MIKE JEFFRIES CAN KISS MY FAT ASS AND WALLET GOOD BYE

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I just wish I had known about how you felt about the rest of the world back in 2006 when you originally made your comments.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

WHY SAMOA AIR IS WELCOME TO WEIGH MY FAT ASS

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

AS IF THE SKIES AREN’T UNFRIENDLY ENOUGH FOR MY FAT ASS

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.”

 “What kind of scale compares the weight of two beauties, the gravity of duties, or the ground speed of joy? Tell me, what kind of gauge can quantify elation? What kind of equation could I possibly employ?”  Ani Difranco

Filed under: Fat Activism, Size Acceptance, Size Discrimination

FAT SHAMING IS WRONG

I wish I could write like this, but I can’t.  However, I can point you towards a wonderful article about fat shaming and how it is painful and harmful whether it is blatant or subtle.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/02/whats-wrong-with-fat-shaming/?upw

I especially appreciate Leslie Kinzel’s reminder:

Other people’s bodies are none of your business, not to touch, to judge, or to publicly comment upon.

Words to live by.

 

 

Filed under: Body image, Fat Activism, health, Size Acceptance, Size Discrimination

For Shame!

A bioethicist has called for an “edgier” strategy for promoting weight loss: shaming fat people. This got fairly wide coverage; here’s a typical article, featuring a faceless fatty:

http://todayhealth.today.com/_news/2013/01/24/16664866-fat-shaming-may-curb-obesity-bioethicist-says?lite

For example, he advocates public posters with questions like “If you are overweight or obese, are you pleased with the way that you look?”

Then the clue phone rang, and the caller reminded us that American society has been doing this for decades and it hasn’t worked yet. Recent examples occurred in Georgia and Los Angeles, but there have been many.

Of course, this expert claims that it worked with smokers, except that what actually worked was laws banning smoking in (for example) restaurants. Can you imagine banning eating in restaurants? Also, fatness is a condition, not a behavior as is smoking. These campaigns really amount to saying, “Stop fatting it up! Just stop doing fatness, you fatties!”

Anyway, what research does he cite? I looked at his paper (I don’t really want to link to it, but you can find it on the Web), and he has 15 references, but most of these are ethics papers, not research. There’s an article (not research paper) saying that programs to reduce childhood fatness “seem to work”, and four research papers that are not actually about public health campaigns. So no actual evidence.

Quips ASDAH and NAAFA member (and our hero) Deb Burgard, “For him to argue that we need more stigma, I don’t know what world he’s living in,” and “He must not have any contact with actual free-range fat people.”

Also, isn’t bioethics supposed to actually consider, um, ethics? What exactly is ethical about saying nasty things to fat people? About deliberately hurting people “for their own good”? Here’s a hint, dude: Even if it works (it doesn’t), IT’S STILL WRONG!

Filed under: Fat Activism, Science, Size Acceptance, Size Discrimination

BET MY FAT ASS, I’M A “SUCCESSFUL” DIETER

A. Janet Tomiyama (assistant professor of psychology and director of the Dieting, Stress, and Health Laboratory at the University of California, Los Angeles), Britt Ahlstrom (manager of the Health and Eating Laboratory at the University of Minnesota) and Traci Mann (professor of psychology and director of the Health and Eating Laboratory at the University of Minnesota), blogging for Huffington Post went back and looked at research on dieting and found (no surprise) over two years, the average amount of maintained weight loss was less than two pounds.  Interesting.

Then they discussed the early shut down of the Look AHEAD (Action for HEAlth in Diabetes) trial because “it did not achieve its most important objective of fewer strokes, heart attacks, or cardiovascular deaths.”  Also interesting.

Because the participants in Look AHEAD were considered successful dieters (even though they did not achieve any improvement in their cardiovascular health), the bloggers decided to look at what constitutes “successful dieting”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-janet-tomiyama/does-dieting-work_b_2253565.html

The original standard was based on the Metropolitan Life Insurance Tables.  Most of us grew up with this nasty chart that takes your height and your body frame size and tells you what you are supposed to weigh.  A diet was only successful if you reached the weight the table indicated, and this rarely happened.

What to do?  The problem can’t be the diets – it must be the definition!

The standard was changed to require a successful dieter to lose 20% of his/her starting weight.  Again, not achievable by most dieters – better change that definition.

Eventually this is what the Institute of Medicine came up with as a definition for “successful dieting”:

A diet is successful if people lose 5 percent of their starting weight and maintain that weight loss for a year.

There is no scientifically supported medical reason for this definition; but I’ll bet a lot of fat people have, at one time or another, been “successful” dieters – even though we eventually ended up gaining most (if not all or more) of the weight back.

So the Look AHEAD dieters maintained a 5% weight loss (for a 200 pound person this would be 10 pounds, for a 300 pound person this would be 15 pounds) over a four year period.  That’s nice, but it is hardly a significant amount of weight (and for many women (including me), this would not even take you down a dress size).

So now what?  Is a stricter standard for “successful dieting” coming?  Go for it.  Having a stricter standard doesn’t make it achievable.  We’ve had stricter standards in the past, The diets didn’t work then and they won’t work now.  The problem is not the definition.

Time to ditch dieting (or lifestyle plans or creative eating (I actually found that one when I searched “not a diet”) or whatever they are calling diets these days), stop making weight loss the goal and start making better health the goal.

I agree with Ms. Tomiyama, Ms. Ahlstrom and Ms. Mann:

 ”It may finally be time to acknowledge that dieting is not the panacea we hoped it would be.”

Filed under: Fat Activism, health, Science

November 2012 NAAFA Newsletter

Very briefly, the November 2012 NAAFA Newsletter is out. Here’s a link to the version that gets mailed out.  (Older issues are archived at NAAFA’s website.) The newsletter also has a “join our mailing list” button; clicking that gets you the newsletter once a month.

(I don’t usually announce the newsletter, but I like to every once in a while since I contribute to it. Happy reading!)

Filed under: Fat Activism, Fat Rights Organizations

A Tumblr Bite

Sometimes I wish I had started this blog on Tumblr. Then I could automatically (I think) reblog stuff like this, concerning how hatred of fat people kills fat people: http://fatanarchy.tumblr.com/post/36017388434

Filed under: Fat Activism, health, Size Discrimination

Southwest Airlines changes policy for fatties

There was nothing in the news, and no press release, but it appears that Southwest Airlines has changed its policy for people who take up more than one airplane seat. You can still purchase an extra seat, and SWA prefers that you do that (of course), but you don’t have to.  From their policy: “Customers of size who prefer not to purchase an additional seat in advance have the option of purchasing just one seat and then discussing their seating needs with the Customer Service Agent at their departure gate. If it is determined that a second (or third) seat is needed, they will be accommodated with a complimentary additional seat(s).”

You can read the full policy here: https://www.southwest.com/html/customer-service/extra-seat/index-pol.html

I haven’t flown SWA in years, mostly because of how they have treated fatties and other out-of-the-ordinary passengers. So while this seems to be a victory, it’s uncertain how it will play out. Those of you who plan to fly SWA, please leave a comment after your trip and let us know how you were treated.

(Thanks to Sondra Solovay, Marilyn Wann, Heather Boyle Nymeyer, and others for spreading the word on facebook!)

Filed under: Fat Activism, Size Discrimination

Another Brochure Update

We’ve updated our brochure page again; check it out: http://fattiesunited.wordpress.com/brochures/

Filed under: About the blog, Body image, Fat Activism, Fat Rights Organizations