The Fat Tax: Weigh More, Pay More

Are you suffering from being fat? Are you a burden on other people because of your lifestyle choice? Don't worry! Remedy your burdensome nature by paying higher prices for basic activities! Don't worry; people will still think of you as an Other, but now you can literally pay for it! 

So there's this website that I go to sometimes that has funny pictures (which is basically most of the internet), and recently someone posted a picture of a letter that was supposed to be funny, but really was more of a fat-shaming letter.  I shared this with the BB, and we both agreed that while the letter was troubling and obviously hurtful, the worst thing had to be the comments that accompanied the picture.  We will therefore not spend any time discussing the letter itself. 

Here's a brief summary: A guy got a seat on an airplane and had to sit next to a fat guy.  He was writing a letter of complaint to the airline about that fact that he should not have had to sit next to the fat guy because the fat guy smelled and took up too much space.  He wanted a refund for his seat and his pain and suffering because the cabin crew would not allow him to change seats.

The letter is filled with dehumanizing and descriptive phrases about the fat person, which make it obvious that this guy is a jerk.  We don't even need to talk about it.  The more important thing is the way other people reacted.  Even the people trying to be defensive of the fat guy got it wrong.

People's reactions to this letter perfectly embody fat phobia, fat shaming, fat bias, and the general belief system that fat=bad. On top of the fact that the letter is sophomoric and totally offensive, people were defending the complainer by saying that he was using satire and that the letter was not a legitimate complaint written to the airline. I enjoy comedy, but joking to the point of degrading and dehumanizing an entire group of people goes too far. Others who believed that the letter was real defended the complainer by saying that he had a legitimate point(s) about fat people, and that they hoped it was a serious letter. Still others disregarded the authenticity of the letter totally, and engaged in making shockingly violent or crude fat jokes. Perhaps the most distressing reactions, however, were those who thought that they were practicing effective activism and those who tried to use "logic" and "facts" to prove why fat people are abominations. Check out the link and stay tuned for some direct quotes:

Original Tickld Post

In typical Gribbski fashion, here's our list of why these comments are problematic and represent just a small portion of the fat shaming that occurs in our culture daily:

1. Elimination of Safe Cyber Spaces: In case you haven't heard of this concept before, safe cyber spaces refer to sites, groups, websites, and other internet "spaces" that are inclusive, non-threatening, and accepting of all people. You may have heard feminist arguments about unsafe cyber spaces before, such as the systematic degradation of female gamers. In this case, we're talking about how the comments on this site create yet another unsafe cyber space in which fat people are ridiculed and dehumanized.

As a fat person reading these comments, I felt completely erased as a person; that is, I felt fearful of speaking up against these commenters because of the hate, crudeness, and assumptions that they were spouting, and I felt that as a fat person I would not be taken seriously. Reading those comments made me want to silence myself for fear of cyber harassment. Here are some examples of why we (and I’m sure other fat people) classify this as an unsafe cyber space:

“There's no excuse for being fat. People who are ill are ill, if you have a disease that causes irreparable weight gain then so be it, but fatties who are fat because they love cake are worse than satan, hunt them for their oil and call it a day”

Obviously the above comment is both threatening and degrading, as it states that fat people are evil and implies that they are whales to be hunted and harmed and/or are unhygienic.

“Percentage of thyroid obesity is rare. In most cases poor health leads to gland issues. I do judge. I'm human. Smokers, obesity, and drug addicts. I don't feel sympathy for them when they self inflict it. Do you feel sorry when a drunk driver slaughters a family with his car because he was an alcoholic? I don't. Obesity is a huge strain on our country and I for one won't stand it.”

The above quote is a two-for-one. Not only does it leave the ambiguous threat that the commenter “will not stand” for fat people, but it also uses a false equivalency fallacy (our next point!) by comparing fat people to smokers, drunk drivers, and drug addicts. 

