The Daily Beast has a somewhat critical article on Fat Studies, questioning whether it is more of a push for the Fat acceptance agenda then a displicine and wondering whether it's only meant for fat students. It gives an example of a thin student rejected by a fat activist group. (Although I guess Linda Bacon, Glenn Gaesser, Paul Campos and other thin fat activists must be flukes). All I can think is Fat Studies has finally made it. It has become so noticable that its legitimacy is being questioned.
But the article has brought up an interesting point. The hurdles that many fat people face getting to college.
And No one seems to be happy with Maura Kelly and her "apology".
From the Phoenix.com: The post went live on, Oct 25, at 9 am. Unbeknownst to Kelly and the editors of mariealaire.com, the fat-acceptance movement was about to come down on them like a ton of brick shithouses.
Talk show host Wendy Williams said this: “Whether you are grossly obese, a little bit chubby or just a person with a heart, you realize that fat is the last place of ridicule that is acceptable in this society. Why do you accept that? I don’t accept that. We get upset about the N-word, we get upset about making fun of gay people, and paraplegics and people with Down Syndrome - but we can make fun of fat people and that’s okay? It’s not okay. Marie Claire, we’ll be waiting for your apology – how about that?”
Blogger Marianne Kirby states: If Kelly was actually worried about our health, she wouldn't use a media platform to talk about how disgusting we look. Actually, if she was really concerned about our health, she wouldn't be contributing to the mental distress many of us carry around with them every single day. Kelly's words are far heavier than my body, let me tell you.
People like Maura Kelly are the hurdles that fat people have to face. They are bullied, picked on, lectured, and think they are failures when the diet fails (even though diets have a proved fail record.)
The author of the Daily Beast article raises some interesting questions that I also have wondered about. I have read the Fat Studies Reader and do support this work but I am concerned the field becoming conflated with identity politics and narrow thinking. In my own field, Jungian psychology, there is precious little about fat written since Marion Woodman wrote in the 80's on the subject, yet, as most Jungians, I believe there is meaning in the ways our bodies reflect us. So I struggle with how to talk about that in the context of fat acceptance given that I most frequently see a rejection there of any psychological or emotional component to being fat -- I reject fat as indicative of pathology but that, for me, does not rule out it having meaning. Is there room for diversity of views in fat studies I guess is my question.
Posted by: Cheryl Fuller, Ph.D. | November 11, 2010 at 02:15 PM
The Jungian view reminds me of a take I heard on larger bodies--New Agey but still a nice spin on things--that a woman's energy can be too big for a small body to contain. I think if we frame things in a way that has meaning for us individually, it can be a positive.
Posted by: Jan | November 16, 2010 at 08:20 AM