then you have the issue of your weight (which is medical information) being “out there” for anyone to data mine, including insurance companies who are notorious fatty haters.
Dr. Bhatta has three models:
1) Fare is based on weight of passenger and luggage
2) Fare is based on passengers weight
3) There is a base price for a fixed weight, if you weigh more, you pay more; if you weigh less, you get a discount. I don’t know if that means if you buy 2 seats you get to use double the base weight – which seems to me would be only fair – but since when has air travel been particularly fair to fatties?
The thing is, all three models will require a passenger getting on a scale at the airport. You think people had issues with the TSA screenings? As the saying goes, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”
Filed under: Fat Activism, Size Acceptance, Size Discrimination
March 31, 2013 • 8:50 pm 2
My new driver’s license came in the mail yesterday. My first impression was that my eyes look weird. That’s because I was trying to keep them open; I tend to blink during photos. My second impression was how old I looked. My last license photo was taken in the 1990s; I was wearing big, round glasses, and yeah I had a double chin, but was still pretty youthful looking.
Now I’ve got jowls instead of an extra chin. This is one instance where fat doesn’t look very young, at least not to me. Rather than giving me more roundness, the jowls hang, and give my face vertical lines. Having the glasses off in the photo doesn’t help either. It’s OK, I usually don’t think too much about this sort of thing. But it goes to show that my view of myself is changing as I age.
I’ve been part of fat acceptance for a long time, but when I first got fat, around the time my last DMV picture was taken, it took a while to adjust to my own fatness, even though I had long accepted and appreciated other people’s fatness. Now, I’m having to adjust to my age.
Tanteterri just posted about whether she should try to look her age or not. I’m a man, and not every man is like me, but when I think about my age, the very next thing I think about is employability. I’ve got a pretty secure position in my job, but if I ever had to go looking, I know that my next employer would think, “How many more years has this guy got left in him?”
I don’t dress particularly young, or particularly old. I wear dress shirts (no tie) and slacks to work, and on weekends I go for pajama pants and a t-shirt if I’m staying in, or a camp shirt and slacks if I’m going out. OK, I guess that sounds kinda old. But I wear my hair longish, wear hipster-ish (although not really) eyeglasses, and my t-shirts are cool. All of that seems to fit me. So I’m not having the same concerns that tanteterri is.
But it’s one thing to know you’re old; it’s another to be confronted by that fact in a photo.
Filed under: Body image, Size Acceptance