2. Increased Acceptance of Logical Fallacies: We all know that when people get fired up on the internet the arguments can be exhausting, circular, and redundant. Many of us have probably experienced some disagreement or other online, whether it be a cursing match between friends on a Facebook post about sports or a competition to see who can post the most links, research, and text walls about a political issue. In any case, many online arguments soon degenerate into logical fallacies that far too many cyber citizens accept willingly in order to simply to jump on a bandwagon, end the conversation, or easily support their own side of the issue. Whatever the reason, it is NOT acceptable to take logical fallacies as truths, EVER. Fallacies are some of the most dangerous and destructive forms of rhetoric as well as some of the most pervasive. People dismiss fallacies as truths, jokes, or idiocy; too often, those who detect fallacies become too exasperated to take the time to prove why that fallacious reasoning is flawed because it is so easy to post line after line of fallacies in seconds, and much more difficult to get people to read a thoughtful post in a comments section. Here is an actual argument from the link above:

"To all the people claiming weight is hereditary and you can be fat and eat little...how many fat people came out of Auschwitz?"

This statement not only belittles a horrifying part of history, but also uses an emotional appeal and a false equivalency, both of which are common fallacies. Of course no one wants to argue with someone who cites the atrocities of the Holocaust as evidence for something; their emotions are being preyed upon by recalling those emaciated bodies that were tortured. Additionally, it is completely ridiculous and illogical to compare body size between an average American citizen in present day to the survivors of Concentration Camps. The circumstances are completely different; it is apples to oranges, to borrow an old adage.

Additionally, if this person would research the body positive movement more thoroughly, then they would find research that does, in fact, prove that a fat person can eat "little" and still have a large body. Check out our links on the left of our page to read up on actual correlation vs. causation when it comes to body size, diet, heredity, exercise, and other factors.

3. Next is Misguided Activism:  Like we mentioned previously, the people who were trying to defend the fat person were not doing it correctly.  Their responses would often begin correctly by pointing out the issues within the letter, but as the debate continued with others, they would back off little by little.  There were also quite a few people who said things like, "I think fat people should have to buy two tickets, but this letter was just mean."  Yes, thank you for telling us that the letter was mean.  How generous of you to allow that.  The fact that this "fat people have to buy two tickets" thing was even an idea in anyone's head is hard to fathom, and that brings us into our next point nicely.

We are going to include some quotes from misguided activists in the link. Disclaimer: We are not doing this to humiliate the commenters or invalidate their attempts at activism. Rather, we are posting them to show that whatever the intention, misguided activism can still be really damaging, and that none of us are ever finished growing as activists and learning how to be more accepting:

“Well, I just wanna know this dude now. Not the annoying whiny one writing the letter, but the poor big dude who had to sit around all those other people looking larger than life and trying to fit himself into that chair. Yeah, he should have bought two seats, so he'd be comfortable. I'm not particularly bothered by over weight people, as long as they are perfectly comfortable with me leaning on them. The body odor sounds pretty bad, I do dislike that, but I rather sit next to a fat smelly person who'll probably talk to me than an unapproachablely rude guy. Now, if the large man were fat, smelly, AND rude, that draws a line there. No deal. However, I myself actually get quite sick on a plane and squeeze myself up against the wall tight as possible in an effort to make it go away, so I really don't mind being compressed. :P”

This person tries to be on the fat guy’s side, but fails when he concedes that fat people SHOULD have to pay more money because they are fat. What? Why can’t we just make airplanes more comfortable for everyone, or just deal with the fact that at ANY SIZE people are going to be uncomfortable in a space that small. It is never good activism to reinforce the negative stigma of the targeted group. 

4. Change People, Not the Problem:  Making fat people change instead of changing other things is reminiscent of many times in history in which people have tried to force change on groups of people.  For example, all of segregation. Should fat people fly in separate planes because smaller people are too uncomfortable to stand them? Let’s just separate everyone who we don’t feel like accommodating, instead of addressing our own biases. (We are not equating segregation with this issue by any means, but simply pointing out society’s tendency to separate those who are “different”) There is no possible way to justify making a fat person purchase two tickets on an airplane without also saying one of the following: 1) It isn't my fault you're fat, so I shouldn't have to suffer 2) Your body takes up more space than mine which means you should be punished by paying more 3) Maybe this will motivate you to lose all of that weight that has absolutely no affect on my life or 4) My comfort matters more than yours because I am more valuable.

Basically every commenter who stood up for the fat guy in this scenario STILL asserted that the airline could have prevented all of this by forcing him to purchase two tickets. Additionally, people frequently othered the fat man, asserting that he was not a “regular person” and therefore did not deserve the privileges of regular people. Commenters who didn’t believe the fat guy should buy two tickets (being about two) were quickly given “negative karma” by the site’s other contributors.

“I'm sorry but people that large should be forced to purchase two seats... The letter may have been a bit harsh but he has a point, that man's obesity is an inconvenience to other passengers who have paid a lot of money to be on the flight. On a plane, if you take up twice the space of a regular person, you should pay for twice the space.” (Credited with 16 Karma)

Clearly, the basic truths of the body positive movement desperately need to be understood in order address the problems in this list. We’ve discussed those basic truths in separate posts, but we can definitely see the need to re-tread that ground in a up-coming post. For now, keep this thought close for the #bopotipoftheweek: You are valuable because of who you are, including and not limited to your body, at any size. You are a person, not an inconvenience.    Also, enjoy this empowering photo that we totally agree with.

Gender Roles and Patriarchy Invade the Fat Galaxy

Before we begin our awesome post for the week, we'd like to give a shout out to The Body Is Not An Apology. This wonderful group is now promoting Gribbski's Guide! Check them out: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Body-Is-Not-an-Apology/201907573156278

From the WW:

This morning, on my way to work, I happened to stop on a radio station because I heard someone say "real man."  Any time I hear a discussion of gender, I like to listen in, mostly so I can complain to the BB, but also because it is interesting to hear what other people think about it.  Anyway, the radio hosts were discussing the power struggle that most couples face and of course the discussion centered on heterosexual couples.  One man insisted that he be treated like a "real man" by a woman, and stated that he didn't understand men who would be in a relationship with a dominating woman.  At the end of his spiel, he gratuitously tossed in, "But at the end of the day, we all know that the woman calls the shots."  After some more banter with the co-hosts, he said, "The smartest kind of woman is the kind who knows how to make her man think that he's in charge even if he isn't." 

So, Radio Guy, here's what we have to say to that:

The smartest kind of PERSON is the kind who recognizes that a relationship is not a power struggle, but a partnership.

In usual Gribbski fashion, we're going to show you how these kinds of gender constructions not only lead to power struggles within a relationship, but also how they feed into oppression outside of a relationship.

Real Man vs. Real Woman: Launching the Power Struggle

I get that some people like to be dominated or whatever, but let’s be honest.  Healthy relationships are partnerships, which means each person involved is mutually benefited by the relationship.  

The problem with using the qualifier “real” before a social construction like gender is that it creates this power struggle within that gender.  However, it is unfair to even call it that, because the person using the qualifier doesn’t even view it as a struggle, and the people interpreting it are also not supposed to view it as a struggle.  Instead, it is presented as a binary, a struggle that was over before it even began.  

However, because we live in a patriarchal society, this binary within the constructed male gender also takes a toll on everyone else, including, but absolutely not limited to, women.  Here’s how that works.  When Radio Host said that he wanted to be treated like a real man and didn’t understand other men who liked to be dominated, he set up a binary of Real Man vs. Other Man.  Because Real Man implies absolute masculinity, Other Man is then emasculated to the point that he becomes lower than Woman in the relationship.

See how that went?  Real Man in relationship with Woman is of course in charge because he is masculine, but Other Man has none of that masculinity to exert, which places him underneath a dominating woman.  Now we have a power struggle.  Because we are allowed to have two different kinds of relationships, we now have some wiggle room.  You can picture it as a sliding scale, if you want.  I like to think of it as the wand battle between Voldemort and Harry; Avada Kedavra vs. Expelliarmus.  Because there’s wiggle room, there’s going to be some shifting, and with the shifting, there is a power struggle.

“At the end of the day” Allowance Solidifies the Power Structure: Man in Charge

While he opens up this power struggle in the beginning of his statement, he also ends it with the last bit.  The “at the end of the day, women are still in charge” allowance solidifies the power structure because it is a “gift” to women.  Real Man won the power struggle, and it was apparently a slaughter because he’s feeling generous enough to leave us our dead. 

Let me prove to you that this has ended the power struggle with the man in charge: How many women would hear that and NOT say, “That’s right.  I am in charge.”  Maybe you know more women who would be pissed off about the allowance than those who would find it empowering, and that’s great that you’re surrounded by strong women.  However, the more common reality is that women generally find these kinds of allowances empowering, and the very fact that these morsels are viewed that way affirms the Real Man’s victory.

Smartest Kind of Woman Jab: Soothing the Woman

Radio Host takes it one step further by even soothing the woman after her loss with a compliment.  Apparently the smartest kind of woman is the one who can be submissive enough to deceive the man into thinking he’s in charge while silently “ruling” the relationship.  Not the woman who questions.  Not the woman who educates herself.  Not the woman who calls him out on his bullshit.  The woman who can shut up and “pretend” to not be in charge.  That seems like a very unhealthy relationship to me.

So you might wonder why I’ve taken all this time to deconstruct what probably amounted to fifteen seconds of speech.  People say this crap all the time and it is not always meant maliciously.  Why am I reading into it too much.  Why does it matter.  Why can’t I just get over it.

Because the very fact that we are told to gloss over these kinds of power struggles is a daily reminder that the power struggle exists.  These microaggressions are the fuel of oppression.

From the BB: 

The attitudes behind the patriarchal microaggressions mentioned by the WW extend far beyond their original contexts. Since much of one's identity is based upon intersectionality, patriarchial attitudes often invalidate identities beyond the feminine. 

In the spirit of this blog, I want to focus for a moment on the fat identity. In a general patriarchal structure governed by the male/female masculine/feminine binary, the male/masculine side is favored and associated with power while the female/feminine side is disempowered and associated with weakness. This basic patriarchal structure governs most binaries, and it all stems from a socially constructed idea of what it means to be male and female, which are at their core biological terms. (Oh, and of course in this power structure there's no mention of genders or sexes that aren't male/female). 

Remember when the WW said patriarchy is bad for everyone? Here's why. A "real" man isn't just "real" because he secretly or not so secretly dominates a woman, but also because he fits other gender stereotypes that are based upon, you guessed it, patriarchy. 

If you are a fat man, for example, then some of your power is lost. You're still better than a woman, of course, but a fit man is definitely more masculine, more powerful, and more valuable than you are. (That last statement is a tongue-in-cheek, bitter reality). 

And fat women? Don't expect people to automatically associate your gender (or what they assume is your gender) or your body type with power, success, or value. The intersections of your identity are not in favor of elevating your social currency.  

As the WW said, relationships based on power AREN'T healthy, but at the same time individuals that appear to have power are who we're taught to respect. We associate power with success and value, and this isn't a healthy way of thinking. We damn people who seem to be powerless as also being unsuccessful or worthless. 

The solution here is to start deconstructing our false associations with success and value by getting to the base of the problem: the way we speak and the language that influences us everyday. 

If we dismiss even the smallest examples of patriarchy, stereotyping, or discrimination then we do a disservice to the movement to end oppression, whether that oppression be of identity, belief system, lifestyle, etc. 

One thing that both the BB and the WW have learned as fat feminists and allies to other oppressed groups is that we have to stop laughing at jokes that are discriminatory and consuming pop culture that is senselessly derogatory. Even when laws change or people change, the words, images, music, and conversations that we are confronted with everyday do not. Oppressive socially constructed ideas are some of the most difficult to deconstruct, and thus also some of the most important.